Great writing, and a lovely read. However, I have doubt's that we can create qualia or any form of "consciousness " as we currently know it right.

Going to try to be as only detailed as needed, but its a wild ride. I'm not anywhere an expert on these things. Its just something fascinating that I still try to wrap my head around as well. Happy to answer further questions, but more likely I would like to direct to the works of Robert Rosen (Relational Biology), Howard Pattee (Biosemiotics - meaning generation in biology) and Jan-Hendrik S. Hofmeyr (analysis of self-organization in cells, code biology)

Biology is Complex with a capital C. Many parts of a system interact with each other, repair each other. The system cannot be truly understood by breaking itself down into smaller bits as a computer can be.

There is a subdomain of biology called Relational Biology that details how biology contains components that are mutually dependent on each other - there is no "kickstarting biology" in the computational Turing Complete sense because any attempt to simulate those aspects in a computer results in Deadlock, a term when multiple parts of a computer system are attempting to access the same resource and have to wait until the other parts have finished their access. Turing Completeness is just a subset of what is possible for Complex Systems.

AI's are created through an objective function predefined by their creators. Biological (and likely other Complex Systems) contain models of themselves, of which they derive meaning (see the field of semiotics, or the concept of an Umwelt) from their sensory input and act towards a better environment.

It has been demonstrated that problems arrive when you incorporate self-reference within formal systems (Gödel's Incompleteness theorem). However, Complex Systems are able to use this self reference to modify both themselves and their surrounding environment.

We can enumerate the axioms that a computer system works with (ultimately boolean logic and derived rules), but there has yet to be such an axiomatic system to define the workings of Biological Complexity. Even if we were able to do so (at whatever resolution you care, say at the femto-scale ), true statements about a systems will still always exist that cannot be proven by those same rules you've defined (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem again). Rosen's formulation for biology has been termed The Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for biology.

But then the following lines of thought come to be: "you cant prove that. Large language models are so good and are only getting better, how do you __know__?"

My response will always be "I dont know", I'm also not well versed in those fields to really give you those answers. But also, what necessitates Qualia and Consciousness to exist at all for these behaviors?

I'll finish with the first verse of the first chapter from the Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching, written ~400BC:

The tao (The Way) that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things