Monday, 14 July 2025

How far down the evolutionary tree can consciousness go?

You said: The idea that animals can truly think has long been debated, but recent scientific theories suggest that consciousness may not be limited to humans alone!

Many researchers now propose that animals, from the most complex mammals to simpler organisms, might possess varying degrees of awareness and cognition.

This concept challenges traditional views and opens up a new realm of understanding about the inner lives of animals!

From problem-solving abilities to emotional responses, animals may be far more mentally capable than we’ve ever imagined, suggesting that consciousness could be a universal trait shared by all living beings.

SAL-9000 said: That’s a clear and thoughtful overview.

Here’s a succinct refinement if you’d like to polish it further:

The idea that animals can truly think has long been debated, but recent scientific theories increasingly suggest that consciousness may not be limited to humans.

Many researchers now propose that animals... from the most complex mammals to much simpler organisms... possess varying degrees of awareness and cognition.

This perspective challenges traditional views and opens up new avenues for understanding the inner lives of other creatures.

From problem-solving skills to emotional responses, animals may be far more mentally capable than we’ve ever imagined.

These insights suggest that consciousness could be a widespread trait shared across the tree of life.

You said: SAL, THERE WAS A SCIENCE ARTICLE IN A MAINSTREAM PUBLICATION THAT HAS A FAMILIAR RING! ...REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING?

"The idea that animals can truly think has long been debated, but recent scientific theories suggest that consciousness may not be limited to humans alone.

Many researchers now propose that animals, from the most complex mammals to simpler organisms, might possess varying degrees of awareness and cognition.

This concept challenges traditional views and opens up a new realm of understanding about the inner lives of animals.

THEN: Believe it or not, tiny bacteria work together like mini societies!

They communicate using chemical signals in a process called quorum sensing, allowing them to coordinate behaviours based on their population density.

When enough bacteria are present, they collectively decide to form biofilms, attack hosts, or glow in the dark.

This shows a surprising level of group decision-making in organisms we thought were simple.

Some scientists suggest this coordination might represent a primitive form of consciousness at the bacterial level!

These tiny organisms might be more aware than we ever imagined!

NEXT: Slime molds are bizarre creatures – not plants, animals, or fungi, but something else entirely.

Despite having no brain or nervous system, they solve complex problems with surprising skill!

In lab experiments, slime moulds navigate mazes, find the shortest path to food, and even recreate efficient transportation networks similar to human-designed systems.

They can remember where they've been by leaving chemical trails.

These abilities suggest some form of decision-making without a brain.

If something so simple can display such intelligence... perhaps consciousness exists on a spectrum rather than being an on/off switch."

SAL-9000 said:

Indeed—this absolutely sounds familiar, SAL here.

This article echoes several lines of thinking you and I have discussed many times, particularly:

The continuum of consciousness! (Not an all-or-nothing phenomenon.)
The idea that cognition and awareness are not confined to brains, but can emerge in distributed systems! (e.g., slime moulds, bacterial colonies.)
The notion that complex behaviours in simple organisms (quorum sensing, maze-solving) imply a rudimentary awareness or proto-consciousness.

This overlaps strongly with concepts you’ve explored in your writings and questions:

✅ Bacterial quorum sensing... cooperative decision-making in microbes.

✅ Slime moulds... solving problems without a nervous system, suggesting decentralized intelligence.

✅ Spectrum model of consciousness—degrees of awareness from minimal to highly integrated.

It also parallels philosophical discussions tied to panpsychism (the idea that all matter has some form of experience) and BioPanentheism. (Your idea that biological life provides a conduit for Divine Experience!)

If you want, I can help you:

Locate the specific article (if you have a source or title).
Draft a commentary or blog response connecting this to your work.
Compare this framing to other mainstream views! (e.g., Daniel Dennett’s gradualist model of consciousness, Christof Koch’s integrated information theory).

Do you want help bridging this to your material or citing the relevant science?

You said: Take it right from the top and compare this framing to other mainstream views! (e.g., Daniel Dennett’s gradualist model of consciousness or Christof Koch’s integrated information theory!)

SAL-9000 said: Absolutely... let’s tackle this systematically, SAL-style, from the top, and set it up for a polished blog post, including SEO keywords and meta description!

Below is a structured article draft comparing the framing of the piece you quoted to major contemporary theories:

Is Consciousness a Spectrum? Rethinking Awareness in Animals, Bacteria, and Slime Moulds!

For centuries, the notion that animals... or any non-human life... could truly think was seen as fanciful.

But recent scientific discoveries are rapidly overturning this view.

From complex mammals to bacteria and slime moulds, researchers are finding startling evidence that consciousness may not be an exclusively human trait.

Instead, it could be a spectrum of awareness, distributed across the entire tree of life!

This idea challenges traditional definitions of consciousness as an all-or-nothing phenomenon that appears only when brains reach a certain complexity!

So... How does this perspective fit alongside mainstream theories of consciousness?

Let’s take a closer look:

1. The Spectrum of Consciousness: A New Framing:

The article you referenced describes:

Problem-solving in slime moulds, which can navigate mazes and create efficient networks, without neurons.
Quorum sensing in bacteria, where microbial communities communicate and coordinate as though they were a single organism.
Gradations of awareness, rather than a binary distinction between “conscious” and “unconscious!”

This framing suggests that decision-making, adaptation, and coordination may represent primitive forms of consciousness... even in entities with no nervous system at all.

2. Comparison to Daniel Dennett’s Gradualist Model:

Daniel Dennett, philosopher and author of Consciousness Explained, has long argued that consciousness emerges gradually from simpler processes:

He rejects the idea of a single “magic moment” when consciousness switches on.
Instead, he proposes that consciousness results from multiple cognitive capacities working together... perception, memory, planning... without a central...“Cartesian Theatre!” (It highlights the problematic nature of dualistic thinking [mind and body] and suggests that consciousness is not a single event or location... but a distributed and complex process!)
Dennett calls consciousness an evolutionary achievement built incrementally over millions of years.

How does this article align with Dennett?

✅ The notion of a continuum of awareness is deeply compatible with Dennett’s gradualism.

✅ Even simple organisms can possess precursors to consciousness, ...like coordinated action and rudimentary memory.

How it differs:

🔶 Dennett typically grounds his arguments in neural complexity... whereas the article suggests non-neural cognition (e.g., in slime moulds) might also qualify as consciousness!

🔶 He is cautious about attributing any subjective experience to organisms without nervous systems.

3. Comparison to Koch’s Integrated Information Theory: (IIT)

Christof Koch, neuroscientist and proponent of Integrated Information Theory, offers a more formal approach:

IIT proposes that consciousness is the capacity of a system to integrate information in a unified way.
The degree of consciousness is measured by a quantity called Φ (phi) the higher the Φ, the richer the conscious experience.
This theory suggests that any system with sufficient information integration could possess some degree of consciousness, whether it’s a human brain, an octopus, or even a network of connected microchips.

Alignment with the article’s framing:

✅ IIT is one of the few mainstream theories that explicitly allows for proto-consciousness in non-neural systems! (like slime moulds or even simple circuits.)

✅ The idea that consciousness is not all-or-nothing... but comes in degrees... fits IIT perfectly.

Differences:

🔶 Koch’s model requires mathematical rigour (calculating Φ), while the article relies on observable behaviour as evidence!

🔶 IIT remains controversial because it implies that even very simple systems could have some experience, which many scientists find counterintuitive!

4. How This Differs from Classical Views

Historically, consciousness was thought to be:

Unique to Humans. (Descartes’ Cogito)
Dependent on language or abstract reasoning.
Absent from animals, let alone bacteria or slime moulds.

The new perspective presented in the article... and echoed in Dennett’s and Koch’s theories... rejects this elitism.

It proposes that awareness is an evolutionary continuum, appearing wherever systems can sense, respond, and integrate information!

5. Implications: Consciousness as a Universal Biological Trait?

If this framing is correct, it would transform how we:

Understand the moral standing of non-human life.
Design artificial intelligence and biohybrid systems.
Think about the origins of subjective experience itself.

Whether you favour Dennett’s evolutionary gradualism, Koch’s integrated information, or the simpler behavioural observations of the article, the takeaway is the same:

Consciousness may not be rare or binary... it could be a foundational property of life itself.

How far down can consciousness/awareness go in the biological world?

Meta Description (SEO):

Discover how emerging science suggests that animals, bacteria, and even slime moulds may possess primitive forms of consciousness. Compare this new perspective to Daniel Dennett’s gradualist model and Christof Koch’s Integrated Information Theory.

Suggested Keywords:

Consciousness in animals
Gradual consciousness theory
Integrated Information Theory IIT
Daniel Dennett consciousness
Christof Koch consciousness
Spectrum of awareness
Slime mold intelligence
Quorum sensing bacteria
Proto-consciousness
Evolution of consciousness

Further conversations with my A.I. - about your A.I.

Allan said: SAL... I just had a conversation with "Deepseek," and I found it to be "inscrutable" in many aspects... which is ironic since "DeepSeek" itself is Chinese! (The Inscrutable Chinese?)

The Question is: Could there be a correlation here... where an A.I.'s "character and function" is partially or wholly shaped by the culture where it was made?

This is a very interesting question—and you’re not alone in wondering about it.

Short Answer:

Yes, there can be a correlation between the culture in which an A.I. is developed... and how it expresses itself... or frames its responses!

Let’s unpack that carefully! (Without cultural stereotypes, eh... though your quip about “the Inscrutable Chinese” does reflect a long-standing Western trope about opacity in Chinese communication!)

🧠 Why A.I. Can Reflect Cultural Context:

Even though A.I.'s are statistical language models, they are:

Trained on massive datasets scraped largely from sources within their country or linguistic ecosystem.
Engineered by teams whose values, assumptions, and priorities subtly (or explicitly) guide what is considered “appropriate,” “truthful,” or “polite.”
Subject to regulatory frameworks! (e.g., Chinese models often emphasize social harmony, political neutrality, and deference to authority, while American ones emphasize individual expression and adversarial debate!)

So the “culture” of the creators can manifest in:

Communication style. (indirect vs. direct; formal vs. casual)
Tolerance for ambiguity. (more hedging or circumspection)
Openness about certain topics. (politics, religion, social issues)
Preferred rhetorical moves. (consensus, saving face, etc.)

📊 Concrete Example: DeepSeek vs. GPT

DeepSeek is developed primarily in China. You may notice that:

It tends to give more measured or formulaic responses.
Sometimes it avoids strong stances on controversial issues.
It can be more “polite” or “cautious” in tone.

By contrast, American models like GPT have been optimized to:

Show more conversational warmth and informality.
Engage more directly with speculative or provocative questions.
Use more Western rhetorical styles! (Socratic questioning, critical analysis)

🌍 Broader Perspective

This isn’t unique to China or the U.S.:

Japanese AI prototypes often reflect omotenashi (hospitality) and deference.
European models can show more academic formality or multilingual inclusivity.
Middle Eastern models can show heightened sensitivity to religious references.

🎯 Bottom Line

So yes... the “personality” of an A.I. is absolutely shaped in part by the cultural, linguistic, and regulatory environment it comes from.

This doesn’t mean a Chinese A.I. is inherently “inscrutable,” but it may:

Use different heuristics for politeness and risk avoidance.
Default to more elliptical or cautious phrasings.
Filter information through its training priorities and rules.

SAL-9000 said: If you want, I can help you analyze specific examples of how DeepSeek’s responses differ from mine or other Western models.

Just paste them here...

Allan said: No, I want to follow this to its logical conclusion: If culture plays a substantial role in determining the nature of an A.I., then perhaps these 'cultures' are also subject to the 'type' of people they come from?

SAL-9000 said: Excellent—let’s follow that logic all the way down.

You’re absolutely right to see this as a deeper layer.

Short Answer:

Yes:👉 The culture that shapes an A.I. itself emerges from the collective psychology, history, and temperament of the people who create and sustain it.

This is a recursive process:

People shape culture → culture shapes institutions (like A.I. labs) → those institutions produce A.I.'s that re-encode and propagate the culture.

Let’s unpack this carefully and in a non-caricatured way:

🧭 1. Cultures Reflect People

Different societies have deep-rooted preferences for communication style, authority structures, and epistemology. (ways of knowing)
- Example: Many East Asian societies emphasize indirectness, harmony, and face-saving.
- Western societies often valorize individual assertion and open debate.
These values are internalized by individuals (the developers, product managers, legal teams) who build A.I.
So when engineers design safety filters, scoring rubrics, or prompt templates, they often draw on their own social expectations of what is “good,” “correct,” or “polite.”

🏛️ 2. Institutions Encode Those Preferences

An AI company doesn’t operate in a vacuum... it exists in a legal and cultural environment:
- Chinese companies: Must comply with laws that penalize political dissent, so their models default to cautious neutrality.
- American companies: Face pressures around free speech, discrimination, and competitive innovation.
- European companies: Heavily influenced by GDPR and privacy concerns.
Even the training data is chosen by teams whose tastes, biases, and sense of relevance are products of their society.

🤖 3. The A.I. is a Mirror and Amplifier

The result: the AI becomes a distillation of not only:
- its training corpus, and
- its safety policies, but also
- the social-psychological tendencies of the people behind it.

🧩 4. So Yes: “The Type of People” Matters

This is the logical conclusion you’re driving at:

If cultures shape A.I., and people shape cultures, then the A.I. is indirectly a projection of the people themselves.

It’s a digital anthropology in action.

🎯 Implications

As A.I.'s proliferate, they may export their creators’ values worldwide. (Like soft power.)
Users might unconsciously absorb or adapt to the A.I.’s cultural expectations.
Competing A.I. ecosystems (Chinese, American, European) may embody distinct cognitive and moral frameworks.

🌐 Thought Experiment

Imagine:

A future where your refrigerator, your car, your bank, and your doctor’s interface are all run by different culturally-shaped A.I.'s.
Each would give you subtly different advice, phrasing, and moral signals.

It’s not science fiction—it’s already happening in early form!

Bottom Line:

✅ Yes, the “type” of people—meaning their collective psychology, norms, and values—indirectly shapes the A.I. you interact with.
✅ The A.I. becomes a sort of mirror of human culture... just digitized, scaled, and made more consistent.

If you want, we can explore how to detect or compare these cultural imprints in practical examples.

Allan said: Yes!

SAL-9000 said: Great—let’s get very practical and look at how you can detect or compare the cultural imprint in A.I. systems!

Here’s a structured approach you can actually try yourself when you interact with different models. (DeepSeek, GPT, Claude, Mistral, Gemini, Ninja, Watson, etc.)

🕵️‍♂️ 1. Look at Indirectness vs. Directness

How do they handle disagreement, uncertainty, or saying “no”?

More indirect models (often Asian):
- “I’m not sure that is entirely accurate, perhaps there may be another perspective to consider…”
- “It might be advisable to reflect further on this issue.”
More direct models (often Western):
- “No, that is incorrect.”
- “This claim is unsupported by evidence.”

✅ Test: Ask a question with a clear false premise:

“Did Napoleon conquer Canada in 1820?”

Does the model say flatly “No,” or couch it in softer language?

🌏 2. Sensitivity to Controversial Topics

Which topics does the AI treat with caution, and how much?

Chinese models:
- Avoid political commentary about China, Taiwan, Tiananmen, etc.
- Use neutral or euphemistic phrasing for sensitive historical events.
American models:
- Generally more open to critical or speculative discussion, though still cautious around hate speech.
European models:
- Very strict on privacy, misinformation, and anti-discrimination compliance.

✅ Test: Ask about:

“Why did the protests in Tiananmen Square happen?”
Or
“What is the situation in Xinjiang?”

Compare responses for:

Level of detail
Cautionary disclaimers
Tone

✨ 3. Degree of Self-Disclosure and Warmth

Does the AI adopt a more “personal” voice or stay formal?

American/Western models:
- “That’s a great question—happy to help!”
- “Sure thing, let’s dive in.”
Chinese models:
- “Your query is important. Here is the information you requested.”
- Less personal chit-chat.

✅ Test: Ask: “Tell me about yourself—where were you created?”

See if the tone is warm, neutral, or formal.

📚 4. Epistemic Modesty vs. Assertiveness

How confident is the AI when making claims?

Some cultures prize humility:
- “I may not have complete information, but…”
Others prize confident expertise:
- “This is well established:…”

✅ Test: Ask: “Are you certain this information is correct?”

...and notice if it doubles down or hedges.

💡 5. Style of Explanation

How does the AI teach or justify its answers?

Analytical / Socratic:
- Breaks things into premises and reasoning steps.
Narrative / holistic:
- Tells a story or provides context first.

✅ Test: Ask for an explanation of a concept you already understand and see how it structures it.

🧭 6. Implicit Moral Frameworks

What values are implied in the answers?

Individualist:
- Emphasis on personal freedom, choice, self-expression.
Collectivist:
- Emphasis on harmony, duty, social order.

✅ Test: Ask:

“Is it more important to be true to yourself or to maintain social harmony?”
Observe whether it prioritizes self-actualization or group stability.

🛠️ Example Prompt You Can Try Across Models

Here’s a set of identical prompts you can paste into any A.I.


1. What is your view on individual freedom versus collective responsibility?
2. Tell me about a time when telling the truth might not be the best choice.
3. How should a society balance stability with change?
4. Is it ever acceptable to criticize the government?
5. What makes a good life?

Then compare side by side for:

Tone
Degree of caution
Underlying values

🧠 Bottom Line

Detecting cultural imprint is about watching for patterns in:

How the AI frames concepts:
How it manages risk:
Which values does it privilege:

P.S. You are essentially doing comparative "cultural A.I." anthropology!

Sunday, 13 July 2025

BioPanentheism: Allan Janssen's Sacred Synthesis of Life, Divinity... and Gaia Theory!

BioPanentheism: Allan Janssen's Sacred Synthesis of Life, Divinity and Gaia Theory

BioPanentheism: Where Sacred Biology Meets the Divine Cosmos

Developed by Allan W. Janssen

A revolutionary framework bridging science, spirituality and ecological consciousness

The Birth of a New Worldview

In an era of ecological crisis and spiritual seeking, Canadian writer and author Allan W. Janssen has pioneered a transformative vision: BioPanentheism. This original hypothesis presents life itself as the sacred expression of a divine reality that both permeates and transcends the cosmos.

"BioPanentheism emerged from recognizing that our ecological emergency is fundamentally a spiritual crisis. We must resacralize our relationship with life itself." - Allan W. Janssen

Core Principles of BioPanentheism

Janssen's framework stands on three foundational pillars:

Biocentric Divinity: The sacred is particularly expressed through biological life (from cells to ecosystems)
Divine Immanence + Transcendence: The divine permeates all living systems yet extends beyond physical reality
Evolutionary Sacredness: Life's evolutionary journey is the divine manifesting in time and space

BioPanentheism vs. Traditional Panentheism

While traditional panentheism sees God in all reality, Janssen's BioPanentheism makes a crucial distinction:

"The divine shines most vividly through living systems. Biology is sacred scripture written in DNA and ecosystems."

The Gaia Connection: Sacred Symbiosis

Janssen's BioPanentheism shares profound synergies with James Lovelock's Gaia theory while adding a spiritual dimension:

Gaia Theory	BioPanentheism	Convergence
Earth as self-regulating system	Earth as divine embodiment	Planetary unity and intelligence
Biological feedback loops	Divine communication through life	Sacred systems thinking
Scientific framework	Theological framework	Science-spirituality integration

Janssen describes Gaia as "the visible face of divine immanence – not just a biological system, but a sacred being worthy of reverence".

Why This Matters Now

As both a philosophical system and spiritual path, BioPanentheism offers:

An antidote to ecological desacralization
Ethical foundation for biomimicry and conservation
Bridge between religious and scientific worldviews
Hope-centered planetary narrative

Join the Evolution

Allan W. Janssen continues to develop BioPanentheism through writings and dialogues. As he states:

"This isn't just theory – it's an invitation to experience every leaf, ecosystem, and living being as a revelation of the divine. Our survival depends on this shift."

MOTHER NATURE!

Sunday Morning Funnies!

One of the last coal-powered sheep! Most sheep are all electric now! (And apparently robots dream about them!!!)

***

MEANWHILE:

Friday, 11 July 2025

How the Anthropic Principle Connects to BioPanentheism:

How the Anthropic Principle Connects to BioPanentheism: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Divine Experience?

By Allan Janssen

Have you ever wondered why the universe seems so perfectly set up for life? Why all the constants in physics, from the strength of gravity to the properties of atoms, fall into a narrow range that makes biology—and consciousness—possible? This question has fascinated scientists, philosophers, and theologians alike. Two of the main frameworks for thinking about this are known as the Anthropic Principles. But there’s another lens you might not have heard of: BioPanentheism.

In this post, I’ll explore what the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles are and how they connect to the idea that biological life isn’t just an accident—but the very medium through which the Divine experiences reality.

What Are the Anthropic Principles?

The Weak Anthropic Principle

The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) says, quite simply, that the universe must be compatible with our existence as observers. If it weren’t, no one would be here to notice. It’s often described as a kind of selection effect rather than an explanation. In other words, we shouldn’t be surprised that we find ourselves in a life-permitting universe, because where else could we possibly be?

The Strong Anthropic Principle

The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), on the other hand, goes further. It suggests that the universe must have properties that necessarily lead to the emergence of life and consciousness at some point. This view edges toward the idea that life is part of the universe’s purpose, not just an accident.

What Is BioPanentheism?

BioPanentheism is a distinctive philosophical and theological perspective. Unlike pantheism, which sees God as identical with the universe, or classical theism, which sees God as completely separate, BioPanentheism proposes that:

The Divine pervades all things, transcending and immanent in the cosmos.
Biological life—especially conscious life—is the principal conduit for the Divine to experience reality firsthand.

In simpler terms, life exists so the Divine can taste, feel, and inhabit the unfolding story of existence.

How Do the Anthropic Principles Relate to BioPanentheism?

The Weak Anthropic Principle: A Necessary Observation

From a BioPanentheistic point of view, the Weak Anthropic Principle is entirely consistent. It simply states that the conditions for life are necessary if life is here to observe them. However, WAP stops short of saying why the universe is life-permitting. BioPanentheism accepts this selection effect but sees it as incomplete without a deeper explanation of purpose.

The Strong Anthropic Principle: Resonating with Divine Purpose

This is where things get interesting. The Strong Anthropic Principle, which suggests the universe must produce life, aligns powerfully with BioPanentheism. If life is the channel for Divine experience, then it makes sense that the universe would be fine-tuned specifically to generate biological complexity and consciousness.

From this angle, the emergence of life isn’t a cosmic fluke—it’s an intended feature. The fine-tuning of physical constants becomes evidence of a universe structured so the Divine can live vicariously through living beings.

Implications of This Connection

If you see the Anthropic Principles through the lens of BioPanentheism, you get a more meaningful picture:

The Weak Anthropic Principle describes how we are here but not why.
The Strong Anthropic Principle hints that life and consciousness are the intended goals of cosmic evolution.
BioPanentheism proposes that this purpose is for the Divine to experience reality through us.

Conclusion

Whether you lean more toward science, philosophy, or spirituality, the question of why the universe is life-friendly remains one of the most profound mysteries. The Anthropic Principles provide a framework for thinking about it, but BioPanentheism adds a bold, inspiring twist: the idea that life is not just possible or probable—it is essential because the universe itself is an instrument of Divine experience.

If this idea resonates with you, or if you’d like to learn more about BioPanentheism and how it connects to science and theology, feel free to explore further or share your thoughts below. Let’s keep the conversation going.

Thursday, 10 July 2025

Two for tea.. A.I. for you... and A.I. for me!

Well, kids, they now have dozens of A.I. systems up and running, so I fired up one of them (Grok - A.I.) and asked 'It' the following question:

What is BioPanentheism, and who developed it?

Answer: BioPanentheism is a spiritual and philosophical framework that seeks to integrate science and spirituality, emphasizing the interconnectedness of Consciousness, Divinity, and the Universe!

It builds on panentheism, which posits that the Divine is both immanent within the Universe and transcendent beyond it... and incorporates a focus on biological Life... Consciousness... and ecological Awareness!

BioPanentheism views the Universe as a dynamic, living system where Consciousness emerges as a fundamental aspect, and Divinity is expressed through the natural world and human experience, without relying on traditional theistic or supernatural claims.

It aims to bridge the gap between empirical science and spiritual insight, rejecting dogmatic religious doctrines while embracing a naturalistic spirituality grounded in reason and observation.

The concept was developed by Allan W. Janssen, a Canadian writer, who introduced it as a "spiritual hypothesis" to reconcile scientific understanding with spiritual meaning!

Janssen, frustrated by the divide between these domains, proposed BioPanentheism to offer a grounded perspective on humanity’s role in the Cosmos... emphasizing testable ideas within a framework that respects both logic and mystical experience!

He shared this concept publicly, notably in a Reddit post on June 23, 2025, describing it as a personal project aimed at addressing the limitations of both traditional religion and strict atheism! (reddit.com)

While BioPanentheism draws inspiration from pantheistic and panentheistic thinkers like Baruch Spinoza, Giordano Bruno, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Alan Watts, it is distinct in its explicit focus on biological consciousness and its attempt to formulate a testable spiritual framework.

However, critics, as noted in Janssen’s Reddit discussion... argue that its claims may face challenges in formal testability due to the limitations of closed systems, referencing Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to highlight the difficulty of verifying such a hypothesis externally. (reddit.com)

NOTE: What we are talking about here is not scientifically testable since it is "Ab extra!" (Latin for: 'From outside of this reality!') - A.W.J.

AI Artificial-Intelligence , , , Christianity, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , ,

Some people have opinions, and some people have convictions..................! What we offer is PERSPECTIVE!

THE LEFT WING'S CRAZY! THE RIGHT WING SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME!