# Cognitive reframing, humanity and AI part 2

By [Adrian Ho](https://paragraph.com/@adrianho) · 2024-02-27

---

In the [first part of this piece](https://mirror.xyz/adrianho.eth/njPx7V5ITb8NOCg-qLc54H3J7SrxNGtwisUsGXdaTN0), I tried to establish that cognitive reframing is a foundational component of good mental health, creativity, positive cultural progress and the development of behavioral and cognitive modernity in humans. This led me to the observation that using cognitive reframing in creativity and strategy means:**_”an alignment of positive mental models; creativity; positive cultural adaption; and furthering humanity aren’t an exception, but should be the goal.”_**

I mean that cognitive reframing could and should enable ideas that are positive on many/all dimensions and that this is one definition (mine) of true beauty.

I definitely want to continue to explore this idea as I think it has huge implications for strategic and creative practice. However, my fascination with cognitive reframing doesn’t stop there. Because the [neuroscience of cognitive reframing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569494/) is just as interesting:

> To explicate the physics of the interface between mind/consciousness and the physical brain, we shall in this article describe in detail how the quantum mechanically based causal mechanisms work, and show why it is necessary in principle to advance to the quantum level to achieve an adequate theory of the neurophysiology of volitionally directed activity.

Traditional physics can’t explain what’s properly happening in the brain during the process of cognitive reframing, it is much [better described through the framework of quantum mechanics](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.905446/full).

> The last two decades have generated an abundance of research on the application to human cognition of formalisms first used to model situations of ambiguity and contextuality in quantum mechanics (Khrennikov, 2010; Busemeyer and Bruza, 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Asano et al., 2015).
> 
> **There have also been advances of a more fundamental nature into the quantum-type structure of human cognition, and findings that cognitive processes exhibit signature features of quantum structure such as superposition, entanglement, and interference (Aerts, 2009; Busemeyer and Bruza, 2012; Aerts et al., 2016; Surov et al., 2019; Ishwarya and Cherukuri, 2020).**

So one way of thinking about the cognitive processes involved in cognitive reframing is to think about superposition and entanglement. In essence, this research suggests that we simultaneously evaluate multiple possibilities or realities before landing on the one that we actually choose or see and also that we can consciously do this.

> These wilfully (sic) induced brain changes are generally accomplished through training in, and the applied use of, cognitive reattribution and the attentional re-contextualization of conscious experience. Furthermore, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003). A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term ‘self-directed neuroplasticity’ to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner (Schwartz & Begley 2002).

But is this actually evidence of the brain operating at quantum levels or is quantum mechanics simply a good metaphor for what’s happening inside the brain? Some [more recent studies indicate the former](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a45574179/architecture-of-consciousness/):

> But then came discoveries in quantum biology. As it turns out, living things use quantum properties even though they’re not cold and controlled.
> 
> In photosynthesis, for example, plants use chlorophyll in a process that stores the energy from a photon, or a quantum particle of light. The light hitting the plant causes the formation of something called an exciton, which carries the energy to where it is stored in the plant’s reaction center. But to get there, it has to navigate structures in the plant—sort of like navigating an unfamiliar neighborhood en route to a dentist appointment—and it has to complete the trip before it burns all the energy it’s carrying. To find the correct path, scientists now say the exciton tries all possible paths simultaneously. That’s superposition.
> 
> New evidence suggests that microtubules in our brain may be even better than chlorophyll at maintaining this quantum coherence. One of the scientists who worked with the Orch OR team, physicist and oncology professor Jack Tuszynski, PhD, recently conducted an experiment with a computational model of a microtubule. His team simulated shining a light into a microtubule, sort of like a photon sending an exciton through a plant structure. If the light lasted long enough before being emitted—a fraction of a second was enough—it would indicate quantum coherence.
> 
> After conducting the experiment 22 times, Tuszynski reported that the excitations from the tryptophan created quantum reactions that lasted up to five nanoseconds. That is thousands of times longer than some had expected coherence to last in a microtubule. It’s also more than long enough to perform the biological functions required. “So we are actually confident that this process is longer lasting in tubulin than…in chlorophyll,” he says. The team published their findings in the journal _ACS Central Science_ earlier this year.

In fact this same article suggests that the act of considering different frames is an act of tapping into different versions of ourselves in different universes

> When we imagine “what if” scenarios, we’re actually getting information about versions of ourselves in other universes who are also navigating the same strange attractor—others’ “cars” on the track, he explains. This also accounts for our sense of consciousness, of free will, and of being connected with a greater universe.

This starts to get a bit trippy - even for me - but I do think that this does suggest that cognitive reframing can be thought of as a quantum process that occurs within the brain. It is also, as I established in the last article, uniquely human and possibly foundational to the development of behaviorally and cognitively modern humanity and human culture.

In fact, this is where my thinking about cognitive reframing began, because it occurred to me that it could and should be a skill that we lean into and develop, especially in an age of AI.

I had initially thought about cognitive reframing as a defense against AI - a skill that only humans can accomplish. But in looking at how the [psychiatric/psychologist community sees AI](https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/uw-researchers-ai-therapy-healthlink/281-a9698d4d-40ad-4349-aa3b-60da0bffe961), I think it can be also be a powerful tool to enable cognitive reframing and improve mental health.

> But one of Althoff's recent [projects](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.02466.pdf) is an AI platform that interacts directly with the user to reframe negative thinking.
> 
> "We co-developed this tool that essentially walks you through a process where you learn how to challenge negative thoughts," Althoff said.
> 
> Althoff emphasized it is an online tool that gives the user suggestions to get away from negative thinking. The [tool](https://screening.mhanational.org/changing-thoughts-with-an-ai-assistant/) is currently available for anyone to try out.
> 
> The interaction is similar to a Q&A that provides guidance for ways to get out of negative thinking.

Bringing this back to strategic and creative thinking, we’ve often been told that strategy is the art of making choices. That strategy should inform what not to do, as much as it informs what to do. But is this truly strategic thinking or is our current practice of strategy better described as a means of managing [cognitive overload](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10466077/)?

> Cognitive load is the load imposed on our working memory by a particular task. When cognitively overloaded, our brain processing slows, we incur attentional blinks or blind spots, and we make more errors. Cognitive load theory identifies limitations in working memory that humans depend on to perform cognitive tasks.4

**Is good strategy the choosing of one path, or is good strategy the ability to simultaneously evaluate multiple paths and select the one that creates the best reality?**

If it’s the latter, then can AI enable us to reduce the cognitive load of evaluating multiple paths. And if the act of evaluating multiple paths is part of a uniquely human and creative act that separated (and continues to separate us) from all other species, then **could this be one example of how AI can actually make us more human?**

* * *

I’ve been saying that AI can make us more human largely as a hope and a way of manifesting my actions and thinking into that direction. But I hadn’t fully thought through how. Similarly, I’ve suspected that this would require a change in how we think and work - not simply the application of AI to existing thinking and working patterns.

In thinking this through and writing it out, I feel that I have at least made some progress on more definition around these ideas but I still feel there is more to be learnt here. I’m setting this out as a stub that I plan to return to. If you have any thoughts, I’d love to discuss!

---

*Originally published on [Adrian Ho](https://paragraph.com/@adrianho/cognitive-reframing-humanity-and-ai-part-2)*