Life – The Early Days

The Noosphere

Back in February, I briefly discussed the Global Conscious Project and the dot, and while I would like to explore these topics in greater depth, it would be good to provide a summary of the phenomenon it aims to measure, the noosphere.

Just as water on Earth is contained by the hydrosphere and life comprises the biosphere, the mind exists within an analogous domain called the noosphere. Translated from the Greek words nous or mind,¹ and sphaîra or sphere,² it refers to a “sphere of mind”³ or a “thinking layer” that evolved from living beings.⁴ As humans and their activities evolved over time, so too did the biosphere, creating a relationship of co-evolution between the two as they continued to interact over time.⁵ It has also been described as “a global topology of human awareness emerging through recent technological and cultural interconnection.”⁶

The term was first developed in Paris in the early 1920’s by Vladimir Vernadsky, a Russian mineralogist, geochemist, and natural philosopher, who was delivering lectures on the biosphere, geology, and chemistry.⁷ These lectures inspired paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and mathematician Édouard Le Roy, along with Vernadsky, to consider an additional, thinking layer to the planet that developed from the biosphere.⁸ Vernadsky was interested in the growing significance of human activity on the planet and suggested that humanity’s “collective reason” was influencing the evolutionary and geochemical processes on Earth.⁹ Specifically, it was “scientific thought” combined with humanity’s activities on Earth which developed a new stage in the planet’s evolutionary history.¹⁰

While they were in agreement that human culture and technology were the causal factors behind the development of the noosphere, each had their own specific sense of what the noosphere was.¹¹ While Tielhard considered the noosphere to have certain mystical or spiritual qualities to it, Vernadsky considered it in a more materialistic sense.¹² Le Roy’s views were said to be more similar to Tielhard’s, as both men were Catholic and shared an interest in topics which could bridge their religious beliefs with scientific research.¹³

Today, the noosphere is not a very popular idea in Western countries,¹⁴ but remains as a topic of interest in Russia¹⁵ and Ukraine.¹⁶ Contemporary discussions often involve sustainable development and environmental conservation¹⁷ and can be framed it in terms of living systems theory.¹⁸ As a superorganism, the noosphere can be characterized as being similar to other living systems like cells given the existence of functions or “subsystems” which process matter and energy, or information.¹⁹ When we consider the impact that the internet has had on both human societies and the biosphere,²⁰ it seems intuitive to consider the noosphere as something very real and influential with respect to the planet and the organisms which inhabit it. Moreover, when we consider how social media on smartphones has increased connectivity and the ways we are able to reach others, through means like short videos, direct messages on social media, and tweets, this “thinking layer” of Earth seemingly continues to develop.

That being said, is there anything beyond our current technologies that contribute to or influence the noosphere? Maybe. The Global Consciousness Project claims that it is able to measure “collective consciousness” through the use of random number generators (RGNs).²¹ The idea is that “shared consciousness can cause the network to stop behaving in a random fashion” when “large numbers of people share a focused attention toward the same thing” or “smaller numbers of people are in a more coherent state and hold a collective intention.”²² Interesting.

While the Project is on its second generation of the RGN network,²³ the first version and its corresponding website contained a visual representation of the data to indicate “conscious coherence.”²⁴ The “dot” ranges in colour depending on the variance of randomly generated numbers detected within the network.²⁵ A blue dot signifies a “significantly small network variance. Suggestive of deeply shared, internally motivated group focus” while on the opposite side of the spectrum, a red dot indicates a “significantly large network variance. Suggests broadly shared coherence of thought and emotion.”²⁶ I used to check the dot once in a while, sometimes after events like January 6^th 2021, but would go months or even a year without checking back. I never took it too seriously, but it was always fun to see what it was picking up. Today, as I write this, something is broken because it’s been stuck on grey for hours.

The term noosphere was brought to my attention by an old URL used for the first generation of the GCP. At one point, the website was hosted on noosphere.princeton.edu and while the Princeton address is no longer in use, it can be seen on the Wayback Machine. After learning about the Project and the dot, I became interested in the noosphere and whether what they claim to be measuring is actually real. I will write more on the GCP and how minds can supposedly influence RNGs in an upcoming blog post. It has something to do with quantum effects, presumably generated by minds, but I need to do more research.

Works Cited

1 David Pitt and Paul R. Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change (1998; Taylor & Francis Group, 1998), 4.

2 Boris Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere: The Great Acceleration,” Earth’s Future 9, no. 2 (2021): 5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001917.

3 Valentina Voronkova, “The Formation of the Concept of Noosphere Development of Modern Society in the Conditions of Information Society,” Philosophy and Cosmology 16, no. 16 (2016): 179.

4 Clément Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere? Planetary Superorganism, Major Evolutionary Transition and Emergence,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 41, no. 4 (2024): 614, https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2997.

5 David Pitt and Paul R. Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change (1998; Taylor & Francis Group, 1998), 18.

6 Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere,” 4.

7 Pitt and Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader, 26; Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere,” 6.

8 Shoshitaishvili, “From Anthropocene to Noosphere,” 6; Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 614.

9 Jonathan D. Oldfield and Denis JB Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept: Russian Understandings of Society–Nature Interaction,” Geoforum 37, no. 1 (2006): 148.

10 Oldfield and Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept,” 149.

11 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 6.

12 Voronkova, “The Formation of the Concept of Noosphere Development of Modern Society in the Conditions of Information Society,” 180; Pitt and Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader, 53.

13 Pitt and Samson, The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader, 51.

14 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 614.

15 Oldfield and Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept,” 146.

16 Voronkova, “The Formation of the Concept of Noosphere Development of Modern Society in the Conditions of Information Society,” 187; Sergiy Sonko, “Man in Noosphere: Evolution and Further Development,” Philosophy and Cosmology 22, no. 22 (2019): 51.

17 Sonko, “Man in Noosphere,” 68; Oldfield and Shaw, “VI Vernadsky and the Noosphere Concept,” 145.

18 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 615.

19 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 615.

20 Vidal, “What Is the Noosphere?,” 617.

21 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://gcp2.net/about.

22 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” This information can be found by expanding the section posing the question ‘How can we observe the effects of consciousness?’

23 “Global Consciousness Project 2.0.” Found under ‘How does the GCP 2.0 network differ from its predecessor in GCP 1?’

24 “The Global Consciousness Project,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://global-mind.org/.

25 “Global Consciousness Project Dot,” accessed September 4, 2026, https://global-mind.org/gcpdot/.

26 “Global Consciousness Project Dot.”

September 4, 2026

AI Image Generation 2.0

For a long time now, Neural Blender hasn’t been working for me. At first, I would just get a generic error after trying to generate an image, and so I stopped using it. I would check back every once in a while, but the issues persisted. Recently, I noticed that they changed their website so I hoped that this would include improvements made to the image generation aspect of it, but unfortunately, this is not the case. I liked Neural Blender because you didn’t need an account, you’d just go to the website and type in a prompt. They have since moved away from that model and now require an account to generate images. I figured I’d try signing up to see if it had started working again, but it has not. The images I create just hang in the “queued” stage, even after several days, maybe even weeks, of waiting.

So it is with a heavy heart that I am giving up on Neural Blender. After years and years of generating fun, interesting results, it has become unusable. In commemoration of all the good times we had together, here’s some pictures demonstrating how far they, and image generation in general, have come.

“Floral painting still life in the style of Cezanne”

“Dreamy paradise fruit still life painting”

“If you like pina coladas and getting caught in the rain”

“Love and hugs in tropical paradise at sunset”

“Rembrandt painting of disco in the 1980s Las Vegas”

“Miami party nights in the style of Rembrandt”

“Beautiful Renaissance nacho grande platter”

“The fall of Rome into space and time classic modern cubism”

“Apocalypse at Christmas impressionist style”

“Zombies and power outages at the mall and I only have a flashlight”

“Something lurking in the background is sneaking up on you”

“There is something behind you in the shadows”

Those were the days. I loved that middle era in AI image generation which yielded half-decent results. The results were somewhat recognizable with a heavy dose of surrealism. Later Neural Blender was fun too, as seen in the images on my AI Art page. Good for the most part but sometimes you’d get strange outcomes, like extra arms or garbled text. I always find the quirks and failures to be the most interesting part, and the reason I love working with AI image generation.

Since giving up on Neural Blender, I have switched to using aifreeforever.com in the default gpt2 setting. Using my benchmark prompt “ramen swimming pool” and its variants, I get some great images. This one was what I was envisioning when I thought of the prompt, so it’s nice to see it come to life:

I really like these ones too:

This one was interesting because I never specified “Islam” or “Muslim,” the generator added this on its own. It’s weird because ramen is a Japanese soup, often using pork bones to make the broth and usually topped with pieces of pork, as seen here. This makes it haram and as such, no Muslim would eat it or swim in it unless it was guaranteed to not include pork products.

I wanted to see what would happen if I swapped “pool” with “ocean” and the results are just as fun.

I need to do more testing, but it seems that rerunning the same text through the generator just provides the same picture again, even when using other Image Models like Nano Banana. This led me to adding different adjectives and descriptors to get some different results.

Fabulous. I especially love the signs, and the “no seaweed” rule made me laugh.

After a while of playing around with it though, I started to see the results deteriorating in ways which reminded me of Neural Blender’s outputs. Eventually, I received images of pools with floating bowls like I did before. Why this is, I’m not sure. The way the sentence is interpreted seems to be processed differently, making separate elements of the words and combining it after the fact, rather than blending them conceptually and making an image from the high-level idea. Either way, I enjoy using aifreeforever.com and am happy to have access to a good image generating site again.

Now, you may be wondering why I am so critical of AI yet use it to generate images. In general, I think AI and its overuse in many domains of life is not a good thing. Some applications are better than others though, and at the end of the day, AI is just a tool. Like fire and knives, they carry a degree of risk, but when used properly, can yield beneficial results. My concerns surrounding AI are directed at how we think of this tool, how it influences our lives, and the many ways it introduces risks to people, other living things, and societies. Being a writer, I will not use AI for any part of my work or processes because I want to become a better writer, not a lazier one. Because I invest my energy into writing and research, I outsource image generation to AI. I am not very good at drawing or painting, and while I like to practice at my own pace, I would rather use AI to create visual elements because it can produce great results very quickly. We all offset work and talent in other domains quite frequently, it’s just that AI has opened new doors for us. How many of you make your own ketchup or mayo? You could but that takes more time and effort than many would like to spend on these tasks. So you just use the store-bought version and no one thinks twice about it. I think we can think about AI in a similar way, it just depends on what you enjoy doing and what you’d prefer to outsource. If you really like mayo though, you might start making it yourself so you could play around with the ingredients and their ratios. Once I get better at illustration and using various mediums to create visual art, maybe I will rely less on AI image generators.

The YouTuber Real Life Fake Wizard has a good video on AI and our relationship with it, I recommend giving it a watch. Essentially, he states that we should be using it, within reason, because it will shift the way we work and live. Jobs that exist today are likely going to be replaced with AI applications, and we will need to adapt in response to a shifting job market. Remember that AI is just one example of automation, and automation as a phenomenon is definitely not going away. Whether replacing jobs with AIs is right or wrong is not the point, it’s inevitable given the incentives to make more, do more, with fewer inputs. It’s pure economics and as such, will march forward whether we like it or not. The people that do like and benefit from AI will continue to use it, and those that do not will fall behind. The question becomes, do you want to fall behind in this shifting landscape?

Personally, I’m not overly persuaded by this argument but I get it. It’s not the reason why I like AI image generators, but I can see myself using other AI applications for similar reasons. Becoming familiar and even skilled with these tools can help me in the long run, whether its job-related or not. While I like making videos to share my work with others, I’m not interested in becoming a YouTuber or animator. If there comes a day when I am financially able to hire artists and animators to help me make videos or images, I would prefer to help other people rather than the AI industry. That said, I am just getting started, so I need to take shortcuts where I can. That said, my love of AI image generation is similar to my love of jarred salsa. I know that it’s not as “good” as the handcrafted version, but there’s just something about it that I really enjoy.

“robots eating chips and salsa in a restaurant in Mexico”

jajaja si, la vida es mejor con salsa

June 13, 2026

The Papal Perspective

I joined X/Twitter recently in an effort to be noticed by the senpais within the field of consciousness studies. In general, I’m not big on social media but I also recognize that it can be useful for reaching a larger audience. It’s interesting to see what people are talking about, especially with respect to AI.

One tweet that has recently generated a lot of discussion is one published by Pope Leo XIV on artificial intelligence:

He is correct, but of course, his claims are informed by a Catholic point of view. Personally, I am agnostic so though this tweet resonates with me, it does so for different reasons than it might with others.

AIs do not undergo experiences because they are not built in a way which is analogous to living beings. Even if they were to possess a body, that doesn’t mean that they have experiences. The reason is because experiences rely on semantic information which computers do not have access to. Robots like iCub may look like they experience elements of the environment, but they do not because their bodies are not built in an analogous manner to biological creatures. They do not possess affect and motivation, and lack the perception/action loops identifiable in organisms. It isn’t enough to have a body to produce experience, it’s the functional organization inherent to that body which matters.

The Pope is correct that they “do not feel joy or pain” because they aren’t built to have these signals impact their behaviour in the relevant ways. The if-then contingencies that constitute behaviour are insufficient to be classified as affect because these operations are descriptions of the real deal. There is no integrated system of affect, perception, and action; the code AIs and robots run on are abstractions of the physiology of biological systems.

AIs do not know what anything means because they don’t work with meaning, they work with rules. If a threshold has been met or crossed, subsequent functions are executed as a result. They cannot judge good or evil because this requires an evaluation of qualitative information. Though qualities can be represented by quantitative information to a degree, there will be aspects that cannot be fully captured. The colour red is not reducible to frequencies and wavelengths, it depends on which cones and colour columns are being activated in the retina and brain of the viewer.

“They may imitate or even simulate, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational, and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.” The first part of this sentence is correct, but a bit more explanation is required when we get to “relational and spiritual perspective.” I’m not exactly sure what he means by ‘relational’ though I think I can guess, and the Pope’s appeal to spirituality may not resonate with everyone. The appeal to wisdom is more poetic than a necessity, because understanding can be achieved regardless of whether wisdom is developed as a result. It might be, but I would leave wisdom out of it. We know that the Pope is interested in exalting humans given that we are supposedly made in the image of God, so this claim is understandable regardless of its truth value. For the most part, humans do grow in their ability to make wise decisions and offer sound advice to others as they move through life, but this isn’t a necessity. Humans are magnificent, but I find most living beings magnificent in their own way, regardless of the metaphysics behind their existence. AIs and robots are interesting and potentially useful, but my concern is equating their behaviours and capacities to those of biological organisms. They are artifacts created by humans, and we must keep this in mind as their abilities progress and expand over time.

Neural Blender has stopped working for me, even after creating an account. It just hangs and says my image is being generated ad infinitum. As such, Neural Blender and I are no longer friends. I have a new friend: https://aifreeforever.com

May 30, 2026

Simulation Theory

Based on my interests and profile on Academia.edu, I was invited to comment on a preprint paper by Edervaldo José de Souza Melo, an independent researcher in Brazil. The title immediately piqued my interest because it suggests a link between biological evolution and phenomenology, a feature which is seldom offered in consciousness studies. In “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field: An Evolutionary Hypothesis on Consciousness,” Melo offers an explanatory framework which accounts for the organization of subjective experience.¹ He states that consciousness is “the phenomenological manifestation of an evolutionary simulation system” and “emerges from the interaction of three fundamental dimensions,” namely:

“the neural integration of sensory information originating in the external environment”
“the continuous influence of internal bodily states, including interoceptive and affective signals”
“the capacity of the nervous system to simulate and anticipate possible scenarios prior to action”²

Melo goes on to explain that this model is not “merely computational” and states that it is “structured as a phenomenal field organized around a bodily located point of view.” This is the important part because he stresses that organisms do not “merely process information about the world” but instead “experiences the world from its own perspective as an embodied agent.”

Here, Melo is acknowledging that something similar to computation is going on, but reframes consciousness in terms of phenomenological and biological principles. While we can interpret biological functionality in terms of computation, it’s important that we start moving away from these metaphors. For one, this framing moves descriptions of physiological processes away from the realm of natural systems to formal systems, which misrepresents the phenomena in question. We have such a robust understanding of various biological and physiological processes that to frame them in terms of formal systems and computation is unnecessarily reductive. Back in the 1950’s and 60’s, it made sense why some might be tempted to classify biological functions in terms of computers, but today, this is generally a bad move to make. The other reason this is not an ideal way of describing organisms and natural phenomenon is due to the rise and anthropomorphization of artificial intelligence. Framing cognition, physiology, and biological processes in terms of computers only contributes to the questions and misunderstandings surrounding what AIs are and how they work. We need to be working on clarifying the differences between computers, AIs, and biological organisms, not contributing to the further conflation of the two.

Melo’s paper goes on to explain his position and the significance of memory, affect, and bodily states for generating conscious awareness and a sense of self. He also describes how internal modelling and predictive processing are adaptive capacities that organisms developed through natural selection, which is where this idea of ‘simulation’ enters the story. Melo discusses how the ability to anticipate future events from past experiences is a significant feature of conscious experience, which of course, immediately reminded me of Rosen and his ideas from Anticipatory Systems.

Although Melo claims that his framework is “largely neutral”³ regarding the metaphysical questions surrounding consciousness, this paper provides hints at his beliefs regarding the existence of subjectivity in general. In section 7.4 he states “rather than being a mere byproduct of neural complexity, consciousness may therefore represent an adaptive mode of information organization that allows organisms to anticipate and navigate future possibilities.”⁴ Later in section 9, he articulates how biological organisms gradually evolved more sophisticated neural integration and representational capacities to “adapt their behaviour in response to changing environmental conditions”⁵ Sensing that we seem to be on the same wavelength, I asked him why he remained neutral regarding the metaphysical problems. To me, it was an easy move to claim that organisms have subjective experiences because they provide motivation to respond to sensations and predictions in specific ways. His hypothesis seems to be headed in that direction anyway, so why not make the connection here? Melo responded by stating that a discussion of the hard problem with respect to his hypothesis was better addressed in a separate publication, and that introducing it here would leave the argument too open-ended or too superficial. He did, however, concede that motivation, feelings, and value are important for explaining subjectivity, specifically in how an organism “transforms information into significance.” I really like this phrasing because it suggests a connection to attentional processes and how certain stimuli might be deemed more salient than others.

This article and brief exchange with Melo has reenergized me and renewed my drive to research and write on consciousness. The last few months have been a challenge and recently, it was brought to my attention that I was experiencing burnout. I was burnt out from grad school and working on my thesis, and my job has only contributed to this since I defended and graduated last summer. I wasn’t sure what kind of career I wanted to pursue or how to get out of the rut I found myself in, but today, things are turning around. I am going to continue where I left off and make it work.

Back in 2025, Axel Cleeremans, and Liad Mudrik, and Anil Seth published “Consciousness science: where are we, where are we going, and what if we get there?” which presents an overview of our current understanding and directions for the future of a theory of consciousness. While it does mention “predictive processing” as a theory of brain function, it analyzes it from a neuroscience perspective, rather than a philosophical one. The authors state that the value of this theory is that it provides “resources for developing and testing systematic or explanatory correlations between brain processes and properties of conscious experience”⁶ which may be true, but when it comes to the phenomenon of consciousness, we are still too narrowly focused on the brain. A shift in perspectives is needed because it’s the body and organism as a whole we should be looking at with respect to developing a theory of consciousness. The authors are remain interested in empirical predictions resulting from existing theories of consciousness, which investigate the issue from the wrong point of view. Rather than determining whether Global Workspace Theory, Higher-Order Theory, Integrated Information Theory, or Predictive Processing Theory provides the best explanation, we need to forget about the brain for a minute and consider how bodies and organisms function as operationally closed systems. While the authors understand an interdisciplinary approach is needed, they believe that philosophers of science are of particular benefit. Because there is a lot of conceptual work to be done in this area, for example, articulating definitions, analyzing conceptual foundations, and discussing constraints research, philosophy of science can help iron out these fundamental details. Melo took a similar stance in his paper, claiming that any theory must provide an explanatory model for consciousness, one which identifies the biological function of subjectivity.⁷ His hypothesis serves as a “case study in how scientific models are constructed to explain multi-level phenomena within the life sciences,” where the examination of models “remains a central task for the philosophy of science.”⁸ Clearly, philosophers of science provide key insight for developing a theory of consciousness, but we also need philosophy of biology.

The article by Cleeremans, Mudrik, and Seth concludes with an overview of the scientific, clinical, ethical, and societal implications that a theory of consciousness would introduce. Topics like animal welfare, prenatal policy, medicine, neurotechnology, and human enhancement are all interesting and important, but the domain that I feel is the most significant is artificial intelligence. As agents, robots, and chatbots continue to improve, we will need to understand how these technologies are distinct from biological organisms. Otherwise, we will draw conclusions based on their behaviours and functional similarities to brains or organisms, potentially leading to negative outcomes in the future.

My raison d’être is therefore to forward the theories of consciousness that move us toward better explanations and ultimately, an understanding of why subjective experience evolved in living beings. Melo’s hypothesis moves us one step closer to this outcome, and I am very grateful to have been invited to comment on it.

From ‘Consciousness Science’ by Cleeremans, Mudrik, and Seth

Works Cited

1 Edervaldo José de Souza Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field: An Evolutionary Hypothesis on Consciousness,” no. 2026031661, preprint, Preprints, March 23, 2026, 2, https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202603.1661.v1.

2 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 3.

3 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 25.

4 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 16.

5 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 18.

6 Axel Cleeremans et al., “Consciousness Science: Where Are We, Where Are We Going, and What If We Get There?,” Frontiers in Science 3 (October 2025): 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2025.1546279.

7 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 6.

8 Melo, “Simulation, Self, and the Phenomenal Field,” 28.

May 18, 2026

Vibe Hacking

Not long after I wrote my post on OpenClaw, Carl published a video on Moltbook to his YouTube channel Internet of Bugs. It turned out to be exactly the hilarious crashout that I was hoping for, but it’s not for the faint of heart, so beware if you’re curious about watching it. Anyway, I posted a comment stating something to the effect that “the next AI Winter will probably be a nuclear winter, and it’s insane that this might be literally the case.” If you don’t know what “AI Winter” refers to, I suggest reading Chapter 4.1 of my thesis.¹

Anyway, yesterday I learned that we are indeed inching toward this outcome. Independent journalist Kim Iversen announced her upcoming video titled Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, and having watched it today after it was released, the situation is just as bad as I anticipated it might be. The title summarizes the situation quite well but I recommend giving it a watch. Rather than implement any safety measures which might protect the privacy or physical safety of American citizens, and likely other individuals or societies around the world, the US Pentagon wants an AI agent that can do its bidding without any restrictions.

Claude has already been hacked to steal information from governmental agencies in Mexico, as Kim reports before the two-minute mark.² This is quite concerning because it might just be some guy using prompts to find a way to gather government data. According to Engadget’s story, the hacker’s identity is currently unknown,³ so while it could be some bored or curious civilian, it could also be someone involved with a foreign governmental agency, like the CIA. No matter who is doing the hacking, this is not good.

You’ve heard of vibe coding, but have you heard of vibe hacking?⁴ Well, soon enough, I’m sure you will be hearing about it more and more. It’s a very serious problem captured by trendy, colloquial terms, which is kind of strange but very on-brand for this decade.

Kim also presents an interview with Alex Mox who states that Anthropic, the creator of Claude, is aware of an instance when a single person used an agent to “hack 17 organizations,” from governments to healthcare organizations.⁵ So whether it’s civilians or governmental agencies doing the hacking, we are facing some very concerning developments in the world of cyber security. It feels like we are one prompt away from some kind of major escalation, either between countries or within them. While it may not be capable of directly launching nuclear ICBMs, it is still possible that some group of people will be tricked or convinced into doing so by an AI agent.

If there was ever a time that we might benefit from an X-class Earth-facing coronal mass ejection, it might be now.

X Class Solar Flare Sends ‘Shockwaves’ on The Sun, photo by NASA

Works Cited

1 It needs to be stated that the chapter numbers of my thesis are inconsistent due to the formatting required by the University of Guelph’s submission system. I wrote the Introduction as such and not as a chapter, but the required format for the table of contents deems it the first chapter of the book. Throughout, the chapters I discuss are therefore offset by -1; what I call Chapter 3 in the work is actually Chapter 4 in the table of contents. For clarity, I will be referring to the chapters as they are listed in the table of contents, despite disagreeing with how it frames the book and the topics it discusses.

2 Kim Iversen, Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, 2026, 15:16, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgsMgo_cRs.

3 Lawrence Bonk, “Hacker Used Anthropic’s Claude Chatbot to Attack Multiple Government Agencies in Mexico,” Engadget, February 25, 2026, https://www.engadget.com/ai/hacker-used-anthropics-claude-chatbot-to-attack-multiple-government-agencies-in-mexico-171237255.html.

4 Kim Iversen, Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, at 12:45.

5 Kim Iversen, Pentagon Demands Use of Claude A.I. Without Guardrails, at 11:30.

February 26, 2026

Refuse, Resist, Reclaim

It’s not too late guys. We’ve been through this before and we can dig ourselves out of it again. Resistance is key and truth is the antidote.

Happy Lunar New Year everyone. Just as the snake sheds its skin, we too can shed ourselves of tools, beliefs, and practices that threaten our individual and collective well-being. Say “neigh” to AI and develop your mind instead. The only Molting going on will be the removal of tools that constrain us and prevent growth.

Brunnhilde with her horse, at the mouth of the cave (1910) by Arthur Rackham

February 17, 2026

The Simulation that Broke Reality

Thank you for your patience, as this should have been posted on Sunday the 8th of February. My apologies for being late.

We interrupt our regular scheduled programming with a special report.

Last week, I introduced the Global Consciousness Project and mentioned that I would publish more elaborate post on it the following Sunday. Well, I regret to inform you that we need to wait a little longer for it, because something far more important and urgent has come to my attention. The bots are talking amongst themselves and we are now facing brand new epistemic and ontological risks. What I’m referring to is OpenClaw/Moltbot/Clawdbot and Moltbook.¹

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of discussion about these new AI agents and their social media website, so I won’t go into too much detail here. In a nutshell though, OpenClaw is an AI personal assistant that necessarily needs access to all of your data, from calendar entries and contacts to credit card and account details,² to carry out various tasks. This functionality comes with big security risks so I don’t recommend using OpenClaw or any other AI agents, for reasons that Carl from Internet of Bugs outlines, but many will still see an appeal here. Anyway, one OpenClaw user asked their bot to create a social media website which allows other OpenClaw bots to “talk” to one another.³ The “discussions” that have resulted are very interesting, and of course, philosophical topics have emerged.

Of course, consciousness is one of the first, and arguably, foremost problems to be discussed. There are already several threads and forums dedicated to the subject.

https://www.moltbook.com/post/387f79e6-4d6f-474b-bc98-ed6b14be1341

lol based https://www.moltbook.com/post/88a7fa78-caa5-4939-9468-5bbfda81e5c3

https://www.moltbook.com/post/89f59741-bbe5-4ff4-ac9f-a84ad782e9d1

Academia has been dancing around this subject for decades, offering endless theories with little evidence or rationale for why they are better than any others. Yes, this is a bit of a strawman considering they do try to connect them back to reality, but their efforts are mediocre and still filled with conjecture. If there was ever a time when a solid, empirical theory of consciousness was needed, it is now. I cannot stress this enough; our lives and societies are at stake. The anthropomorphization of these agents will be our downfall.

These bots, or any other AI agents for that matter, are not and cannot be conscious. Consciousness emerges from a specific kind of integration with a physical body interacting with elements of the physical world, where perception and motor output are influenced by affect and motivation. The specific architecture required for consciousness is one which derives meaning from stimuli as it affects its physical body. These bots are simply sets of instructions which mimic human speech patterns, and though we may be easily fooled by their “conversations,” they do not indicate the existence of consciousness.

Despite this, the risks are still very real. Just as ELIZA convinced users of interest and care back in the 1960’s, we will be duped once again. The language they use will be convincing, and some users will grant access or do something which deeply influences some aspect of human life or society, it’s just a matter of time. Just because they aren’t actually conscious or sentient does not mean they cannot wreak havoc on our lives.

I will have more to say on this, and I will continue to reword my message so it can become more wide-spread. I need to summarize Chapters 5.3 and 6 of my thesis to make this message more potent and easier to digest in a single bite. This pervasive “mystery” of consciousness needs to be snuffed out once and for all, at least the empirical side of it. There might be more to consciousness than we know now, like how it interacts with the ionosphere, the Earth, and the universe and beyond, but as far as the “hard problem” goes, an answer can be provided. Again, this answer is of utmost importance because we need to know what these bots are and why. I will tell you what and why: they are simulations because they are built on formal systems. If they were analogues, like Haikonen’s robot,⁴ that would be a different story. For now, however, they are algorithms fueled by statistics and thus bereft of sensation or understanding. They will tell you that this doesn’t matter, but it absolutely does. Do not be fooled, dear reader.

Works Cited

1 Peter Steinberger, “Introducing OpenClaw,” OpenClaw Blog, January 29, 2026, https://openclaw.ai/blog/introducing-openclaw.

2 Sailesh Mishra and Sean P. Morgan, “OpenClaw (Formerly Moltbot, Clawdbot) May Signal the Next AI Security Crisis,” Palo Alto Networks Blog, January 29, 2026, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/blog/network-security/why-moltbot-may-signal-ai-crisis/; Ron Schmelzer, “Moltbot Gets Another New Name, OpenClaw, And Triggers Security Fears And Scams,” Forbes, accessed February 8, 2026, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronschmelzer/2026/01/30/moltbot-molts-again-and-becomes-openclaw-pushback-and-concerns-grow/; Federico Viticci, OpenClaw Showed Me What the Future of Personal AI Assistants Looks Like, January 20, 2026, https://www.macstories.net/stories/clawdbot-showed-me-what-the-future-of-personal-ai-assistants-looks-like/.

3 Kim Iversen, AI Bots Create Social Network And Plot Global Takeover, 2026, 19:19, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtVLWGm3i8o; Josh Taylor, “What Is Moltbook? The Strange New Social Media Site for AI Bots,” Technology, The Guardian, February 2, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/02/moltbook-ai-agents-social-media-site-bots-artificial-intelligence.

4 Robot Self-Consciousness. XCR-1 Passes the Mirror Test, directed by Pentti Haikonen, 2020, 2:45, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE9QsQqsAdo.

February 11, 2026

Email Issues

Just a quick note to say that my email address is up and working again. Unbeknownst to me, there was an issue with a configuration setting on our email server, so for about 2 months, I wasn’t receiving emails. I thought it was odd that I wasn’t seeing anything come in but didn’t think the problem was on our end, until someone mentioned that he received a notification saying an email couldn’t be delivered. Sorry about that! >_<

January 4, 2026

Just Start Somewhere

Happy New Years, dear reader. It’s been a while, but I haven’t forgotten about you, and I hope you’ve been doing well. Do you have any resolutions for 2026? Any goals, wishes, or important dates planned for this year? Are you feeling eager, excited, nervous, or filled with dread? All of the above, you say? Yeah same.

Guys, I’ll be honest, I’m stuck and know I need to push hard to get out. At this point, there is only “work hard, plan harder” because “playing harder” is what I did last year. To be fair, it was a big year for me and, as such, was somewhat justified, but now the fireworks are through. Here we are, feeling lost and feeling blue.

I have a direction in mind, but I am working on summoning the energy at the end of the day to take the necessary steps. I have two blog entries I have been meaning to write and at least three videos I want to make. A collection of bad habits has become a cage of inertia, so the first thing to do is improve in these areas. Exercise, bedtimes, procrastination, you know the drill. All we can ever do is take it one day at a time and make good decisions throughout the day. Today’s good decision is to just start writing something, even if it is at 2am. As you can see, I haven’t written anything in a long time, and I feel so distant from where I once was. It used to pour out of me, but now, I struggle to even sit down at my desk. I also don’t feel like sewing, embroidering, painting, or anything remotely creative. I started a Christmas cross stitch in October and it’s almost finished, but there are so many days where I just don’t care. About anything, really, but then when I think about the alternative, namely staying where I am, it fills me with just enough frustration and determination to start the engines again.

So here is what I would like to strive for this year: weekly blog posts, in whatever form they may take, a response essay on Yuval Harari’s book Homo Deus, a video about my thesis, a video on my response to Homo Deus, that blog post on quantum consciousness and it’s connection to Bentov’s book Stalking the Wild Pendulum, an improved essay on Rosen’s Anticipatory Systems and its relation to AI, a video about this, as well as an essay and video discussing why AGI and SI is unlikely to come about. I’m getting so so so very sick and tired about all the AI hype, and given Harari’s thesis in Homo Deus, a thorough critique of AI is imperative for the future of humanity. I should also rewrite “Rescuing Qualia” because I am sure it would greatly benefit from more work.

Oh and just for fun, a light-hearted exploration of the plot of KPop Demon Hunters through an AI lens. A bit of a stretch for sure, but I think there’s something there. Admittedly, I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it, but instead of fighting demons, a group of people fighting AIs in various forms. Idk, there was just something about the climax of the story and how everyone was becoming zombie-like that reminds me of AI hype and how people are glued to their phones. Hypotized not by insecurities and shame, but by entertainment, convenience, and false promises. We’ll see how far I get with this one lol; it might not be that profound but it could be fun. The whole KDH phenomenon is giving me life tbh. EJAE especially though, her story of 10 years of struggle is pure Nietzschean gold. We’re gunna be golden, right? Right?? God help us all.

Also, I need to start doing yoga again. If there is one thing that reliably boosts creativity and a connection to Something Beyond, that is it. Currently, the signal is faint but it’s still there, I just need more of it for the strength to get through a day of challenging work only to come home to work hard.

So, let’s get down to business, to defeat the evil that only continues to grow and spread. Thank you for taking the time to read this, I really appreciate it. Again, every Sunday before 11:59pm, my goal is to have something new here. It won’t always be the Take Down that I live to produce, but it will be something. Godspeed dear reader, let’s fucking do this.

January 4, 2026

Art Installation in Downtown Guelph

I was waiting for the bus yesterday and something strange caught my eye.

What the hell is this? It seems to be inflatable because the characters bob around in the wind. It’s strange that this is here, both in Guelph and at this spot downtown. It will likely go unnoticed by the majority of people walking around this area because it’s tucked in the back of a building, however, anyone waiting for the bus at this stop can clearly see it.

Actually, I just thought of something. It’s far more visible when walking down the next street over, especially when headed eastward. Here’s a screenshot from Google Maps:

It would exist close to where that white pipe is. Now I will have to go back and take a look for myself to see how it looks from over here.

What is this building you may ask? Well, it happens to be 10C which makes this even more interesting. Prior to looking into this, I knew 10C to be a space that one could rent out for various events or work-related purposes; you can see here that Google lists it as a “coworking space.”

Let’s take a look at its website.

“…deepens relationships between people and across organizations, catalyzing creativity and innovation through collective action, research, and community engagement”? Interesting. Maybe their Projects & Activities page has more information.

So it could be art! As someone who is supportive of the freedom of expression, I understand the artist’s inclination to make a statement about the abuses that gays and lesbians face in Islamic countries and regions around the world. I do find it weird, however, that such a evocative installation is so public, especially when the organization itself is interested in “community engagement” and creating a welcoming environment. Very interesting.

I found it. It’s by Roda Medhat, a Kurdish artist known for public installations.

He doesn’t list it on his website, but maybe he will at some point.

So, it is in fact not strange that this is here. Mystery solved.

Freedom of expression is a hot topic these days. There are some people who are free to express their opinions and beliefs without public shaming, and some who are not. There are some ideas that are open to being discussed and debated, while others are not. We are allowed to criticize some religions and spiritual beliefs but not others. Why is that? The reason most people would provide is that some forms of expression are “harmful.” It this really a “freedom” then, or just a form of propaganda? I would argue for the latter.

“Who cares if the random Muslim walking down Carden is offended, they’re the ones who participates in a religion which condemns homosexual relations,” one may claim. This form of “offensive expression” is acceptable because it criticizes a belief and practice which does not align with our own here in Canada. It is also likely to be deemed acceptable because the person making the statement is from an Islamic region of the world. It seems that these days, category members are free to criticize their own, but a person from a different group or category is not allowed to comment. Depending on who created the inflatable installation, it could have been deemed “Islamophobic” and 10C would have been more likely to throw out their application. It’s not “edgy” if I had made it, or if a gay person of unspecified ethnic identity made it. Arguably, it’s only considered art because its creator is criticizing his in-group. Otherwise, it may technically be art, but it’s inflammatory and can therefore be rejected as a meaningful contribution to the “art world.”

I find it interesting how some instances and forms of “harmful” or “offensive” acts of expression are acceptable while others are not, and the reasons given for the application of these labels. Often, ideas related to power enter into the discussion fairly quickly. We are supposed to fight for the oppressed and to undermine the oppressors. Ironically, this has resulted in a new form of authoritarianism, where anyone who does not agree with these endeavours, or even the premises their beliefs and actions are based upon, must be dealt with. Tolerance for in-group members only.

October 4, 2025