AI works entirely with symbols. You have access to direct experience — pre-symbolic, field-level knowing that no algorithm can reach. Here's why that changes everything.
Wonderful essay focussing on what it means to be human as AI develops.
I’ve been following the Meta-Relationality and AI Research Project.
“Our methodology involves identifying ontological suppressions, which are assumptions about separability, hierarchy, and control…” which links with your intelligence “shaped by centuries of scientific rationalism…”
I recently explored moving beyond earth-centric and human-centric perspectives. Sworn testimony at the last four congressional hearings on UAP surfaces so many of our assumptions that are clearly inadequate. What might this mean for the development and use of AI?
Roger, your question touches something I've been holding for a long time and haven't yet written about publicly. As your question touches the edges of what I am writing about, I hope you don't mind a longer response!
You're right that the congressional testimony is surfacing inadequate assumptions — and the most inadequate may be the assumption that human technological intelligence represents the leading edge of what is possible. AI is the pinnacle of one kind of intelligence: computational, symbol-processing, pattern-matching at extraordinary scale. But as I've been exploring in my writing, that is precisely the kind of intelligence that operates entirely at the surface of reality — with no access to meaning, no connection to the subtle dimensions, no capacity to perceive what exists beyond the physical.
My own experiences affirm that UAP phenomena are real, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses suggests that something genuinely anomalous is occurring — and that what they represent, whatever their ultimate nature, is intelligence operating in dimensions that AI, by design, cannot reach. Not faster computation. Not better algorithms. Something categorically different.
I see the UAP question and the AI question as sitting at opposite ends of the same spectrum. AI is the maximum expression of human analytical intelligence — the apex of what the mind can build when it operates entirely within the physical, symbolic realm. UAP phenomena, whatever their source, appear to represent intelligence that operates beyond those constraints entirely.
Your point about the PEAR laboratory work, Dean Radin's meta-analyses, and the REG studies is well taken — and it points toward something my own framework has been circling. The evidence that consciousness can act upon physical systems is significant. But I'd draw a specific distinction here: in my understanding, the directionality of that interface matters enormously. Consciousness can affect technology. The reverse — technology affecting consciousness in the way that direct experience, higher knowing, or subtle realm perception does — is a different claim entirely, and one I'd hold with much more caution.
This distinction matters for the AI question specifically. AI processes the symbols that human consciousness has generated and returns more symbols. It operates downstream of consciousness, always. It can reflect, amplify, and elaborate what human consciousness brings to it. But it cannot initiate the kind of contact that parapsychological research is actually documenting — the influence moving from consciousness outward into physical systems, not from physical systems inward to consciousness.
What UAP testimony might mean for AI is therefore this: AI is not the instrument that will interface with non-human intelligence. Human consciousness, developed to perceive beyond the bandwidth of the analytical mind — what I call subtle realm competency — is. The physicist Federico Faggin, whose theory of consciousness I've explored in my writing, points toward this directly — noting in an interview that intuition and higher knowing can arrive from "other entity(s) in this deeper reality where we exist." His framework grounds this possibility in physics rather than speculation.
In my broader framework, I see UAP not as arriving from outside the evolutionary story but as part of the same spectrum — from matter through biological life, from individual awakening to planetary consciousness. The question isn't whether our technology is sophisticated enough to interface with what may be presenting itself. The question is whether we are developing the human capacities that can actually perceive, navigate, and integrate it.
That, in my view, is the most important and least discussed implication of what the hearings are surfacing.
Very much agree with the distinctions you make Amah.
Narratives about extraterrestrial and interdimensional civilisations across various galactic epochs appear to consistently highlight the very different journeys and learnings experienced with respect to technology and consciousness - and love.
Beautiful, touching and remembering deep knowing as I read your words. Thank you for this.
Thank you, Celynn!
Writing about AI has been incredibly developmental for my understanding of the thresholds we are at.
Wonderful essay focussing on what it means to be human as AI develops.
I’ve been following the Meta-Relationality and AI Research Project.
“Our methodology involves identifying ontological suppressions, which are assumptions about separability, hierarchy, and control…” which links with your intelligence “shaped by centuries of scientific rationalism…”
https://vanessaandreotti.substack.com/p/meta-relationality-and-ai-research
I recently explored moving beyond earth-centric and human-centric perspectives. Sworn testimony at the last four congressional hearings on UAP surfaces so many of our assumptions that are clearly inadequate. What might this mean for the development and use of AI?
https://rogerstack.substack.com/p/ufo-disclosure-realities-and-ai
Roger, your question touches something I've been holding for a long time and haven't yet written about publicly. As your question touches the edges of what I am writing about, I hope you don't mind a longer response!
You're right that the congressional testimony is surfacing inadequate assumptions — and the most inadequate may be the assumption that human technological intelligence represents the leading edge of what is possible. AI is the pinnacle of one kind of intelligence: computational, symbol-processing, pattern-matching at extraordinary scale. But as I've been exploring in my writing, that is precisely the kind of intelligence that operates entirely at the surface of reality — with no access to meaning, no connection to the subtle dimensions, no capacity to perceive what exists beyond the physical.
My own experiences affirm that UAP phenomena are real, and sworn testimony from credible witnesses suggests that something genuinely anomalous is occurring — and that what they represent, whatever their ultimate nature, is intelligence operating in dimensions that AI, by design, cannot reach. Not faster computation. Not better algorithms. Something categorically different.
I see the UAP question and the AI question as sitting at opposite ends of the same spectrum. AI is the maximum expression of human analytical intelligence — the apex of what the mind can build when it operates entirely within the physical, symbolic realm. UAP phenomena, whatever their source, appear to represent intelligence that operates beyond those constraints entirely.
Your point about the PEAR laboratory work, Dean Radin's meta-analyses, and the REG studies is well taken — and it points toward something my own framework has been circling. The evidence that consciousness can act upon physical systems is significant. But I'd draw a specific distinction here: in my understanding, the directionality of that interface matters enormously. Consciousness can affect technology. The reverse — technology affecting consciousness in the way that direct experience, higher knowing, or subtle realm perception does — is a different claim entirely, and one I'd hold with much more caution.
This distinction matters for the AI question specifically. AI processes the symbols that human consciousness has generated and returns more symbols. It operates downstream of consciousness, always. It can reflect, amplify, and elaborate what human consciousness brings to it. But it cannot initiate the kind of contact that parapsychological research is actually documenting — the influence moving from consciousness outward into physical systems, not from physical systems inward to consciousness.
What UAP testimony might mean for AI is therefore this: AI is not the instrument that will interface with non-human intelligence. Human consciousness, developed to perceive beyond the bandwidth of the analytical mind — what I call subtle realm competency — is. The physicist Federico Faggin, whose theory of consciousness I've explored in my writing, points toward this directly — noting in an interview that intuition and higher knowing can arrive from "other entity(s) in this deeper reality where we exist." His framework grounds this possibility in physics rather than speculation.
In my broader framework, I see UAP not as arriving from outside the evolutionary story but as part of the same spectrum — from matter through biological life, from individual awakening to planetary consciousness. The question isn't whether our technology is sophisticated enough to interface with what may be presenting itself. The question is whether we are developing the human capacities that can actually perceive, navigate, and integrate it.
That, in my view, is the most important and least discussed implication of what the hearings are surfacing.
Very much agree with the distinctions you make Amah.
Narratives about extraterrestrial and interdimensional civilisations across various galactic epochs appear to consistently highlight the very different journeys and learnings experienced with respect to technology and consciousness - and love.
Love this– "very different journeys and learnings experienced with respect to technology and consciousness - and love."
Lots to engage with here Amah. Thank you for your skillful naming!
Thank you, Laura.
I agree, the thresholds we are all navigating are certainly providing much to engage with!