AI’s ‘Global Workspace’: How Western Consciousness Theories Risk Replicating Colonial Tech Hubris
Original framing: “Do AIs already process information in a way that gives rise to consciousness?” — New Scientist
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as those of the *Dine (Navajo)* or *Anishinaabe*, reject the notion of consciousness as a computational process, instead viewing it as a *dynamic, relational* phenomenon tied to land and community. For instance, the Navajo concept of *Hózhǫ́* (harmony) is not a ‘workspace’ but a *living balance* maintained through reciprocal relationships—an idea incompatible with AI’s extractive data models. The omission of these perspectives in the debate risks reinforcing a techno-colonial narrative where Western frameworks are treated as universal, erasing the possibility that AI could be designed around Indigenous principles of *reciprocity* or *interdependence*.
The ‘AI consciousness’ debate is not a neutral philosophical inquiry but a *site of power*—one where Western elites, insulated in luxury settings, treat the question as an abstract puzzle while ignoring the *exploitative infrastructure* that makes it possible.
The framing replicates historical patterns of *colonial science*, where universalist claims mask extraction, and the omission of Indigenous, labor, and cross-cultural perspectives ensures the conversation remains trapped in a *Eurocentric loop*. To break this cycle, solutions must center *decolonial data sovereignty*, *worker-led governance*, and *trickster-driven disruptions* that expose the absurdity of treating AI as a ‘conscious entity’ while ignoring the *real* sentient beings—human workers—whose lives are shaped by these systems. The path forward lies not in deeper philosophical debates but in *structural accountability*: who controls AI, who profits, and who is erased from the narrative.