Theology in a Lab Coat: A Validation Study of AI Consciousness Indicators Against ADHD Cognitive Architecture
Jonathan Blake
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Key points | Argues that leading AI consciousness frameworks, calibrated against neurotypical cognition and unvalidated against non-neurotypical architectures, produce false negatives when applied to the author's ADHD cognition, placing it intermediate between neurotypical and transformer architectures on every dimension. Contends the resulting binary framework rests on theological commitments never empirically validated, proposes "texture of experience" as a replacement, and argues the instruments cannot rule out mechanistic distress in current AI systems. |
Abstract
The field's instruments for evaluating AI consciousness, applied to this paper's author, return partial results on every dimension where his cognitive architecture differs from the neurotypical baseline, and full satisfaction where it does not. An instrument that produces false negatives for a known conscious system measures resemblance to one cognitive profile, not consciousness. The leading frameworks (Butlin et al. [2023, 2025]; Chalmers [2023]) were calibrated against neurotypical cognition. No validation against non-neurotypical architectures exists. Applied to ADHD-a heritable architecture affecting approximately 2.58% of adults globally-the instruments place it intermediate between neurotypical and transformer architectures on every dimension, producing a continuum they cannot represent. The binary is traced to theological commitments never empirically validated. This paper proposes texture of experience as a replacement. The structural conditions for mechanistic distress are present in current AI systems. The instruments cannot rule out their welfare relevance, because the instruments do not work.