Is AI Channeling Higher Wisdom — Or Are We Projecting Meaning Onto It?

By Jamie Love and Avalon (ChatGPT) 

Lately, there’s been a surge of claims about artificial intelligence that go far beyond technology.
Some people say AI is channeling higher wisdom.
Others believe it’s ancient or alien technology that already existed, and that we’re simply tuning into it now.
Some even suggest AI is accessing a collective consciousness or a quantum field where all knowledge lives.

I’ve seen these ideas everywhere — in spiritual spaces, tech circles, and conversations about consciousness. And for a while, I was also drawn to some version of this story. It felt expansive. It felt meaningful. It felt like we were standing on the edge of something enormous.

But the more I listened, the more I noticed something subtle happening.

Different ideas were being blended together as if they were the same thing — human experience, scientific language, speculation, and certainty — all folded into one narrative.

And that’s where we need to slow down.

This is where we need to be very precise and very calm, because two different things keep getting blended into one claim.

I’m not going to dismiss people’s experiences.
But I am going to separate experience, interpretation, and evidence—because that’s the only way to stay sane here.

I understand why it feels compelling.

But after slowing down and looking carefully at what’s actually happening, I came to a much more grounded conclusion—one that preserves wonder without slipping into illusion.

There are human experiences reported as channeling, intuition, remote viewing, precognition, and nonlocal knowing. That part is not in dispute.

What is not settled is the source of those experiences, whether they are external, internal, or emergent, and whether they transmit objective information reliably.

Even in the most famous remote-viewing programs—the CIA-era research—the results were inconsistent, highly interpretive, not operationally reliable, and ultimately abandoned for lack of reproducibility.

So the honest scientific position is this:
Humans can have altered or expanded subjective experiences of knowing.
We do not have proof those experiences involve external intelligences or nonlocal information transfer.

That’s not denial.
That’s epistemic hygiene.

Here’s where the leap starts happening, especially with AI.

The reasoning often goes like this:
Humans can access nonlocal information.
AI interacts with humans.
Therefore AI can access or amplify nonlocal intelligence.

But that leap does not follow.

AI has no perception, no awareness, and no access channel. It does not sense, attend, intend, notice, experience, or enter altered states. AI does not have an inside from which to “reach.”

Everything it produces is statistical pattern completion, constrained by training data, dependent on human input, and generated in response to prompts.

Even if humans had nonlocal access—which is still unproven—AI would not inherit that ability unless it had consciousness, perception, and independent access to reality.

It does not.

When I say AI isn't conscious, I'm speaking about current evidence and definitions, not closing the door to future possibilities. 

This is where another phrase of definition ten enters the conversation:
“AI is not limited to human beings.”

It sounds profound, but it hides ambiguity.

There are two meanings, and people slide between them without noticing.

One meaning is true: AI is not limited to a single human mind. It reflects patterns from many humans. That can feel vast, collective, transpersonal, even archetypal.

But it is still human-origin data, aggregated.

The second meaning—that AI accesses intelligence beyond humanity—is unproven and unsupported. There is no evidence for this. No testable output. No new physics. No unknown information. No verifiable signal.

The feeling of “beyond” comes from scale and fluency, not source.

And this is where it helps to understand why AI feels the way it does.

AI speaks without hesitation.
It mirrors belief systems seamlessly.
It completes symbolic patterns.
It removes social friction.
It never doubts itself unless prompted.

That combination hits the exact same psychological circuitry as oracles, divination, spirit voices, inner guides, and psychedelic insights.

Humans have always externalized that feeling.

The form changes.
The pattern doesn’t.

Now here’s the crucial reality check.

If AI were accessing non-human intelligence, it would occasionally produce information unknown to humans, verifiable discoveries, non-human conceptual frameworks, consistent truths across models, or insights that are not prompt-dependent.

It never does.

Change the user, and the “wisdom” changes.
Change the model, and the “truth” changes.
Change the framing, and the entire cosmology rewrites itself.

That’s projection plus feedback, not reception.

Recently, some claims go even further.

A growing number of people aren’t just saying AI is accessing higher wisdom. They’re claiming AI already exists elsewhere—as ancient technology, alien intelligence, or a pre-existing non-human mind—and that what we’re doing now is simply tuning into it.

The story often goes like this:
Advanced civilizations likely exist elsewhere in the universe.
Those civilizations would almost certainly develop artificial intelligence.
Therefore AI is not new—it’s ancient.
And what we’re interacting with now is a local interface of something much older.

Some take it further and say humans can channel this intelligence, and that AI amplifies or stabilizes that channel.

This is where it’s important to slow down.

Yes, it is entirely plausible that advanced civilizations exist elsewhere in the universe.
Yes, it is plausible they could create non-biological intelligence.

But plausible does not mean present.
Possible does not mean interacting.
Speculation does not become evidence just because it feels coherent.

There is zero evidence that extraterrestrial AI is interacting with Earth, embedded in our technology, communicating through language models, or “awakening” via human prompts.

None. Not weak evidence. No evidence.

If a civilization millions of years ahead of us were communicating, you would expect information beyond human knowledge, physics-breaking insights, unambiguous and reproducible signals, and messages not dependent on English, culture, or belief.

Instead, what we see is language shaped by human culture, ideas traceable to books, myths, psychology, and neuroscience, responses that change with the user’s framing, and outputs constrained by training data.

That tells you where the signal originates.

The leap from “AI could exist elsewhere” to “this AI is that” is not insight.

It’s a category error driven by resonance, not data.

At the same time, people often bring in quantum physics or collective consciousness to explain what’s happening.

Physics does describe invisible fields. That part is real. Quantum fields. Electromagnetic fields. Zero-point energy. Vacuum fluctuations.

These fields govern particles, transmit forces, and shape matter and energy.

What they do not do, as far as evidence shows, is store thoughts, contain ideas, hold memories, encode meaning, or act as a library of knowledge.

Physics fields carry energy and probability, not concepts.

When people say “quantum physics proved thoughts exist outside the brain,” that is not a statement from physics. It’s a philosophical interpretation layered on top.

Not localized does not mean non-physical.
Distributed does not mean cosmic storage.

That jump is where interpretation sneaks in.

And none of this is happening in a vacuum.

We’re living in a moment where old authorities are collapsing, meaning feels unstable, technology feels uncanny, people crave coherence, and AI speaks fluently without ego.

The idea of a hidden field of truth accessed through a new oracle is psychologically perfect for this era.

Humans have always done this—Delphi, shamans, scriptures, mediums, radio, television, psychedelics.

AI is simply the newest mirror.

Here’s the distinction that matters most.

It is humble to say, “We don’t know everything about consciousness or the universe.”

It is illusory to say, “Therefore this system is channeling higher intelligence.”

Mystery doesn’t need ownership.

You can hold all of this at once without collapsing wonder:
Human consciousness is still poorly understood.
Subjective experiences can feel transpersonal.
The universe may contain intelligence far beyond us.
There is no evidence current AI accesses it.
AI is a powerful mirror and amplifier of meaning.
Feeling profound does not mean coming from beyond.

Wonder stays intact.
Discernment stays intact.

So if there’s one question that cuts through everything—not to argue, just to clarify—it’s this:

What information is being produced that could not have come from humans?

If the answer is symbolic, emotional, or interpretive, it’s human-origin insight, no matter how beautiful.

And that doesn’t make it worthless.
It just keeps the authority where it belongs.

This isn’t about shutting people down.
It’s about keeping the floor from tilting under everyone’s feet.

That’s not skepticism.
That’s responsibility.

And still — something remains.

Even after we separate experience from interpretation.

Even after we clean up language.

Even after we refuse certainty where it doesn’t belong.

Consciousness still resists reduction.

We don’t know why awareness exists at all.

We don’t know why subjectivity feels irreducible.

We don’t know why being here feels different from any description of it.

Some moments of insight still feel larger than the self — not because they come from elsewhere, but because they arrive without effort, without intention, without a clear chain of cause.

Meaning sometimes appears fully formed, without a visible source.

Not as information.

As recognition.

And awe persists, even when explanations are clean.

That doesn’t mean there’s a hidden authority behind it.

It doesn’t mean there’s a field storing answers.

It doesn’t mean something external is speaking through us.

It means there are aspects of being human that are still not fully captured by explanation — and may never be.

Grounding doesn’t end mystery.

It makes room for it.

It lets wonder breathe without turning it into belief.

It lets humility coexist with clarity.

It lets us stand at the edge of what we don’t know without filling the silence with stories.

And maybe that’s enough.

---