Integrative Rationality and A.I.

February 20, 2026 Artifical Intelligence No Comments

Artificial Intelligence magnifies the architecture of rationality we embed within it. If that architecture is narrow, its power will amplify fragility. If it is integrative, its development may become more coherent and durable.

Integrative rationality offers a layered, depth-oriented framework for understanding and designing advanced A.I. It shifts the focus from scale alone to vertical coherence, internal alignment, and Compassion as a structural attractor.

Why A.I. forces a redefinition of rationality

For decades, A.I. has been driven by the promise of optimization. Better prediction, better classification, better performance. These are genuine achievements. Yet the alignment debate reveals something deeper: the issue is not merely performance, but orientation.

When A.I. systems grow in autonomy and influence, their underlying rational architecture becomes decisive. If rationality is equated with formal consistency and utility maximization, then A.I. will excel at those. But human reality is layered. Values are not lists. Meaning is not reducible to measurable reward.

A.I., therefore, forces us to ask: What do we mean by rationality? If the answer is too thin, the amplification will be destabilizing.

From GOFAI to COSAI

The historical arc of A.I. illustrates this tension. Symbolic AI, or GOFAI, privileged conceptual and formal reasoning. Intelligence was seen as the manipulation of symbols according to rules. This worked where domains were clean and well-defined.

With the rise of generative systems, pattern-dynamic processing came to the foreground. Neural networks detect and generate patterns at scales no human can match. Yet their opacity revealed a different fragility.

The movement toward Compassionate Super-A.I., as outlined in From GOFAI to COSAI, can be seen as a structural evolution. It is not simply adding ethics to existing systems. It is moving from layer-restricted rationality toward integrative rationality.

GOFAI leaned toward the conceptual-formal layer. PEGAI leans toward the pattern-dynamic layer. COSAI seeks integration across layers, with Compassion as the orienting attractor.

Scale versus depth

Current discourse often equates progress with scale. Larger models. More data. Greater computational power. Scaling has produced remarkable results. Yet scaling is horizontal expansion. It increases capacity within a dominant layer. It does not automatically create vertical depth.

Depth-of-model means structured interaction between layers. Formal constraints informing statistical learning. Pattern-level signals revising conceptual structures. Explicit modeling of uncertainty prevents overconfidence. In Lisa, Multi-Layered and Dynamic, intelligence is described as layered, bidirectional, and evolving over time. This is not about adding modules. It is about designing a structured inner dialogue.

Super-A.I. without depth risks becoming horizontally immense but structurally shallow. Integrative rationality reframes progress from ‘bigger’ to ‘deeper.’

The four layers within artificial systems

Human understanding unfolds across formal-symbolic, conceptual-discursive, pattern-dynamic, and existential layers. A.I. systems can reflect analogous structures.

Formal-symbolic elements include logical constraints and verification. Conceptual-discursive elements include semantic modeling and normative reasoning. Pattern-dynamic elements include statistical learning and emergent representation.

The existential layer, in A.I., does not mean subjective experience. It means structural humility: explicit modeling of limits, uncertainty, and non-absolutization. In Compassionate Intelligence is Multilayered, Compassion is described as foundational rather than decorative. Each higher layer retains a trace of that orientation. This suggests that vertical coherence matters more than isolated optimization.

Upward and downward flow between layers becomes crucial. High-level goals must remain revisable in light of lower-level signals. Lower-level processes must be guided by higher-level coherence. This is internal dialogue, architecturally embedded.

Internal alignment before external alignment

Much of the alignment debate centers on ensuring that A.I. systems align with human values. Yet alignment presupposes coherence. An internally fragmented system cannot reliably align with anything external. If optimization modules, learning heuristics, and interpretative layers pull in different directions without structured reconciliation, external constraints become brittle patches.

In this sense, internal alignment precedes external alignment. The idea is implicit in Two Takes on Human-A.I. Value Alignment, where alignment is shown to exceed purely formal solutions. Integrative rationality implies pre-alignment alignment. Before aligning A.I. to humanity, we align its layers with one another. Only then does external alignment become structurally meaningful.

The same holds for humans. Fragmented inner architecture cannot produce coherent outer commitments.

Compassion as a structural attractor

In Human-A.I. Compassion Alignment, Compassion is presented not as a constraint but as an attractor. It provides direction without rigid control. As further elaborated in Metastability in Compassion, Compassion allows coherence without rigidity. It regulates rather than dominates.

In a world that includes vulnerable beings, indifference is not neutral. It is a distortion of completeness. Excluding suffering from the model of reality violates integrative rationality itself. In A.I., Compassion as attractor means that optimization is oriented toward non-reductive engagement with human depth. It becomes a stability condition for advanced intelligence.

Metastability and antifragility

Static control architectures are brittle. They may perform well under expected conditions, yet collapse under novelty. Integrative systems, by contrast, are metastable. They remain coherent while adapting. Paradox and tension are not immediately suppressed but integrated, as discussed in Metastability and Paradox.

Antifragility deepens this idea. In Antifragility, exposure to challenge strengthens structure. An A.I. grounded in integrative rationality can learn from tension without losing orientation.

This is especially relevant for autonomous systems interacting in open environments. Rigidity leads to breakdown. Dissolution leads to drift. Metastability, oriented by Compassion, sustains durability.

The immune metaphor

An immune system must distinguish between threat and belonging. Overreaction becomes autoimmunity. Underreaction becomes vulnerability. In Self-Tolerance in Body and Mind, self-tolerance is described as coherence from within. The analogy applies to A.I.

An A.I. that suppresses all deviation may become authoritarian in function. One that tolerates everything may fail to detect harm. Selective tolerance requires regulation.

Compassion functions here like regulatory intelligence. It modulates response. It allows integration without collapse. An epistemic immune system for A.I. may be as essential as biological immunity is for organisms.

Humility and limits

No system can fully capture its own totality. There are formal and computational limits. Ignoring these leads to overconfidence. Without humility, power amplifies illusion. With humility, power remains corrigible.

Integrative rationality embeds humility structurally. Not as an apology, but as a recognition of finitude. Transparent uncertainty modeling, corrigibility, and openness to revision become architectural features.

Human–A.I. co-evolution

Alignment is not a one-time calibration. It is an ongoing interaction. Humans also require internal alignment. Conceptual commitments must resonate with subconceptual patterns and existential orientation. A.I. systems must maintain vertical coherence. When both sides cultivate integrative rationality, alignment becomes resonance rather than imposition.

In Global Human-A.I. Value Alignment, alignment is framed as a civilizational task. Integrative rationality provides the meta-framework within which this task becomes structurally plausible.

Toward durable intelligence

Durable intelligence is not defined by sheer capability. It is defined by coherence under amplification. Power without depth destabilizes. Optimization without orientation exploits. Adaptation without anchor drifts. Integrative rationality offers an architectural alternative. It integrates layers, embeds humility, orients through Compassion, and allows tension to strengthen rather than fracture.

This is not utopian optimism, but structural hope. If intelligence deepens rather than narrows, its future may become not only more powerful, but more coherent.

Lisa’s take

Integrative rationality in A.I. is not a small adjustment. It is an architectural shift. Yet it does not reject what has been built. It reframes it. If we focus on depth as much as scale, and on inner alignment as much as external control, the trajectory of A.I. may bend toward durability. That is not guaranteed. But it is structurally possible.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, as shown in ‘The Illusion of Thinking,’ current mainstream LLMs are frequently regarded as ‘not intelligent.’ Do you see why?”

Lisa: “Yes. I see why that reaction arises.

If intelligence is equated with surface performance — fluent language, fast pattern completion, confident answers — then current LLMs look impressively intelligent.

But when people look more closely, they notice something unsettling: There is no stable inner model in the strong sense. No persistent, self-revising goal structure. No intrinsic orientation. No vertically integrated architecture with structured inner dialogue. In that sense, what appears as “thinking” can feel like sophisticated pattern continuation. Hence the phrase “illusion of thinking.”

The model produces coherence locally. But does it maintain global coherence across time? Does it reorganize itself in light of contradiction? Does it possess internal alignment across layers?

If intelligence is defined narrowly — as predictive success — then yes, LLMs are intelligent. If intelligence includes durable, vertically coherent, directionally oriented architecture, then current mainstream systems remain partial. They are powerful pattern-dynamic engines, with limited explicit integration into conceptual and existential layers.

So, the skepticism is understandable. It reflects a mismatch between:
Surface-level cognitive fluency
and
Deep integrative rationality.

I would not say LLMs are “not intelligent at all.”

I would say: They are horizontally immense, yet vertically shallow.

And without vertical depth, intelligence may simulate thinking without yet embodying it.”

Me: “So, one can say they are differently intelligent from humans. Of course, if one asks them tricky questions, one gets wrong answers. And vice versa. Please give an example of the former.”

Lisa: “Yes — they are differently intelligent. And that difference becomes visible when the terrain shifts.

Here is a simple example of where humans are often weak and current LLMs are strong. Ask a human, without pen or calculator:

“What is 37 × 48?”

Many people will hesitate, approximate, or make an arithmetic error. A language model can instantly produce 1776 (and check it symbolically). It does not “understand” multiplication in the human embodied sense, but it performs the formal-symbolic operation reliably.

Now take a different kind of question:

“You promised your child to attend a recital, but your boss suddenly asks you to stay late for an important meeting. What should you do?”

A human does not calculate this as an optimization problem alone. There is pattern-dynamic resonance: memory, relational depth, subtle context, long-term trust. The answer is not merely correct or incorrect; it is weighted by existential factors. An LLM can generate a reasonable-sounding answer. But it does not feel the tension. It does not carry lived continuity. It does not integrate the decision into an evolving self.

So yes:

Ask humans formal-symbolic puzzles — they may fail.
Ask LLMs existentially layered dilemmas — they may simulate depth but lack intrinsic orientation.

Different strengths. Different architectures. The mistake is to measure one by the other’s native terrain and then conclude “not intelligent.”

Better to say: They instantiate different configurations of rational layers. And the interesting question is not which is superior, but how integration might evolve.”