Ask A Genius 1571: World Braids, Brain Platoons, and the Erosion of Modern Worldviews
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/24
How might emerging brain–computer interfaces and collapsing shared worldviews transform the very idea of a unified human consciousness?
In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Rick Rosner about consciousness, identity, and the future of collective thinking. Rosner reflects on speculative brain–computer interfaces, imagining a “brain platoon” in which linked soldiers shift between individual and shared minds. He contrasts this with a hermit in Train Dreams, whose improvised worldview emerges from isolation rather than information overload. Jacobsen pushes back, arguing that philosophical frameworks differ across cultures, histories, and roles, while Rosner suggests that modern life’s torrent of facts fragments belief. Together, they explore whether unified consciousness—or unified philosophy—is still possible in a hyperconnected age.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When was the last time you took a bath?
Rick Rosner: Mutations that facilitate a machine interface directly with the brain—this is in the fictional setting of the novel I’m talking about—where Elon Musk’s company Neuralink and other groups are experimenting with implanted brain–computer interface chips. This individual can interface more easily than many other people. At various points in the novel, this person has multiple links to external information-processing devices.
This led me to think about how we often treat consciousness as unitary: not a multiple brain, not a multiple mind. We think of it as one mind largely because consciousness serves one person, one individual. Generally, your consciousness is well integrated, so it’s easy to imagine it as a single thing, because we imagine ourselves as single entities, even though we are quite multiplicitous with our various inputs and processing nodes.
I came up with a half-formed idea that, given everything occurring within consciousness, maybe we should think of ourselves as a “world braid” rather than a “world line,” which may be pretentious and silly.
Then I wondered what would have to happen for consciousness to no longer be thought of as unitary. There would need to be linked individuals where the linkage isn’t only information; where judgment and authority over the linkage aren’t as strong as what occurs within each individual mind.
I imagined, for example, a platoon in 2040—twelve people linked by hardware in their heads, with brain–computer interfaces allowing low-latency digital communication among them that is tunable. When they are off duty, the “brain platoon,” or “mind platoon,” is tuned way down, and everyone functions as an individual.
During battle, it could be tuned up to a level that becomes dangerous for the individuals who are linked, where the platoon-level mind is putting them in harm’s way. That’s one way to imagine a consciousness that is sometimes fleeting, sometimes unitary, and sometimes fragmented.
Rosner: You could imagine different levels of command and processing in a military situation. There could be a brigade consciousness. The military is a hierarchy, each level containing a different number of troops.
You can imagine people in command imposing different levels of control over the individuals who are linked, depending on the situation and the objectives. And then there is the question of how much control the individuals are willing to yield in any given moment. In a setup like that, you can imagine a non-unitary, linked set of consciousnesses.
It would make a terrible movie. You would add machine consciousnesses to the mix if you were trying to make it even remotely realistic, because by the time this is possible for people, you will have AIs that—whether conscious or not—are capable of thinking and weighing in on the situations this platoon encounters.
I am not sure if that adds anything to the discussion, because I have cheated by saying, “We just took a bunch of soldiers and linked them together, and sometimes they are one mind and sometimes they are not.” I am not sure how much that contributes.
Another topic, Carole and I saw a movie last night called Train Dreams. It is about a man born in 1880 who lives in the woods. He works as a logger for a while and then as an itinerant handyman. He lives as a hermit for decades and then quietly passes away at the age of 88. It is a meditation on how this isolated man views nature and his role within it.
He thinks in frameworks of debts—almost religious debts—that he believes must be paid or have been exacted. He lives within these various self-imposed, or at least self-interpreted, structures while having far less interaction with people and far more with nature than most.
I was thinking about how he has various theories and philosophical frameworks that he uses to explain his position in the world. He is not highly educated, yet he has built these explanatory systems despite knowing very little. Toward the end of the movie, he leaves his cabin and visits Spokane. He must have seen television at some point, but he has never heard of astronauts. By this time he is in his 80s, looking at footage of John Glenn—so around 1962—and he has no idea astronauts exist. It does not matter to the plot; it simply shows how isolated he has been.
He knows almost nothing, but he is constantly trying to figure out how he fits into the world. I was thinking about how that contrasts with us, who have access to nearly all human knowledge almost instantaneously. I am not sure we have much in the way of philosophical frameworks anymore. And we are all kind of idiots.
Jacobsen: We have talked about this before. People used to have religious frameworks and philosophical frameworks. If you asked most people today what their philosophies are, you would not get many overarching worldviews.
Rosner: If you asked a “dude bro,” “What is your philosophy?”, you might get something like, “Get the other guy before he gets you,” or, “You cannot worry about everything.” None of these are overarching. I think you would get even less from most people now about humanity’s role in the world—what we are here for—than you would have if you asked people seventy or a hundred years ago. What do you think?
Jacobsen: A few false assumptions are floating around in that response. Every ethnic group, every theology, religion, political system, every style of governance—whether centralized in an emir or pharaoh or distributed in a democratic system—must be considered. These are statistically distributed across roughly 110 billion people who have ever lived.
If you take that as a basis for understanding the spread of philosophical frameworks, you have to consider the farmer who knows how to shoe a horse versus a mathematics professor who wins a Fields Medal and works in combinatorics and number theory versus someone working in the trades.
This is relevant for distinguishing how people build frameworks. Each person’s worldview is a delimitation of a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the world, but it is functional within its own context. No human has ever formulated a truly comprehensive model of the world, because doing so would require containing the world itself. Anything else is a shortcut. That brings us back to the earlier point.
Rosner: You mentioned religion. I feel that the world’s major demographic religions—Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism—have overarching philosophies. But we have talked about this a lot, because we talk about a tremendous amount of things. I feel that belief, even among adherents, has been hollowed out by the onslaught of knowledge that makes it harder to believe in an overarching system.
I suppose if you asked—well, you are right, I was speaking from the perspective of a guy living in California looking at other Californians. But still, I do not know.
Jacobsen: Even within California, it breaks down. You would move from a global view to a regional view to a national view. It goes down to the core debates: intersectionality on one side, rugged individualism on the other. The endgame for both is the same—taking each individual as a culture of one. Intersectionality uses categorical markers; individualism takes people as they come. The categories differ, but the structural endpoint is similar: everyone is a cultural one. That is the broader point.
Rosner: But what I am trying to argue—perhaps badly—is that the onslaught of factuality erodes philosophizing. When you are hit with facts and endless noise every day, you are simultaneously distracted and fragmented. The distraction fragments belief because the stuff we are bombarded with does not add up to anything coherent.
In the United States, much of the distraction adds up to the idea that the people in charge are incompetent or malicious. That is the conclusion a lot of what I see pushes me toward. But that is not an overarching worldview, and it does not help build one.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
#ai #consciousness #philosophy #science #spirituality