Recent arguments for artificial consciousness—most notably Goldstein & Kirk-Giannini's case for machine consciousness in language agents—revive an older style of reasoning: fixing a theory's functional conditions through thought experiments, then relaxing them until intuition permits inclusion, without asking what grounds the point of view such conditions are meant to capture. I argue that this blind spot is not accidental but methodological, and that what the method cannot supply is the problem of purposiveness. Drawing on Kant's neglected distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic purposiveness, and its uptake in basal cognition and the biology of minimal organisms, I argue that biological naturalism, not computational functionalism, is better positioned to naturalize this distinctive mode of being. The result supplements rather than supplants what is normally understood as the hard problem of consciousness: before asking how experience arises, we must first explain why anything is at stake for a system at all.