Consciousness, Worldviews, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Physics

Worldview Watch issue #83 posted 02 / 22 / 2026

Consciousness, Worldviews, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Physics

in the news: The cover story in the February 2026 issue of Scientific American magazine is titled "The Hardest Problem in Science." Translated into a question, that problem becomes "What is consciousness?" The magazine editor, in promoting this ten page detailed survey of a whole field of research, writes "As artificial intelligence models claim sentience...the abstract debates of philosophers are being transformed into urgent questions." Weeks before this hit news stands, a summary of a January 10 CNBC report headlined "Are We in an AI Bubble?" stated "Record evaluations and deals driven by AI excitement have led to some concerns that the AI boom is a bubble waiting to burst." The previous November brought more evidence that AI is increasingly being applied in new ways with a Today.com story headlined "People are using AI to talk to Jesus."

worldview related analysis by Stephen P. Cook, Managing Director, project Worldview

I'll start by saying two things...First, project Worldview website visitation has grown dramatically in the last year—something that I suspect has been driven by AI bots / web crawler-driven training. To those visitors, I could say "You know who you are"—but that gets to the heart of what I'll be arguing: "They aren't conscious and don't know who they are!" Second, I'm not sure understanding consciousness is the hardest problem in science. Some would argue that understanding quantum mechanics— a field that is currently celebrating its birth one hundred years ago—deserves that recognition. I'll suggest a way to accommodate both in this potential dispute toward the end of what follows...

I tend to agree with those who link consciousness with life, like University of Sussex researcher Anil Seth. The above-mentioned Scientific American article reported, "He theorizes that consciousness is intrinsically linked to life. Living beings can do only one thing at a time, and to choose what to do, they must bring a lot of relevant information together into one stream." Based on this, one might say that consciousness developed to provide a decision-making advantage—meaning that a conscious entity would make better choices than a non-conscious organization of matter (like a rock?) Extending this, one might say that consciousness is a first step toward possessing a worldview—where your worldview can be thought of as "a conceptual framework and a set of beliefs used to make sense out of a complex, seemingly chaotic reality based on your perceptions, experience and learning."

But does this mean that anything that possesses a worldview possesses consciousness? I say "NO" and note that large language model (LLM) based AI models can be trained to possess a worldview. Witness the above-mentioned example of a computer program that enables people to "talk to Jesus." I have no doubt that if I made it a priority, I could create a program that would embody "the worldview of Jesus." I could then use that to facilitate conversations people might have with this program. (Note: elsewhere on this website you can find characterizations of the worldviews of famous people expressed in terms of worldview themes.) For many reasons—starting with, in this specific case we lack information to do a good job of characterizing Jesus' worldview—I believe such AI-based attempts to "bring people back to life" will always fall short. And I feel some contempt for those who claim their AI creations are sentient or conscious!

In the best cases, noting that LLM creations excel at providing the most probable, best next word in conversations they're involved in, I'll concede that such creations might do a very good job of imitating a particular once living person. But this creation is in no way "conscious" or "alive" based on our best definitions of these two extremely difficult to define terms: "consciousness" and "life." The way I see it, our best scientific understanding falls far short. It fails, in particular, to provide the details of what I've previously called the "mysterious information transfer" (in my 2011 paper Imagining a Theory of Everything for Complex Adaptive Systems) that distinguishes living and non-living things.

I think people who believe a line will soon be crossed and that some AI based entities will be unequivocally considered as conscious, fail to appreciate the difficulties involved in solving the consciousness problem. This challenge is similar to—but may be even greater than—obstacles in the way of scientists being able to create life in the lab from the basic non-living building blocks. I could be wrong. Note: those who see this differently than I do may believe there is no sharp dividing line between living and non-living things. What does all of this have to do with "the AI Bubble"? I think the suggestions that AI creations are or will soon be sentient and conscious is part of the hype driving AI into the marketplace and related stock market frenzy.

The main force behind all of the hype: techno-optimists and profit-seeking big tech moguls wanting us to believe that AI tools are ready to do a better job than people in solving all kinds of problems. I question that, and fear that widespread AI use could 1) cause millions of people to lose their jobs, and 2) ultimately make people lazier, stupider and poorer critical thinkers. And—while it clearly can help scientists meet big challenges—I fear its widespread use will create more problems than it solves. . Part of my skepticism is based on what I've encountered in my limited experience: mistakes that real competent people wouldn't make (in writing headlines, explanations, meeting summaries etc) and reports of AI "hallucinations" —where a program simply made up an "off-the-wall" statement totally divorced from facts it was provided in training.

I recognize some AI tools have value. I recently was sent a dialogue between a solar installer trying to troubleshoot solar panels serving an RV, and a ChatGPT-based troubleshooting program. I like to think that the program eventually helped solve the problem. But it failed right at the beginning in not immediately getting the most important specifications (it got 1350 watts total output, but not that it came from 8 panels hooked together to charge a 24 volt battery.) Instead it provided an overwhelming amount of detail—as if it was trying to impress with what it knew! Given my own solar engineering background, while I found no mistakes in what was provided, its "beat-around-the-bush" approach was frustrating. If tasked with helping the RV system installer, I would have "cut-to-the-chase" and given specific troubleshooting help.

Looking at the "big picture," I have major environmental concerns about AI energy use / greenhouse gas emissions, and don't like the crazy plans that billionaire techno-optimists are also pushing (like colonizing Mars.) In this regard, see More Everything Forever by Adam Becker (book review by Ashley Yeager Science News April 15 2025) and "A Skeptical Look at Grand Designs for the Future" by Dan Falk (review of techno-optimism AI skeptical book on Undark site May 16 2025). With respect to worldview theme choices, I see billionaire techno-optimists like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Peter Thiel and others as "I Know What's Best for You" (theme #2B) "True Believers" (theme #2A) in choice #3 and choice #4 terms, whereas I am more comfortable staking out the "Humbly Unsure" (theme #1A) and "Skeptic" (theme #1B) territory.

Seems those folks are all about making money and fully using the power ("Seeking Wealth and Power, theme #43) that having lots of it brings. If they're at all concerned about the other choice #33 alternative—Ethical Orientation (theme #42)—I believe (with Adam Becker) their application of ethical principles is flawed. One person who used the field of consciousness and related interest in the New Age community to become wealthy is Deepak Chopra. Like many wealthy, powerful people, he has recently been in the sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein related news. In an email sent to Epstein, Chopra said, "God is a construct. Cute girls are real." Probably not something that those seeking God through meditation / altered state of consciousness wanted to hear!

Some feel that fully understanding consciousness and life is linked to fully understanding quantum mechanics.. Shortly after appreciating the implications of the quantum physics landmark Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in 1929 Harvard professor (and eventual Noble Prize winning physicist) Percy Bridgman wrote an article titled "The New Vision of Science." As described in the 2014 book The Quantum Moment, his article expressed doubt that "nature is fundamentally understandable." That is, in choice #7 terms, he announced that he no longer fully embraced "Orderly and Explicable" (theme #6A.) He used a book of Genesis metaphor to express some hope for where science would head: "...in the end, when man has fully partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, there will be this difference between the First Eden and the last, that man will not become a god, but will remain forever humble." A nice wish, but note the current setting of the Doomsday / Atomic Scientists' clock—established in 1947— is closer to midnight than it's ever been.

AI somehow escaping human control is one factor driving this pessimism. Even without that fear, there's plenty about AI to be concerned about. At a time when "humility" is in short supply, and humanity needs "smart" solutions to global problems, with techno-optimists' hype and greed driving AI investment and energy-hungry data center proliferation, and climate-change deniers in charge of US environmental policy, I believe the terms "arrogant" and "artificial stupidity" provide a better characterization of where humanity seems headed. I could be wrong, for there are some encouraging signs—most notably the global spurt in use of renewable energy. Sadly, in Arizona where I live and sunshine is abundant, enthusiasm among the folks running the Legislature for putting it to good use is lacking.

****************************************************************************************************************

comments? put Worldview Watch #83 in subject line and email feedback@projectworldview.org