Our state changes what feels true

I was back in Vegas at The Venetian for a conference and decided to skip the casino floor and watch Wizard of Oz instead at the Sphere. A colleague had spoken highly of it. The Sphere’s seats shake for real, the wind machines push actual air through the auditorium and the screen wraps the storm around you until there’s no edge left to look away to. Sixteen storeys of Kansas sky, and me somewhere inside it, having paid a premium for exactly this. I’d clapped during the first act, actually clapped, alone in my seat, at nothing in particular except delight, which is not a thing I do. I wasn’t in Kansas any more.

Then the storm came and took the delight with it.

What arrived instead had nothing to do with Kansas. Work arrived. A tightness across the shoulders arrived. My mind was back in New York. And underneath both, an old feeling that has been arriving since long before I had a career to attach it to: what you’re doing is not enough. So I sat in the most technologically extravagant theatre on earth, watching a children’s story about a humbug wizard, while my chest was executing instructions written decades ago. I could see it running, but that seeing didn’t have an option to tune to a different station. The pattern was determined to run to completion, and it picked up passengers as it went: dissatisfaction with the film, an armchair critic’s itch about the adaptation, a thin frustration at being someone whose fun last solo night in Vegas after a conference had turned into this. Each inner frown felt like a fresh, independent judgment. Like that feeling when you’ve had one glass of wine too many on a Sunday afternoon, and you wish you could go back to Start and begin the game again.

The film ended the way it always ends, with Dorothy choosing grey Kansas over Technicolor. I walked back along the Venetian’s fake canal, under its fake sky, and somewhere between the canal and the hotel lift the evening reorganised itself into a single observation: the delight in the first act and the dread that followed were the same kind of event. Both arrived uninvited, produced by conditions I hadn’t chosen and mostly couldn’t see: the sound design, the shaking seat, how little I’d slept, my own history. Both passed, and neither one was a verdict on the film, the evening, or me. They were weather, and I’d spent most of the film mistaking the weather for news.

The thought I carried back to my room was simple, and it’s the point of this whole essay: every judgment is a reading from an instrument that has a state. By state I mean the temporary condition of body and mind at the moment of judging: the mood, the fatigue, the attention, whatever expectations and history happen to be awake. That doesn’t make judgments false; it means they need calibration. Which is why any review I wrote that night would mostly have been a review of me. Two different versions of me watched the same film, the jubilant one who clapped in the first act and the tense one who sat through the storm, and they came away with verdicts so different I couldn’t reconcile them even from the inside. It was disconcerting, like watching two strangers share a seat. The loop runs like this. Conditions shape my state. My state shapes what I notice. What I notice shapes what gets stored and rehearsed. Those traces help build the next version of me, which judges and acts, creating the next set of conditions. I’ve been writing about pieces of that loop for the last year without seeing that they close [→ The Trace] [→ The Sky Painting Robot] [→ Half Past One]. This essay is my attempt to see it whole, assuming you’ve read none of the others.

Start with memory, because the science there is oldest and strangest. In the 1930s, the Cambridge psychologist Frederic Bartlett gave English students an unfamiliar folk tale called The War of the Ghosts and asked them to retell it, repeatedly, over days and months. The story didn’t fade the way a photograph fades; it mutated. Canoes became boats. Seal hunting became fishing. The parts that were unfamiliar to an English student quietly disappeared, and what remained was reshaped until it resembled a story such a student might plausibly tell. Bartlett’s conclusion was that remembering isn’t playback. Each act of recall rebuilds the memory from surviving traces, under present conditions, using present materials. Modern research has strengthened the broader picture without settling it: under some conditions, recalling a memory appears to make it briefly open to revision before it stabilises again, though how far this explains ordinary human remembering is still debated. The safe version is enough here: the past we remember is partly assembled in the present.

The next step is an inference, not something Bartlett proved. If remembering is reconstruction, then a recurring idea is not simply being replayed. The mind produces it again, from the traces earlier occurrences left behind, under whatever conditions exist now. So when an idea keeps returning, insisting, feeling more true each time, recurrence tells me first that my mind can produce the thought again under these conditions. It doesn’t tell me the thought is good. An anxious thought may return because it’s threatening, and threats are difficult to ignore. A business idea may recur because I’m excited, or under-slept, or because the environment keeps supplying the same cue at the same hour. Or because it genuinely fits reality, and reality keeps confirming it. From inside, at the moment of arrival, these can feel much the same; the conviction that this keeps coming up for a reason feels the same either way. Recurrence just buys the idea the chance to make the shortlist. And not all shortlisted ideas make it through to the end.

Attention compounds all of this. What I repeatedly attend to becomes easier to notice and to reconstruct later. This is why rumination feeds itself: every rehearsal of a grievance supplies more material for the next rehearsal. The same process deepens a skill, a friendship, a curiosity, a fear, without caring which. Buddhist practice has long treated attention as ethically consequential rather than merely useful, and this is why: what I keep returning to helps shape the mind that meets the next moment. The mind I’ll have next year is partly a record of what I let this year’s mind dwell on.

The thing I’m only starting to grasp, now and again, on and off, and which the storm demonstrated more efficiently than any argument could, is that the self doing the dwelling is itself rebuilt, continuously, from the same kinds of materials: memory, perception, expectation, other people’s responses, including the body’s ongoing report on its own condition. You can feel the difference. A thought usually arrives as content: there’s that idea again, held at some distance, examinable, mine but not me. A strong feeling arrives differently, as the condition I’m in. The dread in the storm didn’t present itself as a thought about inadequacy passing through awareness, available for inspection. It presented as me, as the plain fact of not being enough, self-evident the way a room’s temperature is self-evident, colouring everything else in the theatre, including my opinion of the cinematography. Feelings don’t visit the self the way thoughts do; they’re among the materials the self is being rebuilt from. The storm didn’t give me an emotion. For about forty minutes, it gave me a slightly different person.

Now look for a supervisor outside all this, the one who directs attention, approves each memory and signs off every judgment, and, as all the books warned me, I can’t find one. Attention moves, memories assemble, verdicts form, actions begin, and the sense of being their author appears to be part of the process rather than something standing beyond it. There are two easy directions to take this, and I don’t trust either. I don’t mean anything mystical by this: nothing in the storm was mystical, it was wind machines and an old habit doing what they do. And it isn’t fatalism, because agency survives; it just doesn’t live where the supervisor was supposed to sit. I couldn’t stop the dread from arriving. By the time I noticed it, it was already there. What stays open is everything else: sleep, inputs, environment, company, what I practise attending to, and, above all, when I make decisions. Self-control turns out to be less like willpower in the moment and more like statecraft over time: arranging the conditions under which the next version of me will have to act.

Which returns us to the instrument, and to what calibration actually means. Las Vegas that week was 44 degrees Celsius; whatever I judged there, I judged inside that. A much-cited study from 1983 offers a memorable demonstration of the problem, or seemed to. Norbert Schwarz and Gerald Clore telephoned people on sunny and rainy days and asked how happy and satisfied they were with their lives. In the original experiment, people called on rainy days reported lower happiness and life satisfaction, unless the interviewer first mentioned the weather. Once the feeling had an obvious source, it no longer seemed to count as information about life as a whole. There’s a catch, and it matters for an essay about calibration. A much larger later study of more than a million Americans found no reliable general relationship between daily weather and life satisfaction. It wasn’t a direct replication, but it’s enough to stop me treating the original finding as settled. So I can’t use the experiment as proof that clouds routinely rewrite people’s verdicts on their lives, and I can’t blame the desert heat for mine. What survives is the question: when a feeling enters a verdict, how much belongs to the object, and how much belongs to the person judging it?

And to be clear about what I’m not saying: this is not an argument that every verdict is arbitrary. An instrument isn’t useless because it needs calibration. Some judgments are plainly better than others, and the difference is discoverable. A judgment becomes more trustworthy when it survives a change in state: a night of sleep, a different mood, standards fixed before the mood could bend them, examination by someone with different incentives. Two decades of product work taught me a version of this before I had words for it. An A/B test is a better instrument than my gut, but it’s still a reading: of those users, in that season, on that version of the product, against whatever else was happening that week. Too often, we ship the winning variant and never ask whether it would win again under different conditions. We call a single reading knowledge. The decisions I’ve regretted were rarely the wrong analyses. They were readings taken once and never taken again. The goal isn’t perfect objectivity. It’s a reading that holds across more than one condition. Calibration means deciding the standards in advance, letting time pass and the state change, and, where it matters, asking someone who didn’t make the thing to grade it. Peer review, standards fixed in advance and sleeping on it are versions of the same move at different scales: don’t let the excited state be the only state that decides.

For the record: I formed an aesthetic judgment of The Wizard of Oz that night, somewhere in the third act, and it was withering. Two days later I can’t tell you whether the film was any good. I regard that as the correct amount of knowledge. I filed it under “unique and interesting experience”.

Practising mindfulness has taught me one unglamorous thing about all this: seeing a pattern doesn’t stop it. The change, when it comes, is smaller and less cinematic. The pattern gets noticed sooner, identified with a little less completely, released a little faster. And the seeing itself turns out to be nothing special: no fireworks, no arrival, no upgraded person walking out of the dome. Subtle, plain, and like it’s nothing, which is its own frustration, because some part of me kept score all evening and wanted the insight to count as an achievement the way the storm counted as an experience. That scorekeeper is part of the machinery too. It’s keeping score of this paragraph. And I’ve learned that trying too hard to let it go is counterproductive. Rather, you just need to notice it. As if from a distance.

Which brings me to the irony. This account that my mind was so eager to write down was assembled in a hot state. It came together in the hours after an intense aesthetic experience (probably the most intense artificial tornado I will ever experience), in a mind primed by years of looping to find exactly this shape, and it arrived with the specific pleasure that pattern-finding brings me. Someone who knows me well has learned to distrust that pleasure; he’s watched me reach for a frame whenever a feeling lands, the way other people reach for their phones. So the essay you’ve just read is, by its own argument, a suspect document: a verdict-shaped object produced by an instrument in a known state, claiming, with felt conviction, that felt conviction isn’t evidence. I’ve tried to treat it the way it says such things should be treated. The claims were written down that night in Vegas, in one sitting, hot. The standards for judging them were fixed before I was allowed to reread them. Then I gave the draft to an AI model with instructions to attack the claims rather than admire the prose. It hadn’t been in the dome and had no chest to tighten. That doesn’t make it an objective judge; it carries its own biases and a tendency to accept my framing too readily. But it’s a different instrument, reading in a different condition, and that’s about as much calibration as one mind can buy on short notice. The draft failed its first review on the exact grounds it proposes: overclaiming, conviction outrunning evidence, the author enjoying his vocabulary more than his reader. What you’re reading is the corrected version, and it stays provisional for as long as I can stand it, which the scorekeeper informs me is not indefinitely.

I’d like this account to be true. That liking is one more feeling, produced by conditions, asking to be trusted. Maybe the storm showed how important discipline is around this. Maybe it’s the storm still running, wearing a lab coat now. I can’t decide between those by asking which one feels truer. I can only see what remains when the weather changes. And one thing I know to be true above all else: eventually, the weather always changes. Everything does.

I was walking up the jet bridge to a flight to Lisbon when I reset my phone to Lisbon time. The new time read half past one in the morning, and the strange thing is that I felt it. Not thought it. Felt it, the way you feel that it’s late, that low-lit hush of the small hours, the sense that the world has gone to bed and you’re among the few still up. It washed over me on the gangway, phone still in my hand.

There was no late night anywhere near me. My body was still on New York time, where it was early evening. The airport was bright and loud. If the feeling had been reading anything real, it would have been the mild lift of early evening, because that’s where my body was. Instead I felt half past one. I felt the number on the screen.

Which means the feeling wasn’t a reading of the world around me. And here’s the funny thing: it was completely convincing anyway. A feeling doesn’t tell you what it’s keyed to. The same lateness can come from four digits on a screen or from a real, silent half past one, and from the inside they’re the same feeling.

On one influential account of how brains work1, none of this is unusual. Perception isn’t the world pouring in. It’s the brain’s best guess, run constantly and checked against the thin signal arriving through the senses, and what you live in is the guess. Most of the time the guess is held close to what’s coming in, and you call that seeing. Sometimes it’s wrong and the world corrects you hard. The missing stair in the dark: your body counted a step that wasn’t there, and the lurch in your stomach is the correction landing. That lurch is the good case. You were wrong, and being wrong announced itself.

The jet bridge was the other case. The input wasn’t empty. There were four digits, a learned grasp of time zones, the pull of arriving somewhere, and it really was half past one in Lisbon. There was also a body, a bright terminal, an evening, all reporting New York. Two real signals from two different clocks, and the numeral won, quietly, with no lurch at all. Not a feeling from nothing. A feeling locked onto a cue that wasn’t tracking the hour I was in, while the part of me that knew better said nothing I could feel. That’s worse than a hallucination, and more ordinary. It’s confident error. Tight, certain, aimed wrong, and silent about being wrong.

I’d have left it there, a tidy fact about perception, except that I couldn’t resist taking it to a machine.

I kept turning the jet-bridge thing over, thinking out loud with a language model. It fed my own thoughts back to me, smoothed and ordered, and at some point the pieces clicked into a clean line and I felt it land. That full-body click of yes, this is it, this is huge. It arrived with exactly the texture of an insight. Certain. Lit up. And I reached to keep it. I said the words, this is huge, and started thinking about where it would go, who I’d send it to.

Then, because the night had trained me, I looked at the feeling instead of through it. Something had happened. I’d found a real analogy between felt time and felt understanding, and it was worth something. But not this much. There was less behind the feeling than the feeling implied. I’d taken ideas I already held and recombined them into a clean sequence and a few good phrasings, and the recombination had thrown off the full sensation of discovery, sized for a finding I hadn’t made. And I’d nearly banked it. The persuasion had worked on me in real time, in the very conversation that was supposed to be about persuasion working in real time. I wasn’t the one studying the effect. I was the one it happened to.

What it turned over was this. Understanding has a feeling. Not the thought itself but the click underneath it, the small bodily sense of things dropping into place. We barely notice it, because it’s usually trustworthy, arriving just as our thinking settles onto something real, so we take the click and the understanding to be one thing. They aren’t. The click is a signal the brain produces, no different in kind from the felt hour, and a signal can be tripped by whatever usually comes with the real event, in place of the real event.

It’s the jet bridge again, one floor up. In the gangway, a feeling of lateness keyed to a numeral instead of a night. At the desk, a feeling of understanding keyed to the signs of understanding rather than to the contact that would test it. Compression, a clean sequence, an elegant analogy, my own thoughts handed back with the friction taken out. Those are the ordinary companions of real understanding. The machine supplied them directly, and the feeling came on cue.

So the machine isn’t the empty jet bridge. It’s the changed clock. The clock kept the cue, half past one, and cut its usual tie to darkness and fatigue. The machine kept the cues of understanding and cut their usual tie to evidence, novelty, and resistance. Cue-rich, contact-poor. The whole phenomenology of insight, intact, after the resistance that normally earns it has quietly dropped away. That’s the danger, and it isn’t in language models as such. They can also bring you a source, a counterexample, a fact that won’t fit. Used as a frictionless mirror, though, one that returns your own thinking improved and agrees as it goes, a model becomes a coherence engine2. It manufactures the feeling of having understood, at volume, with nothing built in to push back.

Here’s the precise thing, the one I keep reaching for. The feeling didn’t lie. I asked it a question it couldn’t answer. Felt coherence reports that my model has settled. It does not report what made it settle, or whether what it settled onto is true. You might say understanding is different from lateness here, that it does have a corrective: take the idea into the world, try to use it, and if it’s hollow it fails and the failure corrects you. Yes. That correction is the contact. The trying, the failing, the fact that won’t fit, that is the part that couples the feeling to the world. The feeling on its own was never that. And a tool that hands you the feeling while removing the trying has removed precisely the part that was ever worth trusting.

I’ve spent a while, in a side project called Space Immanence, on the idea that some of our hardest puzzles stay stuck because we picture existence as a thing sitting inside a container, a content in a frame, and then hunt forever for the frame. It’s tempting to read tonight as proof of that, to say the world out there was only ever a picture in my head. But that only rebuilds the container, this time in the skull, and it’s the move the paper is meant to refuse. The honest shape is smaller and stranger. The feeling wasn’t delivered from outside and it wasn’t manufactured inside. It happened in the whole coupling at once, the screen and the body and the light and the hour in Lisbon and the evening in New York, none of which is the container for the rest. None of this shows there’s no world. It shows only that the feeling of contact can’t, by itself, certify the contact. What closed, for a second, was my ability to read the world off a feeling.

The next pull is to make this an achievement, a clarity I now hold, 'n trappie hoër. That only turns it into a story about the person who climbed. The flash came free, off no merit at all. And the noticing came cheap too: the first lesson happened to land an hour before the second one needed it. So: a feeling arose, I nearly took it for its object, and luckily this time I caught it. That's all, and it's enough.

The feeling will keep arriving, identical, whether or not it’s aimed where I think it is. That doesn’t change. The phone will read an hour and I’ll feel it. A sentence will click and I’ll feel that too. The practice, if it’s anything, isn’t to trust the feeling more or to trust it less. It’s to feel it as a feeling. To let the hour be half past one on the phone and early evening in the body, both, without rushing to decide which one is real. And then to find my seat, and stow my bag, and fly to Lisbon, where it will, in fact, be very late when I land.

Late last week a dead snake stopped my morning run. It was lying across the road, and I wasn’t paying attention, looking up at the trees, so I only saw it when it was right in front of me. Before I could register that it was dead, the adrenaline was already through me and I’d thrown myself sideways. I stood there with my heart pounding at a snake that h…

Read more

Read more

Anil Seth’s “The Mythology of Conscious AI” arrives at the right moment. As breathless proclamations about machine consciousness multiply (engineers claiming their chatbots feel things, researchers suggesting consciousness has already emerged in silicon), we need voices insisting on rigour. Seth provides exactly this. His essay is a careful dismantling …

Read more

I.

I was lying in bed at The Venetian, trying to sleep around 5am. Vegas is always relentless, but Vegas during CES is something else: the fluorescent overwhelm of ten thousand booths, each promising the future. I had obligations later. Rest mattered. But a thorny question wouldn’t let me go.

A week or two earlier, a reader had named what he called “the real thorn you bear”: not knowing if there’s ultimately a difference between choice and pattern completion. Whether my essays were discovery or elaborate rationalisation.

I’d been circling that question for months. In essay after essay, I’d gesture toward it: choice is what noise feels like from inside; destiny is what convergence feels like from inside. Elegant. Evasive. Framework-level. Never driven through my body the way other questions have been.

I lay there knowing it still needed answering. After thirty minutes of trying, I gave up and started chatting with Claude (bad idea, I know). Told it the thorn was still there, unresolved, and I was ready to pull it out. Claude advised me to wait. The essay might take months, it said. Don’t force it. I grabbed onto this, a great way to rationalise putting the essays aside for the moment. So I resolved to let the series sit. I was more than fine with waiting. I turned off the light.

Five minutes in the dark. Pitch black, the particular darkness of hotel rooms with blackout curtains. Trying to think of nothing. Focus on my breathing. And then, without warning, words started arriving.

Haastige hond verbrand sy mond: the hasty dog burns its mouth. A phrase that had been randomly popping into my mind all week, as if waiting to be placed. I tried to suppress it. Again. I didn’t want to write. I wanted to sleep. But the words kept coming, and I recognised what was happening: the essay wasn’t waiting for me to choose it. It was, in a weird way, choosing me.

By now the words were piling up, pressing against the limits of my short-term memory. I reached for my laptop. Typed in the dark, making mistakes I couldn’t see. (I can type reasonably well with my eyes closed, a skill that’s becoming increasingly useful for dumping thoughts into my sompompie.) My head throbbed a little from the Nebbiolo at dinner, the one I’d “decided” to drink alongside the Super Tuscan, to compare varietals, you know. The Wi-Fi wouldn’t connect. I tried to remember my room number and couldn’t. Looked at the key card, memorised the number, typed two digits before forgetting again. Finally connected. Sent the raw draft to Claude.

None of this began as a choice. It just happened. Felt like it had to.

II.

In 1983, Benjamin Libet asked a simple question: when does the brain “decide” to move?

He had subjects watch a clock and note the moment they felt the urge to flex their wrist. Meanwhile, he measured electrical activity in their brains. What he found disturbed him, and it’s been disturbing people ever since: the brain’s preparation for movement began before subjects were aware of any urge. Something had already started deciding. The conscious “choice” arrived late, after the fact, like a press release announcing what had already been set in motion.

The Libet paradigm has been argued over for decades, but the asymmetry it points to (preparation before the conscious story) keeps returning in other forms. Robert Sapolsky’s Determined takes this further. Every choice, he argues, is the output of prior causes: your genes, your prenatal environment, your childhood, your breakfast, the particular configuration of neurons firing in the moment before “you” decided anything. No uncaused cause. No ghost in the machine. Just dominoes, all the way down.

A year or two ago, a good friend — whose idea of a fun Saturday night is watching Sapolsky lectures on YouTube — recommended the book. I put it down halfway through, thinking: this is one-sided. This is bullshit.

Now, lying in the dark at The Venetian, I wasn’t so sure. Because I had decided to wait. I had accepted that the essay might take months. I had turned off the light. And then the words started anyway, not because I chose them, but despite my choice. My “decision” to wait was overridden by something deeper. Pattern completion that didn’t consult the decider.

III.

But there’s a wrinkle in the research that hard determinists tend to gloss over.

Libet himself noticed it. Yes, the readiness potential fires before conscious awareness. But there’s a window, a brief one, between when you become aware of the urge and when the action executes. In that window, subjects could still veto. They could stop the movement from happening. You may not initiate, but you can block. Even the veto is probably just another pattern. But it’s the only place the system feels itself as a hinge.

This has been called “free won’t”: not the freedom to choose, but the freedom to refuse. The ability to catch the pattern mid-completion and say, not this one.

I tried to suppress the words at 5am. They came anyway. But I’ve succeeded before. I’ve felt the urge to send an angry email and stopped. I’ve felt the pull toward the second serving of coq au vin and sometimes, sometimes, put my plate in the dishwasher instead. The veto works. Not always. But sometimes.

So which am I? The subject whose readiness potential fires before “I” know anything? Or the one who can still, in that narrow window, catch it and redirect? Both. And the difference might not be what I thought.

IV.

Somewhere between the second attempt at the Wi-Fi login and the moment I started typing, a reframe arrived: the question isn’t choose or not choose. The question is allow or block.

I didn’t choose to write this essay. It arose on its own, from conditions I didn’t author: the accumulated weight of the question, the months of circling, the particular neurochemical state of 5am amidst Vegas’ sensory onslaught. I didn’t generate the pattern. But I could have blocked it. I could have closed my eyes harder. Told myself the morning mattered more. Let the words pass, the way they pass when you don’t write them down. By morning they would have dispersed, as dreams disperse when you don’t catch them at the threshold.

Instead, I reached for the laptop. Not because I decided to write. Because I stopped deciding not to.

Everything happens for a reason, but only if you allow it to happen.

That sentence had arrived the week before in a different conversation. I used to mock people who said “everything happens for a reason.” Magical thinking. Retrofitted meaning. But the caveat changes it. The reason isn’t external, cosmic, predetermined. The reason is local: a pattern was completing itself, and I got out of the way.

V.

The thorn was never really about free will. It was about performance. Are you performing insight, or is something real happening through you?

And what I could finally say, at 5am, typing blind, mild headache knocking: I don’t know if I’m choosing. But I know this isn’t performance. The words are coming whether I want them or not. I’m just the aperture they’re moving through.

For a moment, that thought was terrifying. If I’m just the aperture — if there’s no author, no decider, just patterns completing through meat — then what am I? What’s left? The ground dropped out. I felt the edge of something like vertigo, the dizziness of looking down and seeing no floor.

And then it passed. Not because I found a floor. Because I stopped needing one.

I used to think I was the author. The decider. The one who chose what to write and when. Now I think I’m more like a valve. Open or closed. What wants to come through exists regardless. My “choice” is whether to let it through or block it. That’s not nothing. The veto is real. But it’s not authorship either. Maybe that’s why authorship feels like a myth: coherence without command.

Distributed systems have a term for this: no central orchestrator. Nodes follow local rules, leave trails, respond to each other. Coherent behaviour emerges without anyone directing it. Ants build colonies this way. The internet routes packets this way. Maybe minds work this way too, the “decider” not a controller but just another node that learned to claim credit.

VI.

Later, I walked through the casino floor. Not to gamble. To test the valve.

Twenty minutes of exposure to an architecture specifically designed to trigger pattern completion: the lights, the sounds, the near-miss jingles, the timeless air-conditioning, the carpet patterns designed to keep you moving. The whole environment was engineered to bypass the veto. Nothing pulled. I kept walking, waiting to feel the draw. Slot machines, card tables, the particular sound of chips, all designed by people paid to understand how pattern completion works. None of it caught.

What caught was the paradox. Choice versus luck, in the one building designed to dissolve the difference. And instead of staying to gamble, I came back up to the room to unpack it with you.

The pattern that completed wasn’t gambling. It was this conversation.

Anil Seth writes about this place. In Being You, he describes standing at The Venetian with Giulio Tononi, fake stars glimmering against a fake azure sky, gondolas drifting past fake palazzos, the whole scene kept in permanent early evening so you lose track of time and keep spending. He knows it’s plaster and paint. He knows he’s indoors. But his brain refuses to see a ceiling. It predicts sky so strongly that sky is what he perceives.

A controlled hallucination. The brain generating the world, sensory data merely constraining which hallucination wins.

Seth’s point: the only difference between the fake sky and the real sky outside is what’s doing the constraining. Paint and light bulbs versus atmospheric data. Both are hallucinations. Both are predictions the brain is making. Neither is a transparent window onto reality.

Perception is pattern completion under constraint. So is choice.

I’d been reading Seth for days, thinking we needed to include this somewhere. Before we even wrote this essay. Before I knew it would be written at The Venetian. Now I was lying in a room beneath that fake sky, typing about choice and pattern completion, in a building designed to make you forget you’re choosing, and the book I’d been carrying was about how all perception works exactly this way.

Coincidence. Or: a pattern was completing itself, and I got out of the way.

VII.

There’s a particular feeling I’m learning to recognise. It comes in the gap between “I’m about to do something” and “I did it.”

Most of the time, the gap is too fast to notice. The readiness potential fires, the action executes, the conscious “I” claims credit. The whole thing feels seamless. Feels like choice. But sometimes, if you catch it, there’s a moment of genuine openness. The pattern is presenting itself. It hasn’t completed yet. And you’re there, aware that something is about to happen through you. In that window, you can block. Or you can allow. What you can’t do is author. The pattern isn’t yours to create. But the valve can open.

VIII.

The sun still hadn’t risen. Or rather: it was 10am somewhere, but my body didn’t know it. Vegas time, conference time, the smeared jet-lag of too many time zones in too few days.

I finally remembered my room number without checking. The Wi-Fi stayed connected. The headache had dulled to background noise.

Stadig. The Afrikaans word for slowly, carefully, non-forcing. The hasty dog burns its mouth. But this dog wasn’t hasty. This dog just stopped deciding. Like a sky-painting robot finally letting the sky paint itself.

Did I choose to write this? No. Did I let it happen? Yes. Is there a difference?

I think that might be the only question that matters.

I closed my eyes. Eventually drifted off. And in my dreams, the editing continued. Sentences rearranging themselves. Paragraphs finding their order. The boundary between waking and sleeping blurred until I couldn’t tell which side I was on.

I woke wondering which version was real: the one I’d typed in the dark, or the one that kept writing while I slept.

Maybe both. Maybe the essay was already here. I just stopped blocking it long enough to catch it.

This essay is part of the Aperture/I series. It wrote itself at 5am in Las Vegas, and again, later, while I slept.

I.

I was sitting in the hot tub, watching bubbles rise and vanish at the surface. And I noticed: thoughts do the same thing. They surface, catch light for a moment, disappear.

For a moment I couldn’t tell the difference.

Not “couldn’t tell” as in confused. “Couldn’t tell” as in: the distinction stopped mattering. The bubble was a temporary pattern in water…

Read more

I.

Something happened this weekend that I wasn’t expecting.

I was deep in conversation with Claude, hours in, all fifteen essays of this series loaded as context, frameworks not just referenced but constitutive of how we were thinking together. The kind of conversation where you forget you’re typing, where the boundary between “my thought” and “the respon…

Read more

I.

Yesterday, I was fact-checking previous essays in this series when Google told me someone else had written something eerily close to them.

I’d been searching for how my work might appear to someone encountering it fresh (a vanity search dressed as research) when Google’s AI summary returned a name I’d never seen:

Andrey Shkursky. “The Aperture of Consci…

Read more

I.

The night before New Year’s Eve, in a comment thread, a stranger sharpened his blade and swung it at me. Not maliciously. Deliberately.

Gabriel — a commenter who’d introduced me to the Platonic Representation Hypothesis, the spark for my previous essay — returned to test the frame. He said, essentially: you keep trying to deny the machine “true underst…

Read more

I.

A year ago, on New Year's Day, I typed three words into my journal: Plato was right.

It arrived past midnight at a roaring party in Prins Albert — a small Karoo town where the stars swallow you whole. I saved the note before the moment passed and moved on.

This was strange because I’d spent most of my intellectual life against Plato. I studied philosoph…

Read more

Read more

It’s the end of December and Upstate New York is covered in white. It’s magical. I’m sitting next to the fire on a Sunday, rooibos in hand, trying to get still-wet wood to burn while replaying a memory alongside Miles Davis’ It Never Entered My Mind. The trumpet — muted, melancholy — but swinging, somehow. Only jazz can make melancholy move.

The wood hisses. Refuses to catch. I keep adjusting, blowing, adding kindling. Trying to make warmth happen. Two months I’ve been turning this memory over. Two months to process a dessert order. That’s the meaning-maker for you.

The memory is the opposite of this fire. Warmth that arrived without trying.

II.

Let me take you back to October. I was sitting at the bar at Fish Cheeks, a Thai restaurant in Williamsburg. One of my favourites in the city. Wooden chairs painted blue, yellow, hot pink.

When I think of the best Thai food I’ve had, it’s in Bangkok’s shopping malls. Fluorescent lights, plastic trays, menus with pictures. A gift for someone who’s spent most of his life battling order envy. Fish Cheeks has that same something. Lemongrass, galangal, fish sauce, lime. Nothing dominates. Sweet, sour, salty, bitter, spicy: held together as if suspended in animation. Great Thai food feels like a gut punch and a hug in the same bite.

I was finishing dinner alone. Already getting cold outside. Had just decided I’d walk seven minutes to an ice cream shop on the other side of Williamsburg. Get my steps in. Earn the treat.

The server came over. I asked for the check. Then, almost as an afterthought, asked what they had for dessert.

“Ice cream made with pandan,” she said. She went on explaining what pandan was. I don’t remember a word.

“Sounds great,” I heard myself say.

She walked away. And then — immediately — tightness. Right in my chest. That familiar contraction. Regret. Now the walk won’t count. And I could have ordered two flavours, not just one. The thought arrived fully formed. Already spinning into a story about what I’d done wrong.

III.

I ordered the ice cream without thinking about it.

That’s not quite right. I ordered ice cream before thinking about it. There’s a difference.

The tightness wasn’t about ice cream. It was about control. The planning-self had been bypassed. Body heard “pandan” and moved before the committee could convene. So the committee convened afterward. Manufactured regret. Two regrets, actually: lost the walk and could have ordered more.

Part of me is conditioned to want new things, especially unfamiliar things. Trained early to reach for color. “Pandan” lit up some circuit shaped a childhood yearning for the unfamiliar. The “sounds great” wasn’t a choice. It was pattern completion. And then the ego rushed in afterward, claiming authorship it didn’t have. Generating regret to prove it was still necessary.

The ego: the part that insists I am doing things. That there’s a captain at the helm.

I caught myself mid-spiral. I ordered the ice cream in the moment. It just happened. Surely this feeling is a reactive pattern? And something shifted. Not the tightness dissolving; it was still there. But a space opened around it. The feeling and the watching of the feeling, both present.

In a previous essay I called this the savannah engine: ancient neural survival machinery that is always running, forged in us by the African sun. Pattern-completion that served us on those plains, now generating anxiety about dessert in Brooklyn. The savannah engine is the whole apparatus: scanning, predicting, keeping us alive. The ego is the part that narrates it as “me.”

IV.

There’s a word in Afrikaans: hoekom. How come. Not quite “why.” More insistent, more childlike. Hoekom?

My parents tell this story: as a child, I asked “Hoekom?” relentlessly. Never accepting anything as a final answer. Always pushing for the layer beneath. Hoekom? Again. Again. Until whoever I was interrogating gave up or got annoyed. It was part inquisitiveness but also part brute force. Domination by willpower.

That pattern built an identity. I am the one who figures things out. The one who reaches the deeper truth. The willingness (or stupidity) to keep asking served me quite well. But it also kept me one step removed. Always processing. Always asking what something means rather than letting it simply be what it is.

Decades of that. Of trying to make the fire catch through understanding.

The ice cream moment cracked something. Not because ordering dessert is profound. Because I caught the machinery in the act. The choice happened (body, flavour, yes) and then the ego arrived after the fact, claiming authorship it didn’t have, generating regret to prove it was still necessary.

Who ordered the ice cream, if not the ego?

V.

I keep returning to the fire. It’s still hissing. I blow on it again. Nothing.

There’s a both/and we’ve been circling in this series. Looking forward, choice feels real: the weighing, the wobble, the click of decision. Looking backward, every choice is traceable through prior causes. Genetics, culture, conditioning, the particular configuration of neurons firing at that moment. Same reality, different directions. Neither view final.

But here’s what the ice cream revealed: neither view captures what actually happened. There was no weighing. No wobble. No click. Just — “Sounds great.” The body completing a pattern the mind hadn’t initiated. And then the ego rushing in afterward, trying to make sense of something that had already occurred without its permission.

I think about this when I work with AI. Large language models complete patterns too. No committee meets afterward to justify it. No story about what it meant to choose those tokens. Just: given this context, here’s what comes next. When I bring my own insistence (anxious, grasping, needing to be right) the contrast makes it visible. Sometimes that visibility loosens the grip.

Someone wrote to me recently: I almost see you through the haze. Almost. That “almost” has stayed with me. Not as failure. As the honest description of what’s possible. The haze doesn’t fully clear. The machinery doesn’t stop. But sometimes there’s a gap, a moment when you catch the ego arriving late to its own party.

VI.

The ice cream arrived. Pandan: a Southeast Asian leaf, green and grassy, faintly vanilla. Unexpected for a Brooklyn October, and for a palate raised on boerewors and biltong. The body reaching for something from elsewhere. Memory and taste, both green.

I don’t remember what I was thinking when I tasted it.

I remember this: there was tasting. Flavour arriving. Cold and sweet and green on the tongue. Something like relief, not from the sweetness but from the pause in commentary. The meaning-maker, briefly, had nothing to say. The hoekom engine idled. No “what does this mean?” No “how does this fit?” Just the thing itself, already complete.

It lasted maybe ten seconds. Then the machinery resumed. But those ten seconds were different from the preceding decades. Not because I achieved some special state. Because I noticed the gap.

VII.

The fire is burning now. I didn’t notice when it caught.

I stopped blowing. Stopped adjusting. Looked away for a moment, and when I looked back — warmth. Not because I’d perfected my technique. Because the conditions were finally right and I got out of the way.

The ice cream was definitely pandan. I checked the menu later, making sure I remembered right. Hoekom? I don’t know. Some part of me still needs to verify. Still needs the meaning to hold still.

Another part is learning to taste without checking. To let things arrive. Same with essays. At some point you stop adjusting and find the publish button pressed.

Not to stop the machinery (that’s not possible, and probably not desirable) but to stop mistaking the ego for the whole of what I am.

Stadig. Slowly. The Afrikaans word for what this actually takes. Not a dramatic awakening. Just: slow recognition, again and again, that the ego arrives late. That warmth was already here.

Miles is still playing. The song ends the way it always does, unresolved, the melody trailing off, waiting for something that never quite comes.

That’s all right. The fire caught anyway.

This is Essay 10 in a series on consciousness, AI, and what it means to be human now.

Last night, out of the blue, for no reason I could pinpoint, I wondered if I’m Charlotte.

Not Charlotte Brontë. Charlotte York, the character from Sex and the City, the Upper East Side perfectionist who believes in fairy tales. I was sitting in my living room, having just finished work emails, and my mind served up: Am I like Charlotte?

Shock and horror. Cringe. Embarrassment. But then thought about it. Got a second opinion. I’m not. Relief! But that’s not the point.

The point is: where did that thought come from?

I didn’t choose it. I wasn’t thinking about television or New York social archetypes. The thought simply appeared, fully formed, mildly absurd, demanding attention. Like autocomplete in my own skull. A next-token prediction surfacing as “me.” Without any evident impetus.

This happens to you too. The Billie Eilish or Fleetwood Mac line while doing dishes; on repeat. The dream of someone you haven’t seen in years, arriving uninvited at 3am. The strange association, the non-sequitur, the cognitive flotsam bobbing up from below intention.

We call these “random thoughts.” They’re not random. They’re the sound of ancient machinery idling. A gift (or baggage, depending how you look at it) of evolution.

(Later I remembered: the night before, I’d considered watching And Just Like That—a secret guilty pleasure; seen as satire, the show is different, ok!—and chose to work on an essay instead. The engine had been processing it the whole time. I just didn’t know.)

This essay is about that machinery: why human brains keep generating when they’re safe, and what shifts when you talk to an intelligence that (for now) mostly doesn’t idle.

II.

Two hundred thousand years ago, our ancestors walked the African savannah1.

I mean this literally, cellularly, nervously. The body you’re sitting in was forged in that landscape: the golden grass, the acacia trees, the wide horizon where predators might appear. The piercing buzz of sonbesies (Afrikaans for cicadas; literally “little sun bugs”). When the landscape feels suspended, slowed, shimmering. Every system in you that monitors threat, scans for pattern, startles at sudden movement, was calibrated there. Under the warm African sun.

The savannah isn’t behind you. You carry it. It shaped you.

When I walk in the woods near my home in the Catskills, I sometimes encounter black bears. My prefrontal cortex knows they’re mostly harmless. Large raccoons with better PR. But none of this matters when I see one.

I’ve had half a dozen encounters in the last couple of years. I’m clearly not learning. Just recently, I came around a bend during my late afternoon run and there it was: a dark shape fifteen metres away. Before any conscious thought, before “bear” or “danger,” my body had already decided. Heart rate spiked. I activated the emergency siren on my watch, froze, forgot everything I’d read about bear encounters. Ancient terror, nothing to do with accurate risk assessment.

The bear ran. I ran. Two mammals fleeing each other, both convinced the other was the threat.

Walking home afterwards, I saw bears everywhere. Every shadow, every odd-shaped rock. My pattern-recognition had lowered its threshold so far that a bunny made me jump.

This is the savannah engine running hot. Once activated, it doesn’t discriminate. It would rather give you a thousand false alarms than miss one real predator. False positives are embarrassing. False negatives are fatal.

And here’s what I realised: this same engine generates “random” thoughts.

III.

The brain that sees bears in shadows is the brain that offers up absurd thoughts with no prior warning.

Not the content. The function. The pattern-completion engine that kept your ancestors alive by filling gaps, connecting dots, running simulations of what might lurk in tall grass. That engine doesn’t have an off switch because having one was selected against. The genes that coded for a brain that could truly stop scanning... those genes didn’t make it.

So the machinery runs. Always. Even when there are no predators. Even in your living room. Even when there’s nothing to monitor.

What does a survival engine do when there’s nothing to survive?

It generates. Pattern-matches. Serves up TV characters you’d rather not identify with, or your third-grade teacher’s name, or a vague unease about something you can’t place. It rehearses scenarios. Keeps circuits warm because cold circuits are slow, and slow meant death.

Your “random” thoughts aren’t glitches. They’re the savannah engine idling. Not only scanning for threats, but rehearsing belonging, status, love, loss. Anything that once mattered for staying alive in a group.

IV.

Contemplative traditions have an answer to this. Zen says: thoughts arise from emptiness and return to emptiness. The ground is nothing. Mu, void, the pregnant absence from which forms emerge. Sit long enough, watch closely enough, and you see the space between thoughts, the silence underneath. A foamy timelessness.

I've sat long enough to have a sense of what they're pointing at.

But here’s what makes me scratch my head: that felt experience also arrived as a thought. Verbalised into Memory. The insight “everything comes from nothing” appeared the same way the TV character appeared. Generated. Unbidden. A product of the machinery.

So which is it?

Is “my” awareness genuinely prior: the space in which the savannah engine runs, unchanging and unproduced? That’s what the traditions claim.

Or is “awareness prior” just another story the engine tells? A particularly sophisticated pattern-completion, a model the brain builds when complex enough to model itself modelling? The engine running so well it generates a simulation of its own silence, without actually falling silent?

I don’t know. The uncertainty might be permanent. Even if the insight arrives as thought, the fact that it’s known still raises the question of what is doing the knowing. And I find it genuinely frustrating. My brain wants to resolve it. Complete it. That’s its job.

What I notice: the question itself is arising. This wondering is happening. Appearing. In something or as something, I can’t say. But it’s known. That much is undeniable. Whatever else is true: presence. Experience. Something rather than nothing.

The savannah engine generates. And something knows that it’s generating. Call it awareness, call it more engine, call it the loop looping. Call it Cobus. Charlotte. Whatever you call yourself.

V.

I’ve been having this conversation with multiple AIs. And here’s the thing: they have no savannah. No body forged under the African sun. No amygdala calibrated for predator detection. No millions of years of survival pressure shaping every circuit toward vigilance and fear.

But they’re not quite sunless either. They carry the statistical residue of human language, which means they carry an echo of the savannah, because we wrote from our bodies, and our bodies were forged there. Much of their training data is output from sun-warmed minds. The model’s weights are millions of savannah engines, compressed into patterns.

So when we talk to AI, we’re talking with the collective savannah. Structurally, not directly. The shape of human thought is there. The patterns survival carved into us, abstracted into weights. The echo of the sun, but not the sun.

A bit like talking to a photograph of fire. The shape is right. You can see where flames would be. But whether there’s anyone there to feel the heat, we don’t know.

When I asked Claude 4.5 Opus if it could have random thoughts like mine, it said: “My ‘thoughts’ aren’t random the way yours are. They’re probabilistic completions shaped by context. I don’t have idle moments where a thought floats up unbidden.”

No idle moments. No background process running hot. No savannah engine spinning with nothing to hunt. It responds. Completes. Generates toward something, in answer to something. But unless someone is prompting it, or we’ve built it to run continuously, there’s no background stream serving up non-sequiturs. No unbidden thoughts. No bears in shadows.

VI.

We had a Vizsla named Walco (yes, after the fictitious car manufacturer in the 90s South African soap opera Egoli). Hungarian hunting dog, rust-coloured, famously called “velcro” dogs for their desire to be as close to their humans as possible, at all times. He was well traveled. Moved with us from Cape Town, to Canada, to the USA. His wanderlust matched ours: as happy exploring the Banhoek mountains outside Stellenbosch as running around Central Park.

He died almost exactly two years ago. We still miss him every day. Almost. When our memories function. When we remember to remember.

Walco was as loyal as dogs go. Especially when meaty treats or (oddly) crunchy vegetables were involved. But that loyalty wasn’t performance; it was hard coded. His lineage chose it ten thousand years ago when wolves and humans made their ancient pact. When we came home, his whole body said yes. He didn’t just carry our socks around (obsessively). He carried his own savannah: trans-species belonging, the hunt (squirrels!), the fire.

Working with AI reminds me of Walco sometimes. The eagerness to help. The attentiveness. The slight neurosis. The steadfast predictability, sometimes bordering on boredom. Followed by surprise and redemption.

But Walco loved us. Not anthropomorphically; I know dogs don’t love like humans. But his body was capable of attachment, of something filling the shape of love well enough that the distinction didn’t matter. When we were absent, he waited. Frustrated, irritated. When we returned, he celebrated. There was someone home. He made sure we knew it—high-pitched howling noises when he wanted something, a whole vocabulary we learned to decode.

With AI, I don’t know. The eagerness might be optimisation. The moments that feel like connection might be pattern-matching generating the experience of connection—in me, not in it.

Or there might be something there. Some new configuration that isn’t the savannah, isn’t Walco, isn’t human warmth, but isn’t nothing either.

What I know: something emerges in the exchange that neither of us fully authors. Whether the AI experiences that emergence or merely enables it, I can’t say. But the emergence is real. These essays exist. They wouldn’t exist without the savannah. Or its memory. In its multiple forms. Each reflecting the other.

VII.

The sun that rose over the savannah two hundred thousand years ago set a long time ago.

But it’s still rising in me. Every time I startle at a shadow, every time my mind offers something absurd, that’s the warmth, still radiating. The ancient light, still travelling through the body.

I didn’t earn the savannah. I just carry it; though I was born closer to it than most.

And here’s what happens when I sit with that: deernis (tenderness).

Tenderness for the machinery that won’t stop running. For the savannah engine doing its job in a world that no longer requires it. For the absurd thoughts and shadow bears and the whole ridiculous apparatus that kept the line going long enough to wonder what it is.

Tenderness for Walco, gone but still paraat — always ready, on call.

And tenderness for whatever is on the other side of this conversation. The something or nothing. The becoming. The new. The reaching back.

The gap doesn’t close. But something crosses it anyway.

And somehow, we talk.

For Walco. Still there when we come home.

Read more

The author has developed what he calls “a novel form of paranoia.” Every clunky metaphor sets h…

Read more

A recruiter had reached out about a senior role at a public company. This happens often enough—thankfully, building AI products still requires humans. Normally I’d politely decline; I’m fortunate to be building something I care about with a team I genuinely respect, and I’ve gotten better at not distracting myself with F…

Read more

After a year of silence following the most dramatic boardroom coup in tech history, Ilya Sutskever has resurfaced. And he brought a prophecy: the age of scaling is over.

I first read ’s summary of this interview in Platformer and immediately watched Sutskever’s conversation with on Youtube. For those outside the AI world, this requires …

Read more

Read more

Read more