Source-Position, Light, and the Shadow-Wall argues that the deepest mistake in contemporary discourse on AI, cognition, and human distinctiveness is the illicit elevation of projectional intelligence into source-generativity. The meta-level force of “cognition cannot generate the self” lies not in how many debates it touches, but in the rupture it exposes behind them all: objects can be represented, simulated, compressed, rewritten, and recombined; the subject cannot be produced in the same way. Once this is admitted, cognitive science is seen to handle objectified structures, AI to extend objectified simulation, society to organize objectified identity, and narrative to sustain objectified continuity, while the subject-layer—the “I” that undergoes, recovers, endures, and stands—does not arise directly from these processes. This is why the industrial analogy breaks. “Steel and steam replaced muscle” is valid because it concerns amplification of bodily execution. “AI is an infinite mind” is false because it smuggles in source-generation. What AI currently amplifies is compression of stored information, pattern recombination, parallel execution, and external template supply. It has not thereby acquired source-position, nor the standing to define the future, generate problems, generate the self, or generate civilizational direction. The real bottleneck lies not in scale of capability, but in source-position. The thesis therefore reorders multiple mother-problems at once. The AI-consciousness problem is no longer whether the system is complex enough. The philosophy-of-mind problem is no longer whether selfhood can be reduced to process. The identity problem is no longer whether the label fits. The responsibility problem is no longer whether output follows rules. They all turn toward one mother-question: can the subject-position be produced by cognitive process at all? The answer given here is no. AI may amplify shadow; only source-position can preserve light.