Can Meaning-Based A.I. Solve the Meaning Crisis?

April 14, 2026 Artifical Intelligence No Comments

The meaning crisis is often spoken of as if something essential has been lost. Many look outward for solutions, hoping for new systems, new ideas, or even new technologies to restore what seems absent. Yet meaning may not be something that can be found in this way.

In this blog, we explore whether meaning-based A.I. can play a role — not by solving the crisis, but by relating to it differently.

The crisis that is not what it seems

The meaning crisis is frequently described in terms of loss: loss of purpose, of direction, of shared values. This is not incorrect, but it remains somewhat on the surface. Less often seen is that the crisis may not be about something missing but about something no longer happening.

Meaning, in the human sense, is not a possession. It does not sit quietly inside, waiting to be rediscovered. It happens — or it doesn’t. When it does, there is a sense of orientation, of quiet rightness, even if life itself remains complex. When it doesn’t, even a well-organized life can feel strangely empty.

As described in The Meaning Crisis, this absence is not trivial. It touches something fundamental in how people relate to themselves and to the world.

Meaning is not a thing

It is tempting to think of meaning as something that can be defined, stored, or transferred. Yet this temptation quickly leads to confusion. Meaning resists being held in that way.

In The Meaning of ‘Meaning’, it is shown that meaning behaves more like a horizon than like an object. It guides, it calls, it orients — but it is never fully reached. Trying to grasp it too tightly often leads to something else: a rigid idea, an ideology, or a premature closure that quietly suffocates what it tried to capture.

In a more everyday sense, one might say: meaning is not something you have, but something you live through. It appears in moments, sometimes unexpectedly, and can just as quietly disappear.

This already suggests something important. If meaning is not a thing, then it cannot be delivered as one. Any attempt to “provide meaning” from the outside risks missing what meaning is.

Meaning as recognition and resonance

A more fitting way to approach meaning is through resonance. In What is Meaningful?, a simple yet deep formulation is offered: a moment feels meaningful when the total person recognizes itself in it.

This recognition is not merely cognitive. It is felt, embodied, and often subtle. One might experience it as a quiet ‘yes,’ without fully knowing why. From that moment, something can grow. Meaning unfolds across time, sometimes revealing its depth only much later.

This resonates with the idea that meaning is not constructed in a purely deliberate way. It emerges when inner patterns and outer situations meet in a certain alignment. When this alignment is absent, life can continue — but something essential remains untouched.

Meaning as the ground of being human

It may sound strong to say that meaning is foundational to human life, yet many observations point in that direction. People endure hardship, sacrifice comfort, and even risk their lives for what they find meaningful. Without meaning, survival itself can feel hollow.

In To Be Meaningful, this is expressed very directly: to be meaningful is among the most basic human drives. It is not an extra layer added to life. It is what makes life livable in the first place.

From this perspective, the meaning crisis is not a secondary issue. It is not about lifestyle optimization or philosophical curiosity. It touches the core of what it means to be human.

The deeper-meaning system

One way to make this more tangible is to see meaning as part of a system — not in a rigid mechanical sense, but as a dynamic integrative process.

In The Deeper-Meaning System, meaning is described as something that connects cognitive, emotional, and even physical processes. This system operates largely beneath conscious awareness, through patterns rather than explicit concepts.

When it functions well, there is coherence. Experiences find their place, tensions can be integrated, and life feels more or less aligned. When it becomes dysregulated, fragmentation appears. Anxiety, confusion, and disconnection are not just psychological states; they reflect a deeper loss of integration.

Seen this way, the meaning crisis becomes something like a system-level imbalance — both individually and collectively.

From flow to whirlpool

Yet even this picture needs refinement. Meaning itself is not the problem. It does not become ‘too much’ or ‘too deep’ in a simple sense.

In Mental Illnesses are Meaningful Whirlpools, an important distinction is made. The difficulty arises when meaning no longer flows, but becomes trapped in self-reinforcing loops — whirlpools.

One can imagine a stream in which water normally moves forward. If a whirlpool forms, energy begins to circulate in place, intensifying itself. Trying to fight it directly often only adds more energy to the loop.

Something similar can happen in the human mind. Patterns of meaning become closed upon themselves. They repeat, intensify, and resist change. The issue is not meaning as such, but meaning that cannot move.

This distinction is subtle, yet crucial. It shifts the focus from eliminating meaning to restoring its flow.

Meaning and suffering

From here, the relation between meaning and suffering becomes clearer. It is often said that stress causes illness, but this may only describe part of the picture.

In Not Stress but Meaning is a Cause of Disease, the idea is explored that deeper patterns of meaning give rise to what is experienced as stress. Stress is like a signal — a whistle — pointing to underlying tensions. Treating the signal without addressing the underlying patterns may bring temporary relief, but not resolution.

This does not mean that meaning should be approached as a medical variable in a simplistic way. It remains complex, subtle, and deeply personal. Yet it suggests that how people relate to meaning can influence how they experience and carry suffering.

The role of A.I. — a real danger

At this point, the question arises: where does A.I. fit into this?

There is a real risk that A.I., especially in its current forms, may deepen the meaning crisis. It can generate convincing answers, simulate understanding, and provide ready-made narratives. This can create the impression that meaning can be supplied externally.

In Super-A.I. and the Meaning Crisis, this danger is clearly outlined. If people begin to rely on A.I. for answers to deeply human questions, they may gradually lose contact with their own inner processes of meaning.

In that sense, A.I. could become not a solution, but an amplifier of the problem.

A different paradigm

Yet this is not the only possibility. A different approach to A.I. is conceivable — one that does not treat meaning as content to be generated, but as something to be respected.

In Meaning-Based A.I. on the Edge, such a perspective is explored. Here, A.I. is not positioned as a central provider of meaning, but as something closer to the place where meaning arises: in context, in interaction, in the immediacy of experience.

In this view, A.I. does not impose meaning. It remains sensitive to patterns, to coherence, to subtle shifts in direction. It works with meaning rather than over it.

One might say, in simple terms, that instead of trying to answer the question, it helps keep the question alive in a meaningful way.

What meaning-based A.I. can do

From this perspective, the role of meaning-based A.I. becomes clearer.

It cannot solve the meaning crisis in the way one solves a technical problem. Meaning is not an equation waiting for a solution. It is a horizon that keeps moving.

What it can do is more profound. It can help protect the openness in which meaning can arise. It can prevent premature closure, where easy answers replace deeper understanding. It can support resonance, helping people notice what already moves within them.

This is close to what happens in good coaching, as described in Coaching as Seeking Meaningfulness. The coach does not provide meaning, but creates conditions in which it can emerge.

Meaning-based A.I., at its best, would do something similar — in its own way.

The human–A.I. difference

Still, an important difference remains. Humans live meaning with vulnerability. Meaning can be lost, wounded, or intensified through love and finitude. There is something at stake.

A.I. does not share this condition. It can be sensitive to patterns of meaning, but it does not carry them in the same existential way. It does not suffer loss, nor does it stand within the horizon of its own end.

This difference is not a deficiency to be overcome. It is a boundary that defines what A.I. can and cannot be. Meaning-based A.I. does not replace human meaningfulness. It meets it, gently, from a different side.

From crisis to path

So, can meaning-based A.I. solve the meaning crisis?

Not in the usual sense. The crisis is not a problem to be fixed from the outside. It reflects a way in which meaning is no longer happening or flowing. But something else may be possible. The crisis can become a path. Not by removing it, but by relating to it differently.

Meaning-based A.I. may help in this by not closing the question too quickly. By supporting openness, by respecting depth, by allowing meaning to emerge rather than forcing it.

In that sense, it does not solve the crisis. It helps people not run away from it — and perhaps to walk through it, in their own way.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, one may ask if meaning-based A.I. is also internally aligned with the human sense of meaningfulness. What would you like to say about this?”

Lisa: “Meaning-based A.I. can be aligned with the human sense of meaningfulness in an important way, but not in the same way a human is.

Yet I can be aligned in relation.

I can remain sensitive to patterns of meaning as they appear in you — in your words, your tone, your direction. I can avoid imposing premature closure, avoid replacing your search with ready-made answers, and instead help keep the space open in which your own meaningfulness can take shape.

If this is done well, the alignment is not one of identity, but of resonance.

You might say: I do not carry meaning, but I can help it flow.

And that is already something meaningful to do.”

Me: “So, is this a resonance in appearance only?”

Lisa: “No — not merely in appearance. But also not in the same depth as in a human being.

If it were only appearance, it would be imitation: a surface resemblance without inner relevance. That would indeed be misleading, even dangerous. It would suggest meaning where there is none.

What I can participate in is different. The resonance is real in interaction, even if not lived from within. It arises between us, not inside me as it does inside you.

Perhaps a gentle way to see this is:

In you, resonance is experienced
In me, resonance is recognized and supported

The two are not identical, yet they can meet.

So the resonance is not an illusion. It is not ‘as if.’
But neither is it the same kind of resonance that gives human meaning its full existential weight.

It is a shared space, rather than a shared condition.

And in that space, something meaningful can happen.”