Frictionless, dematerialised environments (FDEs) are producing a paradox: a rise in cognitive exhaustion and somatic discomfort even as information environments become objectively more efficient. This editorial argues the progressive removal of material, bodily, and social resistance from knowledge environments does not expand cognitive possibility; it forecloses the conditions under which understanding has historically been assembled. What distinguishes the current moment is not merely the pace of change but the nature of the niche: for the first time, the dominant cognitive environment is genuinely immaterial and acquiescent, aligned with the Cartesian fantasy of mind liberated from body rather than with the embodied, situated reality of human cognition. It introduces the concept of the cognitive uncanny valley to account for the somatic discomfort that accompanies AI-generated knowledge. The editorial concludes with a call not for greater cognitive efficiency but for its opposite: the deliberate preservation of inefficiency, impasse, and not-knowing.
ArfiniS. (2019). Ignorant cognition: A philosophical investigation of the cognitive features of not-knowing (Vol. 46). Springer International Publishing.
3.
ArfiniS. (2023). Serendipity and ignorance studies. In CopelandS. M.RossW.SandM. (Eds.), Serendipity science (pp. 125–143). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33529-7_7
4.
BawdenD.RobinsonL. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781
BeghettoR. A. (2023). A new horizon for possibility thinking: A conceptual case study of Human × AI collaboration. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231160136
ChemeroA. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press.
9.
ChirayathG.PremamaliniK.JosephJ. (2025). Cognitive offloading or cognitive overload? How AI alters the mental architecture of coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1699320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1699320
10.
ClarkA. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.
CopelandS. M. (2019). On serendipity in science: Discovery at the intersection of chance and wisdom. Synthese, 196, 2385–2406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1544-3
13.
De JaegherH. (2019). Loving and knowing: Reflections for an engaged epistemology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 19, 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-019-09634-5
14.
de Saint LaurentC. (2024). The possibility paradox: How technology both expands and contracts possibilities. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241232742
15.
ErdelezS.MakriS. (2020). Information encountering re-encountered: A conceptual re-examination of serendipity in the context of information acquisition. Journal of Documentation, 76(3), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2019-0151
GerlichM. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
19.
GlăveanuV. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763
GluckmanP. D. (with Hanson, M. A.). (2006). Mismatch: Why our world no longer fits our bodies. Oxford University Press.
22.
Goldin-MeadowS. (2017). Using our hands to change our minds. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(1–2), Article e1368. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1368
23.
GongC.YangY. (2024). Google effects on memory: A meta-analytical review of the media effects of intensive Internet search behavior. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1332030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1332030
24.
GruberM. J.GelmanB. D.RanganathC. (2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060
KosmynaN.HauptmannE.YuanY. T.SituJ.LiaoX.-H.BeresnitzkyA. V.BraunsteinI.MaesP. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task (Version 2). ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2506.08872
30.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (2010). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
31.
LeeH.-P. (Hank)SarkarA.TankelevitchL.DrososI.RintelS.BanksR.WilsonN. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–22). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
32.
LiN. P.Van VugtM.ColarelliS. M. (2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417731378
MalafourisL. (2008). At the potter’s wheel: An argument for material agency. In KnappettC.MalafourisL. (Eds.), Material agency (pp. 19–36). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2
35.
MalafourisL. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. MIT Press.
MoriM. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.
38.
MoriM.MacDormanK.KagekiN. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
39.
NewenA.GallagherS.De BruinL. (2018). 4E cognition: Historical roots, key concepts, and central Issues. In NewenA.GallagherS.De BruinL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 2–16). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.1
PyeD. (1968). The nature and art of workmanship (Revised ed.). Herbert Press.
43.
RosatiA. G. (2017). Foraging cognition: Reviving the ecological intelligence hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.011
44.
RossW. (2022). Heteroscalar serendipity and the importance of accidents. In RossW.CopelandS. (Eds.), The art of serendipity (pp. 75–99). Palgrave MacMillan.
45.
RossW. (2023a). Embracing difference and cultivating hope: The transformative potential of possibility studies. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1), 243–259.
46.
RossW. (2023b). The possibilities of disruption: Serendipity, accidents and impasse driven search. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(4) 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231173625
47.
RossW. (2024). Accidental thinking: A model of serendipity’s cognitive processes. Review of General Psychology, 28(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680241254759
48.
RossW.GlaveanuV. P.ChemeroA. (2024). The illusion of freedom: Towards an embedded notion of constraints. In TrompC.SternbergR. J.AmbroseD. (Eds.), Constraints in creativity (pp. 166–181). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004707238
49.
RossW.GrovesM. (2023). Let’s just see what happens: A qualitative case study of risk and uncertainty in the creative process. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(2), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.578
SeifertC. M. (2024). How impasse leads to insight: The prepared mind perspective. In SalviC.WileyJ.SmithS. M. (Eds.), The emergence of insight (1st ed., pp. 84–112). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009244244.005
52.
SeifertC. M.MeyerD. E.DavidsonN.PatalanoA. L.YanivI. (1994). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind hypothesis. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 65–124). MIT Press.
53.
ShaluVermaN.DevK.BhardwajA. B.KumarK. (2026). The cognitive cost of AI: How AI anxiety and attitudes influence decision fatigue in daily technology use. Annals of Neurosciences, 33(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/09727531251359872
54.
StadlerM.BannertM.SailerM. (2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, Article 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386
55.
SterelnyK. (2012). The evolved apprentice: How evolution made humans unique. The MIT Press.
TomaselloM. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.
58.
Vallée-TourangeauF. (2013). Interactivity, efficiency, and individual differences in mental arithmetic. Experimental Psychology, 60, 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000200
59.
Vallée-TourangeauF. (2025). Systemic creative problem-solving: On the poverty of ideas and the generative power of prototyping. Systems, 13(3), Article 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13030150
60.
VidelaR.PennyS.RossW. (2025). ‘If you can’t dance your program, you can’t write it’: Challenges and implications for AI in education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 3759257. https://doi.org/10.1145/3759257
61.
VoineaC.MannS. P.SavulescuJ.EarpB. D. (2026). The calculator analogy: Epistemic virtues for using LLMs. Technology in Society, 85, Article 103198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103198
62.
WilsonR. A. (2001). Boundaries of the mind: The individual in the fragile sciences. Cambridge University Press.
