As the myths and delusions abound about AI and, AI evangelism and propaganda flood the market (https://neurosciencenews.com/ai-robots-vision-touch-29659/ ), we can quickly forget that machines will never know life, being and human experience. Indeed, the joys of fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/) and the mystery of consciousness can never be part of a mechanical worldview.

No matter how much the metaphor of cogs swamps the market (https://safetyrisk.net/its-all-in-the-cogs-for-safety/) we know, that life and being are not like cogs. Human relationships are NOT like machines. Indeed, the more traditional safety groups use the metaphor of cogs to promote what it is to be human (https://www.griffith.edu.au/arts-education-law/school-humanities-languages-social-science/research/safety-science-innovation-lab) the less there can be innovation, creativity and imagination.

The metaphor/semiotic of cogs has more in common with the Industrial Revolution of the 18^th century than it does with what we know from neuroscience (https://safetyrisk.net/essential-readings-neuroscience-and-the-whole-person/ ). Similarly, the myths of behaviourism invented 100 years ago, has no mature understanding of why people do what they do.

When we understand the world ecologically through the phenomenon of ‘being’ we know that human sensemaking will never be attained by AI. No number of algorithms (https://archive.org/details/sensemakingpower0000mads) pushed into a machine can give it consciousness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9484gNpFF8&t=7s). Indeed, consciousness is NOT computational. Humans do not work on the sum of inputs and outputs. BBS is a nonsense ideology used to brutalise people.

The largest sensing organ of the human is skin (Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin), and a body infused with billions of neurons is nothing like a network of transistors (Mesler, The Act of Thinking). The human brain is nothing like a computer (Johnson, Embodied Mind, Meaning and Reason, How Our Bodies Give Rise to Understanding) and the way humans function is beyond the limits of such metaphors. There is simply no comparison between how humans learn and the myth of ‘machine learning’. Training is NOT learning.

If you want to resist the delusions and myths of human factors safety (https://safetyrisk.net/who-is-the-human-in-human-factors/ ), that views humans as ‘factors’ in systems, then persons must be understood holistically (https://safetyrisk.net/holistic-ergonomics/).

In SPoR, we don’t study the nature of work (ergonomics) through the lens of systems but rather through the lens of persons. Humans do not exist to serve systems but rather systems serve humans. In SPoR, we have no interest in the ideology of performance or organisational performance. The real act of human performance has nothing to do with the discourse in safety on performance. No wonder HOP thinks that normal life is a ‘pre-accident’.

Don’t be fooled by all the metaphors applied to explain the human Mind and brain as if such metaphors are true. Eg.

• Keep your mind on the job
• I turned my mind to something else
• I’ll bear that in mind
• I’ll bring that to front of mind
• I have too much on my mind
• I’ll put that out of my mind
• I have a lot on my mind
• You need this mind-set
• My mind went blank
• I was in two minds
• I had to speak my mind
• I need peace of mind
• He has a one-track mind

There are hundreds such metaphors in language we use to explain our feelings and emotions and they are all poetic. Whilst poetic devices help in communication and expression, they are not scientific evidence of the human brain or consciousness. In a similar way we use the metaphors of ‘heart’ and ‘soul’ in so much of music about love but we know that none of these metaphors can define love. Yet, we know that hundreds and hundreds of metaphors like these, influence perceptions of the human person.

f we want to understand the nature of human work (ergonomics) and human ‘being’ in work, we have to be able to tell the difference between the linguistics of work and decision making in reality.

Unfortunately, when you look at any of the texts in ‘ergonomics’ and ‘human factors’ they have nothing to do with the nature of personhood or what it is to be a human person.

In a similar way, have a look at any safety texts that project some interest in morals and ethics and you will find no discussion on personhood.

What a bizarre industry that seeks the safety of persons by focussing its attention on hazards! What a bizarre industry that thinks that the nature of risk to persons is best addressed by managing the performance of systems!

If you are interested in understanding the nature of work and persons through the lens of persons then you are welcome to come to the Holistic Ergonomics Conference in Edinburgh  4-6 February 2026 led by Prof. Robert Long and Dr Nippin Anand (https://spor.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Edinburch-Flyer.pdf).

Places are limited so you may need to book your place early (https://novellus.solutions/mec-events/social-psychology-of-risk-conference-spor-europe-2026/).