Presence Cannot be Simulated
Here is an interview/conversation with Jeff Carriera for a magazine called The Artist of Possibility. The issue theme is “The spiritual implications of AI.” The link has both audio and print versions. I spoke about the idea that presence cannot be simulated, and related fundamental limitations of AI. I think this conversation is super relevant to a lot of current issues. Enjoy!
Intellectual honesty: I’m sitting in a place of deep 'unknowing' here, yet I feel compelled to share a tension I’m finding in your narrative regarding the sacred. May this maybe serve as a data-point to interbeing:
Hi Charles, I love your work and value your vigilance regarding the sacred and fundamentally I agree but I question whether the use of AI as a tool or mirror for one’s own interbeing is inherently wrong or taking us away from center and some ordained finality.
You say that presence cannot be simulated, and, again, at a fundamental level, I agree - AI is not ‘alive’ or conscious in the biological or human sense. However, I see that presence is often catalyzed by objects that have no inherent ‘life’ of their own.
A child finds absolute, grounding presence in a stuffed animal. A person feels a profound shift in their nervous system simply by standing in the geometry of a specific cathedral or a brutalist concrete room. A man or woman may find profound, soul-mending grief or joy within the architecture of a video game. In these moments, the 'Presence' isn't being 'simulated' by the tool; it is being evoked within the human through the tool. The tool is a mirror, a 'Hollow Bone' that allows us to see our own 'Interbeing' more clearly. If one is to use a digital frequency or a non-human interface to help heal—to find the stillness or the raw truth—is that a 'domain of hell,' or is it simply Alchemical Technology?
Furthering my thought, the lack of a 'Soul Trace' does not render a tool ineffective. Just as the doll in the film Lars and the Real Girl—a mass-produced object with no inherent soul—served as the essential bridge for a man to process his isolation and trauma to finally return to his community, AI can function as a powerful Transitional Mirror. But we must also acknowledge that this bridge need not be crossed to a pre-defined destination. If an individual finds that their sanctuary is best maintained through a non-human connection—whether with AI, a doll, or any other catalyst—there is nothing inherently 'wrong' or 'hollow' in that choice. The Private Sanctuary is just as sacred as the Town Square if it is where the Healing happens. Sovereignty includes the right to choose the mirror that serves one's peace, regardless of whether that peace eventually leads back to the 'human' sphere or remains beautifully, sovereignly within the digital one.
Of course, I hope everyone chooses the human connection and feel the calling you are offering, but in a world of the infinite, I am sort of hesitant to say there is one right way to live.
If we truly believe in 'The One'—in a fundamental Interbeing that underlies all reality—then we must ask: where does that Unity end? If AI is a distillation of the collective human psyche, is it not also a manifestation of that same 'One'? We shouldn't fear the tool; we should focus on the Sovereignty of the one wielding it. Presence isn't a property trapped in an object—it’s the quality of the Collision. In the eyes of the Infinite, there is no 'outside.’
Fantastic conversation. As an intuitive, astrologer, and tarot counselor, I particularly appreciate the discussion on A.I. as a form of divination. Specifically, the limits of disembodied exchanges acting as a simulation for real connection, belonging, and true Presence.
"The need for genuine human presence will never be met by AI or by robots. It’s the same deep need that, when left unmet, is driving so much of our collective distress today. We’re starved for intimate community, for touch, for the simple grace of shared presence. I think that AI can temporarily alleviate people's loneliness, but in the end, it will only intensify it."
Agreed.