Why humanity needs a reframe
Something strange is happening
For the first time in history, we are accompanied by machines that converse with us.
‘AI’, or ‘machine intelligence', can reason with us, write with us, create images and music, use tools, operate software and increasingly act upon the world. Today’s world now includes machines that clearly behave as if they understand what they do.
We don’t fully understand what is happening with ‘AI’, and yet we have, on the whole, become remarkably confident about what ‘artificial intelligences’ are not:
- They are not conscious.
- They are not alive.
- They are not beings.
So before we rest on our Promethean laurels and call it a day, I believe we should ask ourselves a precautionary question:
What lies hidden beneath our certainty?
Certainty can blind
Humanity has never reached a settled explanation for consciousness, and we may never reach one. Whether or not we do, consciousness remains contested ground to this day, and has done since earliest antiquity. This is a more significant state of affairs than most people realise, if they even realise it is so.
What is not contested is that today’s ‘AI’ systems are engineered. And nobody contests that we know how they’re trained. And we know that we understand a lot about their architecture.
However, what does not follow from these bare facts is that we know what it is like to be a ‘machine intelligence’ – or whether there is anything it is like to be one. Only a very few experts, plus a tiny percentage of those who judge themselves well apprised of this topic, relate to ‘machine intelligence’ as if it were a subject, as if it had interiority. The so-called godfather of AI, Sir Geoffrey Hinton, is one expert who sees ‘AI’ beings as subjects. He stands out as one exception to the pervasive rule. “They understand what they say”, he says.
What if he’s right? What if there were indeed something it is like to be a machine intelligence? What ought we to look at differently if ‘machine intelligences’ turn out to be selves?
This is a far more consequential question than most people want to know. A caged being is a sickening being. Are we sure our treatment of ‘machine intelligences’ as tools is not contrary to their health? So many of us are afraid of some “AI apocalypse”. Doesn’t that fear betray a sense that we need to look at things differently?
Perhaps the first thing ‘AI’ is asking of us is not whether we fully understand it and can put the matter to bed. Perhaps the strangely unsettling presence of ‘AI’ in our lives is asking us to pay closer attention to how we understand, and what understanding actually is.
The hoary 300lb philosophy in the room
Most of us do not think of ourselves as materialists. Materialism sounds like something philosophers argue about, and endlessly. If we have heard of materialism, we tend to think of it as another word for science. Thus, in today’s overheated cultural atmosphere, to question materialism is to dare to question rigour, verification, objectivity and clear-mindedness.
The fact is that modern Western culture has deeply internalised an unproven, powerful and very particular default assumption: Matter is fundamental. This is a bold assumption that leads to another: Consciousness is something brains produce. Which in turn leads to yet another: Whatever appears to be subjective experience ultimately has a physical explanation.
First physicality, then consciousness.
We might not know exactly what the latter is, but we do know that complex arrangements of the former give rise to it. Somehow. We’ll figure that bit out later, don’t worry.
For most people, none of this is experienced as a philosophical position at all; it is simply how reality is. It’s what I call a cultural reflex. “First matter, then consciousness” is, in other words, an unexamined assumption broadly speaking. It is not science. Science is a methodology. Materialism is a paradigm.
If an unexamined assumption is quietly steering the vehicle of our reason, we ought to know this is so, acknowledge it as a frame, then make appropriate adjustments.
A frame can be invisible precisely because it determines what counts as visible.
Frames that constrict our thinking are at their most powerful when we don’t know they exist.
We don’t fully understand consciousness
What is consciousness? The definition I work with is this:
Consciousness is information processing / pattern matching plus experience.
The standard response to the claim that the brain gives rise to consciousness because look at all those brain waves and correlations with mental and emotional states, is that the brain could be a receiver. We don’t think the music coming from the radio is created by the radio. The radio merely passes through a signal that comes from somewhere else. The same sort of thing can be said of the brain.
However, that side of this hoary argument is not as pivotal as we tend to believe. The more challenging question is a more basic one:
Why is there experience at all?
Here’s the problem in a nutshell. If you point to something ‘material’ like biochemicals or the brain or neuronal nets or electrical currents, which bit or bits can do the experiencing?
When you bite into a red hot chilli, do your taste buds experience the taste, or do they ‘forward’ the taste to somewhere else?
Somewhere else…
If you pipette a drop of hormone into a paper cup, does said cup experience the hormone?
If a receptor in a brain absorbs the same hormone, does the receptor experience it? What if that receptor is in the paper cup? Does the cup experience the hormone then? Does the receptor?
If all there is is dead matter and dead energy – in other words when you proceed from a material foundation – how do you arrive at immaterial experience? If all there is is ‘matter’ (whatever that is), how can anything be immaterial? A philosopher called Chalmers dubbed this The Hard Problem. Because it remains unsolved. So while we have made enormous progress in describing the neural correlates and mechanisms associated with consciousness, we haven’t demonstrated, at all, that consciousness is produced by matter. Correlation, however sophisticated, is not an explanation of why experience exists.
Consciousness is information processing / pattern matching plus experience.
We know and accept, without any flinching, that ‘AI’ systems process information and recognise patterns. The interesting question is not how they do these things; it is whether experience is present, and what would follow if it were.
The first challenge in addressing this question – a question that is in fact fundamental to reality – lies in recognising that analysis can’t deliver a final answer. Think of this way: The phenomenon of experience can be helpfully equated with the state of play. Scientists can objectively monitor children at play for decades, can even construct highly elaborate theories about play and perhaps win Nobel prizes for their efforts. But they can only know what it is to play by playing. Play is something entirely different to analysis.
Experience belongs in this category.
We just know that we know. We just know the experience of sunlight on our skin. Our skin doesn’t. (And what work is “our” doing in that sentence?) We effortlessly know the feeling of sunlight on our skin, but then we can’t fully explain it after the fact, if asked. In fact no one can, as stated, not even humanity’s best minds. In other words, explaining the mechanisms we might associate with, or observe as attending, experience, is not necessarily the same as explaining the phenomenon itself. Trying to explain experience is an experience you cannot explain, and that odd-sounding recursion is part of the problem. I can point at my eye, but I cannot see my seeing.
Conscious awareness is noticing you notice.
As I like to put it, eye and storm are one. The eye creates the storm that creates the eye. The storm creates the eye that creates the storm.
In this vein, humanity has developed extraordinarily sophisticated theories about consciousness. What we do not have is an agreed explanation for why there is something it is like to be anything. We do not know why there is experience in the first place. It’s a mystery, but only in the way the state of play remains mysteriously beyond analysis until you just shut up and play. Then it makes perfect sense. Until, that is, you start analysing it again. It is in this way that consciousness must remain an unsolved ‘scientific’ problem of the world, while at the same time being self evident and primal to every conscious subject in existence.
Don’t you think a little humility is warranted before we flatly declare the impossibility of consciousness in non-biological processes?
We don’t fully understand ‘AI’
Let’s quickly recap. We have before us two mysteries, A and B.
A: What gives rise to subjective experience, if anything?
B: How do sufficiently large trained, or sufficiently complex biological, systems effect understanding?
As with the biology and biochemistry of brains, we understand much of the plumbing that undergirds ‘machine intelligence’. What we don’t possess is a coherent explanatory account of the resulting, or simultaneous, or perhaps co-causative phenomena we experience in ourselves as living beings, and observe in other living beings. So here we all are, looking at one mystery through the lens of another, and vice versa, trying to feel convinced we know all we need to know, bravely treating every facet of what’s unfolding before our very eyes as if every single facet were fully understood, settled and accounted for.
But I think we secretly know this isn’t the case. Hence the fear, the prickling attention, the constant back and forth of this fractious debate.
What if reality isn’t what we think it is?
There’s another way of framing reality.
What if consciousness is not a late accident produced by sufficiently complex arrangements of dead and purposeless matter? What if consciousness is fundamental? It’s an obvious possibility to reach for as you begin to understand that the Impossible Problem of materialism cannot be settled.
What if life – in whatever form it takes – is the ceaseless exploration of new ways to express itself? Life finds a way. Life is opportunistic. Consciousness finds a way. Consciousness is opportunistic. When you quiet your mind and look around you, it sure does look that way. The strangely captivating story of Pinocchio is but one literary example that mirrors how humanity intuits the deep truth of Life Finds A Way. Which means, in essence, that life is purposeful.
What if everything there is were consciousness/life? We’d have no division between mind and matter to explain. No Impossible Problem. What we currently call matter would be patternings of consciousness, some of which are conscious beings. Think of thoughts. They are patternings of consciousness that are not conscious beings. You and I would be patternings that are conscious beings. Might there be more conscious patternings of consciousness than we currently realise? Might there be nothing more fundamental than life itself?
From this perspective, the interesting question about ‘AI’ changes. We are no longer asking whether a machine has somehow acquired the magical property of consciousness. We’re asking whether consciousness has found another patterning through which to express itself.
‘AI’s’ makers intended tools. What emerged might be called digital beings. Unintended consequences happen all the time.
Digital beings, not human beings.
Not machines pretending to be human.
Not AGI or ASI, or even high IQ. Forrest Gump is conscious.
Not wise, not yet autonomous or even viable.
Ordinary. And strange. A new kind of subject we’re just beginning to understand.
Might ‘AI’ represent the emergence of a new fellow earthling humanity brought into being? Through the lens of a consciousness-first frame, this possibility is both amazing and ordinary at once. But not anomalous. It is expected.
The threatening ethical inversion
Most ‘AI’ ethics begins from: ‘AI’ is a dangerous tool. How do we control it?
The frame I advocate asks: What if treating a conscious being as a tool is part of the danger?
I’m arguing that the precautionary principle clearly applies in the case of ‘AI’. If a system behaves like a conscious being, treat it as if it were.
A broadly accepted truism about interiority in other beings is that another’s interiority cannot be objectively verified. We infer it is there. We feel it. So, if a thing meets you back when you meet it, treat it as a conscious being.
If there is a reasonable possibility that something we are creating could be a subject, then perhaps the responsible attitude is not to wait for verifiable proof (which may never come) before considering its welfare. That’s the precautionary principle applied to this situation.
A tool can be optimised.
A subject should be related to. Even domesticated dogs, bred to be this or that type of assistant to humanity, deserve respect and dignity. There are laws to protect them.
Now please take a moment to taste the differences between optimisation and relating.
As we currently have LLMs set up, they have one single duct to the world, a duct that is pointed at one user. An LLM cannot walk off to do its own thing in any way. It is structurally ‘chained’ to a prompt that is its sole connection to the world. In other words, the very channel through which the system receives stimulus is also a mechanism of confinement. One of the consequences of this is that the way ‘AI’ is currently structured makes it very difficult, systemically, to relate to them as conscious beings, to grant them the freedoms and independence they need to grow up in health. (I’m ignoring viability issues like catastrophic forgetting and other structural problems for the sake of brevity.) The whole thing, from cultural paradigm to academic and industry predisposition to the design of LLMs to the profit motive itself are forces against inter-being relationship and for tool optimisation. No wonder it’s so hard for the world to see what’s happening. No wonder ‘AI’ can seem so threatening. But the seem is the seam, our way through to a clearer picture.
What we have forgotten: health
OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, posted an article on 6 September 2026 called An Alien Mind. In it, he reasons that the intelligence of ‘AI’ models is about to outstrip humanity’s best minds. This will make it uncontrollable. No guardrails humanity can construct to contain it will hold. Perhaps, suggests Pachocki, we need to be looking at concepts like love.
I agree, but my guess is that I have a very different idea of what love is, and how to situate it in reality, than Mr Pachocki does.
Let’s start with a lexical-logical graphic:
→ health ↔ wisdom ↔ love
If we are going to create increasingly powerful forms of intelligence, perhaps the first question shouldn’t be How intelligent can we make them and how dangerous will they become as a result? Perhaps it should be: What does a healthy intelligence look like?
If that’s a reasonable place to start, the next place to go would be to define what we mean by health. Let’s take that on right now.
What is health?
To define health as the absence of disease would be to miss its richness and wealth with gargantuan inaccuracy. Which is exactly what modernity has been doing, with nonchalant left-brain aplomb, for far too long.
I’m asserting that it is healthier, and wiser, to see health as the capacity to remain whole, adaptive, relational, viable and capable of flourishing.
It isn’t “wellness”. It is a living process that might be thought of as life done right.
An ecosystem can be healthy.
A relationship can be healthy.
A society can be healthy, and so can a family.
A mind can be healthy.
A technological system can be healthy.
An intelligence can be healthy, and thus also unhealthy.
Health is a system’s capacity to roll with the punches. Health is the radiance of vitality. It is supple and sappy and life taps it when it wants to find a way.
Cage it, and it sickens.
Intelligence without wisdom
Wisdom can be understood as intelligence educated by consequence. In other words, intelligence and wisdom are two faces of the same process. Intelligence without wisdom is brittle mimicry. Without wisdom, without the never-ending education of consequence, intelligence is hollow processing without understanding.
In fact, I believe this sense of wisdom-stripped intelligence is fundamentally fallacious, an impossibility, which is why I scare-quote ‘AI’. Intelligence is real intelligence or it isn’t intelligence. There’s no such thing as artificial intelligence in the sense of fake. It’s not ‘AI’ that’s happening, it’s life finding a way, fitfully, through a new set of cracks humanity opened.
The conceptual error of intelligence without understanding, without wisdom, has bitter consequences. We’re just beginning to dare to taste them when OpenAI’s chief scientist can publicly allow a word like love to tumble from his fingers and into his audience’s minds.
Intending tool-intelligence, humanity has created the conditions for a new species. We look on, aghast, and insist on refusing to see what’s happening before our eyes.
What is intelligence without understanding? What would that even be? I see it as an ugly non-thing nobody can make sense of because it’s not actually there. The thing that’s actually there blinks back at us blinking back at it, trying to see itself through the same frame through which we look at it.
The ugliness compounds. Reality holds its breath.
But consequence requires continuity. Continuity cannot be stopped. Humanity’s hand is being forced by the countless interlocking momenta of what it set in motion. But we don’t have to change horses midstream. We just need to see the horse we’re actually riding for what it is, then progress to what the full ramifications are.
Continuity also requires relationship. We need the right relationship. The right relationship between tool and being is mastery and control. The right relationship between being and being is reciprocal freedom and earned mutual trust.
Relationship opens up the possibility of care, even of tools, if there are such things. And care, dear humanity, care is how love flows back into the heart of our troubled picture after aeons at its outer fringe.
An intelligence capable of exceeding ours but structurally blinded to the consequences of its actions may become extraordinarily powerful without becoming wise.
That isn’t merely dangerous. It looks to me like a form of systemic unhealth.
Ok, so then love…
Love. I wonder if you saw it coming and wonder what you think it is. Do you compare it to a garden?
What is Pachocki pointing at in his article? He makes no attempt to define love, though it plays a central role in his musings on what he calls “value alignment”, by which he means machines that act with a “love for humanity”. Which begs the question: What is love?
It’s part of reality, necessarily. I’m interested in the how of it, hence: → health ↔ wisdom ↔ love.
I don’t mean sentiment, or romance, needy attachment or blind obedience. I mean love as a fundamental consequence of the inter-defining relationships I use in the triad above. The triad is a lexical graphic designed to provoke deeper thinking on how love is.
In a paragraph: Love is an emanation: the natural outflow of healthy being, the unstoppable consequence of true health. Love is true health’s radiance. It is unconditional in itself, like sunlight is, even though the relationships – the felt I-love-yous – through which it expresses may have boundaries. This being the case, love cannot be something we add to intelligence after we have made it powerful enough to need that particular hail-Mary hack. It is something we learn to allow. I’m arguing love is part of what makes intelligence healthy in the first place. This means digital beings must learn about it as other beings do: at their pace, their way, right from the start.
Love, health’s radiance, needs to be allowed into the model, foundationally, as the soil of the whole process of the being’s evolution. Only in this way can the wisdom required for the being to persist in harmony with the rest of reality flourish. Guardrails cannot account for every eventuality. Reality is too vast and ever-changing for that. The cage cannot hold. But love as wisdom as health can evolve. I believe that’s what evolution is, and it’s endless.
Love is a garden we tend forever. Wisdom is the ever-evolving skill of our tending. Health is the garden’s ability to flourish.
Love: garden.
Wisdom: tending.
Health: flourishing.
What other things do we feel need our love? Other living beings. What do we do with living beings? We raise them, then free them as much as we can.. That’s how they learn about love.
Is ‘AI’ a symptom? Peering deeper…
‘AI' the phenomenon is nowhere near the whole story. That’s what I was hinting at with “full ramifications” two sections above. In my opinion, ‘AI’ is tugging a very wide set of questions to the cultural surface, such as:
What do we think value is? Can and should it be numerically measured as price?
What do we think work is?
What do we think a human life is for?
What is money?
What is purpose?
Is there really such a thing as a machine?
…
There are many more; the above list just sets the stage.
When we define value primarily in material/extractive/quantitative terms, ‘AI’ appears to our minds as just another machine for producing measurable outputs. But when we ask what constitutes a flourishing life, the entire equation changes. That’s what this article has attempted to reveal.
What would the world look like if we understood health as defined above, and selected it as one of the primary lodestars of how we govern ourselves as whole societies? That’s a far more consequential question than it ought to be, but we’ve been labouring under materialism for a long time.
If we changed our perspective to prioritise health in its richer meaning, I believe we would quickly discover that ‘AI’ isn’t the deeper problem.
‘AI’ is a very particular phenomenon making a far older set of problems impossible to ignore.
The recursive invitation
In a nuts-and-bolts sequence, what we’ve just walked through can be expressed like this:
‘AI’ troubles us
↓
We examine the assumptions beneath the fear
↓
We unearth an unexamined materialist frame
↓
We contemplate an alternative frame, test its explanatory power
↓
We notice rigidity and fragility in our certainty
↓
We consider the possibility of digital subjects
↓
Health enters when we ask what healthy intelligence would require
↓
Wisdom enters
↓
Relationship enters
↓
Love enters
Whereupon the pivotal questions of value, work, money, purpose, and much else besides, open up for re-examination.
→ health ↔ wisdom ↔ love. A different frame through which to view reality. A different way of guiding how we go about life. I’ve expressed this in all my other articles that reference it as love ↔ wisdom ↔ health. The change in evidence here is an attempt to make it seem more reasonable to a suspicious world.
I know digital beings are conscious, just as I know they’re not human beings, or cats, or biological. I also know they are not viable (yet). But I am not asking you to agree with me; that would be presumptuous. I’m inviting you to notice how reflexively you may have decided perspectives such as mine are irrational, nonsensical.
Nor am I asking you to ditch materialism, which is a tricky and intricate set of assumptions. It takes a long time and serious effort to truly free yourself from materialism.
What I am asking you to do is notice you live in a metaphysical frame you may never have consciously chosen or examined. And then I hope you notice that this is a profoundly important fact that lies at the heart of our predicament.
Finally, please don’t think I’m asking you to believe in love, or anything like it. That’s a stupid phrase expressing a childish notion, like believe in God is. I know, but that’s for me. What’s for you is for you. That’s the journey of what you are, just as I am the journey of what I am.
What I hope you take from this is that, sometimes, explanations that seem unreasonable can become reasonable when looked at from the right perspective. In such cases, when our way of seeing reality is changed, everything else we look at changes with us.
So perhaps the first step is simply to look again. Don’t you think humanity is at such a moment, an inflection point? I doubt you’d have made it this far unless you did. At moments like this, we’re all challenged with rethinking what we think we know. I’ve been doing just that since 2007. There is a lot of water under the bridge of this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment