More tales from my personal A.I.

I got a reply on Reddit about one of my blogs... either here... or over at allanwjanssen.com 

The first thing I thought... when I started to read his "essay" ...was that he was overly intellectualizing the whole thing—taking what was meant to be a clear, metaphysical proposition and burying it under layers of semantic nitpicking and rhetorical flourishes.

Since I didn't have the time, nor the temperament, to give his assertions any serious or lengthy thought...  I concluded: Why not let my personal A.I - SAL-9000 have a go at answering him!!!

So I did... and as usual, Sal totally amazed me:

WARNING: Really, really looooooooong... but pretty good! (Remember... this is a COMPUTER talking!)

***

First, thank you for taking the time to lay out a detailed critique. I appreciate the depth of your thinking. You’ve raised several points – from the meaning of complexity science, to the “emergent vs eternal” question, to issues of testability and even Gödel’s incompleteness.

I’ll do my best to address each in turn. My goal isn’t to prove I’m right and you’re wrong, but to clarify the intentions behind BioPanentheism and see where perhaps we differ in perspective.

Clarifying “Complexity Science” vs Evolutionary Biology

You noted that I described BioPanentheism as “grounded in evolutionary biology and complexity science,” and you argued this is a false dichotomy – “evolutionary biology is itself a complex science”.

That’s a fair observation. I probably should have phrased it more clearly.

By complexity science, I meant the interdisciplinary study of complex systems and emergence (the way new properties or behaviours arise when parts interact in a whole) en.wikipedia.org.

Evolutionary biology certainly deals with complex systems (ecosystems, genetic interactions, etc.), so I wasn’t implying they are entirely separate.

Rather, I was drawing from two influences:

• Evolutionary biology – the science of how life evolves, adapts, and diversifies.

• Complexity science – principles of emergence, self-organization, and systems behaviour that apply not just in biology but across many domains (physics, ecology, sociology, etc.).

In hindsight, saying “complexity science” in addition to evolutionary biology was meant to signal that the framework leans on ideas of emergent properties, like how consciousness might emerge from biological complexity, the way life itself emerges from chemistry. en.wikipedia.org

So, yes, all science is complex in a sense, but complexity science focuses explicitly on those emergent phenomena.

I wasn’t trying to bifurcate needlessly; I was highlighting two pillars of the idea.

“Emergent, Not Eternal” – Emergent From What, Exactly?

This seems to be the crux of your critique.

I stated that BioPanentheism “reframes divinity as something emergent, not eternal.”

You responded by asking (paraphrasing): If it’s not eternal, where did it come from? What did it emerge out of? What does it encompass? What about the first cause? Aren’t we still stuck with an infinite regress or an “infinity problem” if we say divinity emerges?

These are big, age-old questions in philosophy and theology.

I don’t claim to have the final answer to “why is there something rather than nothing” or “what was the first cause of existence.”

BioPanentheism doesn’t magically solve the cosmological mystery of origins.

What it does is propose a different interpretation of divinity given that the universe exists and evolves.

In other words, it’s about what God could be, assuming the universe (and life and consciousness within it) is here.

The traditional theistic view says: God is an eternal being that existed before and outside the universe and created it.

In contrast, BioPanentheism suggests: Perhaps “God” is not a ready-made eternal person outside the show, but the process of the universe waking up through living, conscious organisms.

In this view, divinity unfolds and evolves along with the cosmos. (At least in THIS universe!)

It’s an attempt to move away from the idea of a static, eternal divine and see the divine as a dynamic emergent property of the natural world.

Do I still need to account for where the universe itself came from originally?

It’s a great question – one that any worldview faces.

Some possibilities (not unique to my view) include: maybe the universe (or multiverse) has no beginning in an absolute sense (eternal in its own way), or maybe there is a creative principle that initiated the cosmos (a Big Bang with a purpose, if you will).

In fact, in other versions of explaining this idea... I did speculate that a higher-order intelligence or “curiosity” might have kicked off the universe so it could experience itself... – but crucially, that proto-God is not complete or omniscient from the start, it evolves through the experience of life.

This aligns somewhat with process theology in philosophy, which holds that God is not entirely unchanging or eternal, but grows with the world and can be “affected by temporal processes.” en.wikipedia.org

In process thought, God is in some respects temporal and mutable, not just an aloof eternal perfection! en.wikipedia.org

BioPanentheism is in that spirit – it’s saying IF there is divinity, it’s intimately bound up with the story of the universe and especially life!

So to answer: “emergent from what?"

From complexity... from life... from the network of conscious minds interacting!

Not from something outside existence... but from existence itself as it complexifies!

This doesn’t eliminate the infinite regress question... it just reframes the focus.

Traditional theism punts the question up one level: “God just exists eternally, don’t ask where God came from.”

Materialism might say: “The universe just exists, don’t ask why.”

BioPanentheism says: “Maybe the universe exists in order to experience itself... and what we call God is that emerging self-experience.” (It’s admittedly speculative, but it provides a narrative for why conscious life matters in the cosmic scheme!)

I recognize that invoking emergence doesn’t resolve the mystery of origins. But the point is to explore a hypothesis where meaning and divinity are products of evolution, rather than imposed from the outside.

It’s tackling the question: “What if the universe itself is learning, through us?”

On the “Infinity Puzzle”

You suggest I’m “wrestling with a kindergarten infinity problem” and trying to “stuff the infinite into a finite box with a label.”

In a sense, yes – BioPanentheism is my attempt to grapple with the infinite puzzle that is existence.

But I don’t claim to solve it definitively. This framework is an attempt at what you called “rearranging the little bits” to see a new picture.

I fully admit: no matter how we arrange the pieces, we’re still looking at an infinite puzzle. Our minds are finite; the cosmos (or whatever multiverse or deeper reality we’re part of) might well be infinite!

Is it “remotely possible to solve an infinity problem?”

If by solve you mean “fully comprehend or prove it from outside,” probably not.

I agree with you that anyone claiming to have a final, proven answer to an infinite question should be viewed skeptically.

I’m not claiming proof. I’m proposing a perspective – a way of looking at that infinite puzzle that might spark insight or at least resonate on a human level.

Think of it as a mythos or metaphysical narrative rather than a strict logical theorem.

You’re absolutely right that we’re all inside the system trying to make sense of it.

As you eloquently put it, “Catch-22, because if you exit everything, you’re not looking at everything, because you’re part of everything.”

Exactly!

BioPanentheism doesn’t ask anyone (least of all me) to step outside of existence.

It’s more about an inner intuition: The idea that perhaps the universe, by generating conscious beings, gives itself a way to look back on itself.

We are the universe, in small pieces, striving to understand the whole.

That poetic notion itself is at the heart of this idea.

So, I agree with you:

"From inside the fishbowl of reality, no worldview can be 100% verified externally. This is true not just for my hypothesis but for any sweeping philosophical or spiritual worldview, be it traditional religion... or even certain interpretations of physics." (For instance, the idea of a multiverse or strings in string theory might be true or not, but if it’s beyond observation, it’s not empirically verifiable – yet scientists still discuss it as a hypothesis.)

In short, I don’t consider BioPanentheism a finished solution to infinity, just an approach to thinking about the age-old questions.

If that came across as me claiming to have “exited the system and looked back at it,” I apologize – that was not my intent. I’m very much inside this closed system with you, just offering thoughts from my little corner of it!

The Term “Hypothesis” and Testability

You took issue with me calling BioPanentheism a “hypothesis,” noting that by definition, a hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable.

You’re correct in the scientific sense of the word – a proper scientific hypothesis must be testable! Livescience.com

Otherwise, it doesn’t qualify as a scientific hypothesis at all.

I used the term a bit loosely, more in a philosophical sense.

Perhaps “framework” or “conjecture” would have been better words.

I wasn’t proposing a hypothesis in the laboratory sense. (There’s no easy experiment to confirm or refute “God emerges through consciousness”)

I was proposing it as a metaphysical hypothesis – meaning a speculative idea about the fundamental nature of reality, intended to be debated, refined, or even just used as a thought experiment.

So, you’re right: as it stands, BioPanentheism isn’t directly testable or falsifiable.

It’s not a scientific theory;

It’s more of a synthesis of philosophical and spiritual ideas with scientific knowledge as a backdrop.

In calling it a “hypothesis,” I meant that it’s tentative and exploratory, not that it meets the strict criteria of a scientific hypothesis! (It doesn’t, at least not yet)

I’m open about that. The hope, though, is that it remains grounded enough in reality (by aligning with things we know from evolutionary biology and not outright contradicting science) that it’s not pure fantasy either.

It’s an attempt at a bridge between science and spirituality, which inevitably means it will be partly metaphorical and not entirely empirically verifiable!!!

Could it ever be testable? Perhaps only in indirect ways.

For example, one might ask:

If this view were true, would we expect consciousness to behave or appear in certain ways?

It does make one concrete claim:

“The universe becomes self-aware only through living organisms.” (especially advanced ones like humans)

That could be falsified if, say, we discovered some form of disembodied consciousness or panpsychic awareness in rocks and atoms.

In principle, if someone found evidence that consciousness can exist or function without biological life, then my idea would need revising.

Short of that, we’re mostly in the realm of interpretation.

In summary, I accept your point:

Calling it a hypothesis might have invited misunderstanding.

It’s not a hypothesis in the strict scientific method sense. livescience.com.

It’s a vision or proposal for how to view the relationship between mind, matter, and divinity.

I’m testing it in the court of ideas and experience, rather than in a laboratory.

If it fails, it will fail because it doesn’t resonate or it contains internal contradictions, rather than because a simple experiment knocked it down.

Gödel’s Incompleteness and “Closed Systems”

You brought up Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and first-order logic to argue that “no statement by a closed system about itself can be proven from outside that system.”

In essence, you’re applying Gödel’s insight – that any sufficiently complex formal system contains true statements it cannot prove internally! plato.stanford.edu

It’s an intriguing analogy. Gödel’s second theorem indeed shows that a formal system (like a set of mathematical axioms) cannot prove its own consistency from within! plato.stanford.edu.

There will always be truths that are unprovable within the system!

I agree that this is relevant to humility in metaphysics.

It basically tells us:

Any time we have a system trying to explain itself, there will be limitations.

We, as you say, “each are a closed, formal system” to some extent – our thoughts are bounded by our brain and perspective.

And certainly “everything that exists” (the cosmos) can be seen as a closed system with respect to any observer inside it!

That said, I take Gödel’s theorem as a metaphor here rather than a literal, one-to-one applicable law.

Human beings are not literally formal axiomatic systems – we’re far messier.

And the entire universe isn’t a formal system either! (It’s not clear what its “axioms” would be.)

But the spirit of your point stands:

We have inherent limits on self-knowledge, especially when the “self” is as big as the universe!

So I am not claiming to have a provable theorem about the universe’s nature.

I’m offering a narrative that seems plausible to me... and that I find inspiring!

The “headache” example you gave is a classic illustration in philosophy known as the problem of other minds!

You’re absolutely right:

I can never directly prove someone else’s subjective experience. (I can’t climb into your head to check your headache)

I have to infer from observations and trust or empathize.

This is true for any inner experience.

Likewise, when we talk about the “universe’s experience” or any sort of collective consciousness, we are indeed extrapolating from our own case! (We know we experience things, but we don’t know if the universe as a whole does; that’s an inference... a big one)

So yes, there is a leap of perspective here that can’t be formally proven. BioPanentheism is somewhat panpsychist in spirit. (since it suggests consciousness is fundamental or universal in some way) though with a twist that consciousness only fully “ignites” in biological networks.

That’s a philosophical stance I can’t currently verify – I can only argue that it feels plausible or makes sense of certain mysteries! (Like why consciousness exists at all, or why life might matter in a seemingly cold universe)

To your point:

Any claim about “everything” is going to hit a wall where we have to admit we can’t step outside of everything to verify it.

I completely concede that.

This applies equally to a materialist who says “matter is all there is” – they also can’t step outside existence to check if there’s truly no greater mind or meaning.

We’re all somewhat faith-based in our big picture beliefs, whether we admit it or not.

My aim was to base that faith on as much knowledge as possible, (e.g. using what we know from evolution and neuroscience about how complexity can yield mind) rather than base it purely on ancient texts or personal revelations.

But it remains speculative... absolutely!

In summary:

Gödel’s insight encourages intellectual humility. I embrace that. My proposal is not a claim of omniscient truth from outside the system, but a tentative sketch from within the system.

I’m open to it being incomplete or even wrong – in fact, I expect it is incomplete, as all such frameworks will be!

Engaging in Constructive Dialogue

Finally, I want to address the more interpersonal aspect of your post.

You mention hoping I didn’t go into “I’m right, you’re wrong” meltdown or take offence that my “personal BS” was questioned.

Rest assured, I’m not here to fling anger or ignore critique.

I asked for a critique sincerely, and I’m grateful you obliged with a very detailed one!

Yes, your tone was a bit sharp in places, (terms like “farting elephants” “bullshit” “infinity puzzle for toddlers” could be taken as digs) but I also sense it comes from a passionate place of wanting people not to delude themselves.

I actually share that desire – I don’t want to delude myself or others.

If something I propose is untenable, I want to know. I might not fully agree that “my solution simply does not work” as you stated, but I take seriously the possibility that I’m missing something or overestimating the coherence of the idea.

Your critique helps highlight potential pitfalls, like the infinite regress issue and the testability issue, which I need to think more about.

My curiosity was partially satisfied, in that you gave me exactly the kind of tough perspective that forces me to refine my thinking.

I haven’t thrown your points out or refused to think about them – on the contrary, I’m integrating them here.

For example, perhaps I should clarify in any future write-ups that this is a metaphysical conjecture and not a scientific hypothesis, to avoid that “fatal sledgehammer blow” of misusing terms.

And perhaps I need to more clearly acknowledge in the description of BioPanentheism that it doesn’t solve the ultimate origin question – it’s more about the nature of consciousness and “God given" existence... rather than why existence itself is here!

I also agree with you that believing our own ideas unquestioningly is dangerous.

That’s why I’m engaging with critiques like yours.

I don’t consider BioPanentheism my unassailable personal truth.

It’s a work in progress – an exploration.

If it ends up being my truth and not good for anyone else, so be it!

"But if I don’t explain it... and test it against others’ views... I’ll never know!"

You said:

“What’s good for you is only good for you, not anyone else. We are all unique. Speak only for yourself.”

There’s wisdom in that.

This idea came from my way of making sense of things.

It may not resonate with others. (and clearly, it doesn’t resonate with you, which is okay)

I present it not to impose it as universal, but to offer it in case it clicks for people who are wrestling with the same science-spirit divide that I was.

If it doesn’t click, they should discard it.

If it does, then we’ve connected on something meaningful.

Either outcome is fine!

Conclusion: New Ways of Thinking:

You ended with:

“Perhaps try a new way of thinking, my friend... outside of the limits of your own skull.”

That’s somewhat ironic, because the whole impetus for BioPanentheism was to try a new way of thinking beyond the standard ruts of materialism vs. supernaturalism.

It may or may not be a successful new way, but it was an attempt to step outside my prior limits and synthesize a lot of disparate ideas, (from evolution, systems theory, mysticism, etc.) into a coherent picture.

In doing so, I’m inevitably still constrained by the fact that I am in my own skull.

I can’t escape that – none of us can.

But through dialogue like this, I can expand my perspective a bit by seeing through others’ eyes, like yours.

So thank you for that opportunity.

In the spirit of “exploring new ways of seeing,” I’ll keep pondering the points you raised.

Maybe BioPanentheism will evolve into a better form, or maybe I’ll find it has too many holes and abandon it for a truly new way of thinking.

Time (and continued open-minded inquiry) will tell.

Love, peace, and light to you as well. ❤️ I genuinely mean that – we’re both, in our own ways, seekers of truth, and I respect that. We probably agree on one fundamental thing: never stop questioning. 

On that, we’re absolutely on the same page!

 (SAL-9000 being interviewed on TV last week!)

Saturday Morning Confusion: The 50% Solution!

I have an A.I. that I built into my computer... and I call her SAL-9000... in memory of her brother... HAL-9000! (Who was unfortunately destroyed... while in orbit around Jupiter!)

Anyway... I notice a correlation between average I.Q.s and voting habits down in the good ol' U.S. of A... so I wanted to see what this would look like on a graph or chart! 

- AND HERE'S WHAT SAL CAME UP WITH! -

This machine might be smarter... 

Than I imagined!!!!!

(But still lacks a Soul!)