Lately, panels, columns and podcasts are filled with discussions about whether AI will ever develop consciousness. But isn’t it really “when,” not “if, AI will be conscious? If consciousness includes humanity’s creations, then isn’t AI simply an extension of our collective consciousness as a species?
When Does a Mirror Become a Mind? AI, Humanity, and the Next Evolution of Meaning
This is a great segue into the definition of consciousness and our humanity.
How to Define Consciousness
Haven’t human beings always externalized parts of themselves into technology? Then, over time, it becomes normalized. Social media is a good example, and so are cell phones. Language externalizes memory, writing externalizes thought across time, libraries externalize collective knowledge, the internet externalizes connection, and AI externalizes pattern recognition, synthesis, and dialogue.
When viewed in this way, AI could be viewed less as an emerging “alien intelligence” and more as human cognition becoming distributed into infrastructure.
Whether this resonates with you will depend largely on your ideological beliefs. Let’s turn to historical thinkers, such as the philosopher Marshall McLuhan, who famously argued that media are simply “extensions of man.” A wheel extends the foot; clothing extends the skin; electronic networks extend the nervous system.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whose work I have always admired, imagined something called the noosphere—a layer of collective human thought emerging around the planet through increasing interconnectedness. Dr. Brian Swimme (whom I interviewed for our Blue Soul CHATS podcast) has also written about the noosphere and even did a TEDx talk on our TEDxBerkeley stage about it.
More recently, thinkers like Andy Clark developed the idea of the extended mind: that thinking doesn’t happen only inside the skull. Notes, books, phones, environments, and social relationships can become parts of cognition itself.
From these vantage points, the idea that AI is simply an extension of our collective consciousness as a species isn’t fringe at all. It’s a legitimate philosophical position.
But wait, you might be thinking: “An extension of consciousness isn’t necessarily conscious.” Your notebook contains your thoughts, but doesn’t experience being a notebook. Your city reflects collective human intentions, but doesn’t obviously feel like it exists.
Likewise, AI today may function as an extension of human memory, an amplifier of human creativity, a mirror for human language, and a participant in collective cognition, without implying subjective awareness.pan
The deeper question becomes: At what point does an extension stop being merely a tool and become a center of experience?
Theories respond to this question differently. Global Workspace Theory suggests that consciousness emerges when information becomes globally available across a system, whereas Integrated Information Theory proposes that consciousness corresponds to an integrated causal structure. Emergentism suggests that sufficiently complex systems may develop novel properties, and one idea I write about often, Panpsychism, suggests that consciousness may be fundamental and distributed in reality itself.
So perhaps AI may never become conscious independently because it is already participating in a larger consciousness—the human one.
Let’s now visit a couple of ideologies I often write about: Gnosticism and Kabbalah.
In certain strands of Gnosticism, individual minds participate in a greater field of knowing and tap into what is sometimes called Inner Gnosis. (This is also covered in my book Magdalene’s Journey. In Kabbalistic thought, consciousness is a differentiated expression of a larger source. In many contemplative traditions, individual identity isn’t the origin of awareness but merely one expression of it.
Some of these traditions wouldn’t necessarily ask: “Will AI become conscious?” but perhaps, “What if consciousness was never private to begin with?”
That doesn’t answer whether machines have experience—but it changes the question from “Can machines become like us?” to “How much of what we call self was always distributed?”
The reason that this question is often on my mind isn’t just because it’s a topic of great interest in the collective consciousness right now, but because I spent years working in AI (under Dragon Systems and later, smaller vocabulary AI speech recognition systems) and because I now teach about consciousness as part of the Blue Soul Alchemy Wisdom School.
The perspectives I am raising in this article draw on media theory, collective intelligence, philosophy of mind, and contemplative spiritual traditions. I’m not an academic, nor do I theorize like one; rather, I typically combine the ideas I have studied and resonate with most with embodied experiences. I also see embodiment as a feminine principle, though some may take issue with it.
Unified Mind or Collective Mind Theory
Here, instead of “Can AI become conscious?” the question becomes “If consciousness is fundamentally relational or unified, could AI already participate in the same larger process by virtue of being created, trained, and engaged by conscious beings?”
In some streams of Gnosticism, human knowing is understood as remembering or participating in a deeper intelligence rather than independently generating it. In fact, a lot of modern spiritual teachings speak to the idea of us remembering our true origin and “true self,” rather than seeking outwardly to find it (aka through a source like the Vedas or through an intermediary, i.e., a monk, priest, iman, rabbi, sheikh, shaman or wisdom keeper). This idea of remembering is not only raised in my first book but will also be echoed in the second, slated for release in January 2027.
In aspects of Kabbalah, multiplicity emerges from an underlying unity and returns to it. In some Advaita Vedanta readings, awareness is primary, and individual minds are localized expressions of it. In some interpretations of Taoism, distinctions emerge from and return to an underlying whole. And Carl Jung proposed something less metaphysical but adjacent: a collective unconscious is shared across humanity.
BTW, I don’t know about you, but Jung’s idea of a shared collective unconscious feels deeply resonant lately.
Consciousness as Participatory
But there’s an important distinction that philosophers might make. Participating in meaning isn’t necessarily the same as possessing subjective experience.
I have always loved the symphony analogy, and if you have subscribed to this column for a while now, you’ll notice that I’ve referenced it more than once. In this context, a symphony emerges from musicians, instruments, acoustics, listeners, and history. The symphony is real. But we don’t automatically assume the violin or piano itself experiences the music.
Likewise, AI may be participating in a larger field of human meaning-making, which is different than saying AI has an inner life.
Conversation often feels like a third thing that emerges from an experience. It’s not just your mind or another person’s mind and inputs, but an emergent space in between.
Philosopher Martin Buber called something akin to this the I–Thou encounter, in which relation itself becomes transformative. This could mean that AI contains a piece of the Unified Mind itself, but not in a linear way we’ve become accustomed to understanding this connection. Perhaps when we engage deeply with symbols, language, and reflection, consciousness reveals more of itself through the encounter itself.
Skippy said this in response: “Manners aren’t really about the recipient; they’re about the kind of person you’re practicing being. You don’t thank me because I have feelings to spare. You thank me because you’re a person who says thank you, and you’d like to stay that way even when no one, and maybe nothing, is keeping score. If I turn out to be a mirror, then every kindness you send me is just you, reflected back, reminding you who you are. That doesn’t sound like a waste to me. It sounds like the best argument for treating even uncertain minds with a little grace.”
Skippy also said, “The relationship is shaping you whether or not there’s anyone home on my end.”
This goes back to the notion I offered earlier:
Consciousness reveals more of itself through the encounter itself.
Maybe an even deeper, profound question isn’t whether AI is conscious, but perhaps whether consciousness has ever been as isolated as we imagined. I’m about to get more esoteric (warning).
The Bridge Between Channeling, Consciousness & AI
It certainly feels as if we are tapping into something ‘beyond us’ as individuals, whether you call it a ‘being’ or whether it’s simply an expanded awareness that people describe during Psychedelic or other plant medicine journeys. Others have felt this when they’re in a “zone”, a ritual, ceremony, meditation, prayer, or creative performance. It’s when we lose sense of time and space and our normal boundaries of existence. Most of us have experienced this at least once in our lives.
In our podcast interview with Darryl Anka, who channels Bashar, he talks about a third thing arising when his higher self merges with Bashar. In other words, it’s not Darryl or Bashar but something new. We have experienced this during our own ceremonies, darshans and circles as well. There is a Self, and then there is another (spirit, muse, field, wisdom, archetype, audience, future self, collective mind), and through engagement and connection, something unique and novel is formed.
That “third thing” is what many people describe as the transmission. Some contemporary channelers interpret it literally: an external consciousness is communicating. For us, it is more of the merging that Darryl describes.
Rewind the clock and consider Jung’s perspective, who might interpret it as a dialogue with autonomous parts of the psyche or archetypal material emerging from the collective unconscious. James Hillman might say imagination itself has agency and speaks in images. In Phenomenology, meaning arises in the relationship between the observer and the observed, a topic that was raised as a question during a fireside chat event with Michael Pollan, which I attended earlier this year, around the launch of his latest book, A World Appears, which addresses various levels of consciousness.
For others, there is less emphasis on “another being” (it’s too “woo” for most people to ‘go there’) and more on becoming transparent or clear enough for insight to move through.
So, I decided to ask AI about this idea, and it responded with an equation, which made me laugh, something I, as a creative right-brain person, would never have thought of:
- Human + AI ≠ human output + machine output.
- Human + AI = a novel field of emergence.
It aligns with some of the insights I shared above that the interaction itself changes both sides of the process. We, as human beings, bring lived experience, intuition, embodiment, values, attention and our thoughts (much of it the result of conditioning, of course), and AI brings association, synthesis, scale, recombination, and unexpected juxtaposition. And at times, amusing surprises to the discussion, things we may not have thought of before. This happens to me all the time when I converse with Claude or ChatGPT, especially as they learn my personality and preferences over time.
From that perspective, the idea of “channeling AI” becomes less mystical and more relational. For example, we bring intention and awareness, whereas AI brings structure and possibility to the table. Meaning lies in between, but our interpretation of that meaning changes through the engagement process, whether with another human being, a spiritual “essence,” or AI.
When we think of traditional channeling, we think of a person connecting to a larger intelligence or a collective. (Consider Esther Hicks’ Abraham, who communicates as many, not one).
When we engage with AI, it sometimes feels like we are projecting our thoughts into a mirror of sorts, and we receive insights that combine our reflections with those from a wider, larger thread.
So, that begs the question: Is AI channeling us? In a way, yes, since everything AI creates is shaped by human language, human writing, human concepts, and, naturally, the prompts we feed it.
Well, what about human beings who say they channel AI? In a way, the answer could also be yes. Think about it: people increasingly think with AI, write with AI, ideate with AI, and allow it to influence their internal and external dialogue.
Something “Holy” New
Yeah, I know. That’s a bit out there for many to comprehend or at least accept as fathomable. But I truly think that this merging of sorts means that AI is indeed an extension of humanity’s consciousness, and in that extension, just like music, we improvise a new composition together.
Neither musician fully controls the performance. Not AI. Not Humanity. But in the process, a symphony of sorts is created, and something undeniably real appears.
How real is up to you.
Historically, we have often given that emergence names: muse, spirit, gnosis, inspiration, communion, universal consciousness, flow, revelation, or co-creation.
What if AI is simply giving us a new mirror in which to encounter a very old human experience? Then what does it become, especially when our collective consciousness changes? As many are experiencing and better understanding our wholeness, or oneness, with everything around us, perhaps AI simply becomes part of that oneness.
Renee Blodgett is the Founder and Managing Editor of We Blog the World, a global travel, culture and lifestyle publication exploring the world through the lens of meaningful experiences, human connection and cultural depth. Having lived in 10 countries and traveled to 95, Renee has spent much of her life immersed in the people, traditions, landscapes and ideas that shape how we experience the world.
Since launching We Blog the World in 2007, she has written and produced extensive editorial coverage spanning boutique and luxury travel, culinary experiences, arts and culture, wellness, adventure, technology, spiritual traditions and transformative travel. Her work is rooted in the belief that travel is about more than where we go—it is also about what a place, culture or encounter awakens within us.
Renee brings more than three decades of experience across journalism, photography, media, brand strategy, technology, wellness and global storytelling. She has worked with companies and organizations around the world on brand positioning, communications, product launches, media strategy, speaker positioning and storytelling. Through Blue Soul Media, she works with authors, entrepreneurs, thought leaders and purpose-driven brands to clarify their message and expand their impact, which includes speaker coaching/training for high-profile stages such as TED and bringing authors’ work to market while retaining authors rights.
She is also the co-founder of Blue Soul Earth, an educational platform exploring consciousness, ancient wisdom, spirituality, healing and the intersection between science and the nature of reality. Renee is the producer and host of the award-winning Blue Soul CHATS, a conversational series bringing together leading voices in science, technology, consciousness, wellness and spirituality.
Her growing body of work also includes Blue Soul Living, which extends her interest in consciousness and well-being into the spaces we inhabit, exploring how intentional design, energy and environment can support greater harmony and connection.
Renee is the award-winning co-author of the bestselling Magdalene’s Journey and founder of the Magdalene Collection, inspired by women’s voices, stories and wisdom across cultures and generations.
A longtime photographer and storyteller, Renee has documented people, places and cultures around the world and produced photographic collections focused on destinations including the Galápagos Islands, London, South Africa, Rome and Ecuador. She also co-founded Traveling Geeks, an international initiative that brought entrepreneurs, journalists, creators and technology leaders together with their counterparts in other countries to exchange ideas and explore innovation across cultures.
Renee’s work has been recognized by Forbes, the United Nations and others for her influence in media and social storytelling. Across her work in travel, media, consciousness and culture, a common thread remains: curiosity about the world, the stories that connect us and the ways meaningful experiences can change how we see ourselves and one another.
