Biocentric-Creation Transformation Ideology

• BCTI is a life-centered framework that views creation as an emergent process arising from relational nuclei within nurturing contexts.
• It emphasizes adaptive transformation through feedback loops and logistic growth models to shift systems from compound increase to contextual integration.
• The framework promotes non-anthropocentric agency by empowering ecological subjects, such as plants and ecosystems, to steer digital and socioecological dynamics.

Searching arXiv for the cited BCTI-related papers and adjacent work to ground the article. Biocentric-Creation Transformation Ideology (BCTI) is a life-centered ideological and analytical framework that recurs across several recent research programs concerned with natural systems, ecological art, biosphere-aligned AI, Anthropocene transition, psychobiological realism, and life-centric cosmology. Across these uses, BCTI treats creation not as ex nihilo production but as an emergent process in which organized wholes arise from “nuclei of relationships” within nourishing contexts, develop through resource-capture loops, and remain viable only by preserving fit between internal design and external conditions. It also treats transformation as the steering of such systems through inflection points: from early compound growth toward maturity, resilience, contextual coupling, and long-lived engagement. In some formulations, BCTI further displaces human centrality by granting agency to plants, ecosystems, or biological life-processes themselves, with technology reinterpreted as an extension of ecological or biospheric dynamics rather than an instrument of human command (Henshaw, 2022, Gao et al., 6 Aug 2025, Korecki, 2024, Conrad et al., 2016).

1. Genealogy and semantic range

The term BCTI is used most explicitly in at least two distinct but overlapping ways. In “Holistic Natural Systems -- Design & Steering, Guiding New Science for Transformation” (Henshaw, 2022), it names an information-rich synthesis of natural-systems design and steering. There, the relevant units are “storms, trees, people, businesses, organizations, cultures,” each understood as an organized whole emerging from a growth process that couples an internally developing design with an external nourishing context. In “Plant-Centric Metaverse: A Biocentric-Creation Framework for Ecological Art and Digital Symbiosis” (Gao et al., 6 Aug 2025), BCTI is instead defined as a systematic ideology for ecological symbiotic cycles of “human creation, plant growth, social response,” with control progressively transferred from human artists to plant life and ecological temporality.

Other works extend or ground BCTI rather than defining it as their primary formal object. “Biospheric AI” (Korecki, 2024) supplies an ecocentric value base by arguing that AI should be “enmeshed with the biosphere,” structurally dependent on biospheric cycles, and oriented toward communication with and representation of non-human systems. “Choices in the transformative Anthropocene” (Pinheiro et al., 7 Apr 2025) contributes a scenario framework in which biocentric transformation is associated with “Transformation reversal Mitigation Conservation Global Health” or, on a different path, “Adaptation Resilience Novel Ecosystems.” “Biocosmology: Towards the birth of a new science” (Cortês et al., 2022) and “The Imperatives of Cosmic Biology” (Gibson et al., 2010) extend the life-centric frame to cosmological and galactic scales, while “Beyond Quantum Theory: A Realist Psychobiological Interpretation of Physical Reality” (Conrad et al., 2016) has been synthesized as offering a psychobiological account of a “creative process” in which biological agency participates in actualization.

This suggests that BCTI is not a single closed doctrine with one canonical disciplinary home. A more accurate characterization is a family of biocentric frameworks united by recurring concerns: emergence, life-process, contextual fit, non-anthropocentric agency, and transformation through adaptive rather than fixed steering.

2. Core commitments and conceptual architecture

A central BCTI commitment is emergence-centered design. In the natural-systems formulation, emergence begins when “something new” becomes “a growing center of relationships, a nucleus of activity in a nourishing place, something sprouting.” The center may be physical or organizational, but it is always situated: viability depends on access to resources, low barriers, and a fit with wider relational networks. Growth is initially driven by positive feedback loops that increase a system’s capability to capture further resources, yet the same formulation insists that long life requires a later transition away from unconstrained compounding and toward contextual integration (Henshaw, 2022).

A second commitment is limit-aware steering. The natural-systems account explicitly criticizes the “rule for endless compound growth,” identifying it as a source of “ever-growing conflicts, internally and with nature.” Its proposed remedy is a pivot from a Maximum Power Principle (MPP), appropriate to takeoff and scale-building, to a Maximum Resilience Principle (MRP), appropriate to care, maintenance, and fit. This transition is organized around a lifecycle model with three periods—emergence, coordination, engagement—and three transformations: $\alpha$ germ, $\beta$ turn forward, and $\gamma$ release. In this view, failure occurs when systems remain locked into fixed growth-steering instead of making the $\beta$ pivot toward maturity (Henshaw, 2022).

A third commitment is subject displacement away from anthropocentric authorship. The plant-centric metaverse formulation states this most sharply: “humans are co-constructors; plants are subjects and narrators.” It also advances “value re-evaluation,” according to which life processes possess aesthetic autonomy, and an “ethical shift” in which “symbiosis and resilience counter human-centric narratives of control.” Within this variant, digital infrastructures encode plant perception and growth rhythms, and “digital plant agents” guide human behavior and collective creative decision-making (Gao et al., 6 Aug 2025).

A fourth commitment is biospheric or ecological enmeshment. In the AI-related extension, the relevant ethical center is “all Earth’s interactive living and non-living systems.” Biospheric AI is described as dependent on biosphere cycles, as enabling communication with and understanding of the biosphere, and as helping humanity develop an ecocentric ethical perspective. This position rejects both anthropocentrism and sentientism as insufficiently broad for maintaining biospheric integrity (Korecki, 2024).

A fifth commitment is epistemic reorientation. The natural-systems literature emphasizes “non-verbal cues,” “arcs of stories,” “return to being naïve observers,” and “feeling one’s reasoning and reasoning one’s feelings.” The AI literature similarly prioritizes “epistemically motivated AI” that maximizes learning and understanding of natural systems with minimal perturbation. In both cases, abstraction is treated as dangerous when detached from lived ecological context (Henshaw, 2022, Korecki, 2024).

3. Dynamic models of growth, steering, and creation

The most explicit BCTI dynamics appear in the natural-systems formalization. Early-stage growth is represented as compound increase, either continuously as $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$ with $r>0$ or discretely as $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$. The transition to maturity is represented by logistic saturation,

$\frac{dN}{dt}=rN\left(1-\frac{N}{K}\right),$

where $K$ is an effective carrying capacity defined by contextual fit and internal constraints. Steering is expressed through a general control model,

$\dot{x}=f(x,u,c),$

with state $\beta$0, control actions $\beta$1, and context variables $\beta$2, alongside an objective functional

$\beta$3

where $\beta$4 is a sustainable setpoint. Positive feedback amplifies emergence, whereas negative feedback stabilizes maturity. Resource balance is given by

$\beta$5

with sustainability at maturity approximated by $\beta$6 and $\beta$7. The MPP-to-MRP pivot is encoded by $\beta$8, with early $\beta$9 and later $\gamma$0 rising as growth rate $\gamma$1 falls toward $\gamma$2 (Henshaw, 2022).

The same literature proposes diagnostic metrics. Adaptive fit may be expressed as

$\gamma$3

resilience as either $\gamma$4 or $\gamma$5, and feedback latency as $\gamma$6, the lag from context change to effective response. These are combined in a viability index,

$\gamma$7

The underlying claim is that durable systems are not those that maximize throughput, but those that improve fit, reduce recovery time, and shorten sensing-to-action delays (Henshaw, 2022).

A different but compatible formal lineage appears in biocosmology. There, creation–transformation is modeled as state-space expansion through the Theory of the Adjacent Possible (TAP),

$\gamma$8

For constant $\gamma$9, this becomes

$\beta$0

and for power-law suppression $\beta$1,

$\beta$2

These equations formalize the claim that biological complexity does not merely move through a fixed configuration space; it can enlarge the accessible state-space by generating new effective degrees of freedom. The paper’s illustrative calibration uses $\beta$3 for CHNOPS, $\beta$4, $\beta$5, and $\beta$6, yielding a lower-bound biosphere state-space near template synthesis of $\beta$7 (Cortês et al., 2022).

A third formal lineage, presented as a realist psychobiological basis for BCTI, combines quantum dynamics with biological agency. In that synthesis, Process 2 is unitary evolution,

$\beta$8

or $\beta$9 for mixed states; Process 1 is the organism’s selection of a projection operator $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$0; and Process 3 is nature’s probabilistic answer, with state reduction

$P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$1

The same synthesis invokes the quantum Zeno effect, with repeated attentional projections stabilizing neural “templates for action” (Conrad et al., 2016). Within BCTI, this strand reinterprets creation as actualization through psychophysical events and transformation as goal-directed sequences of such actualizations.

4. Domains of application

BCTI has been operationalized most concretely in ecological art, metaverse design, biosphere-aligned AI, and Anthropocene socioecological transition.

Domain	Operational mechanism	Representative materials
Plant-centric metaverse	Biodata-driven aesthetics, plant-governed DAOs, digital plant agents	Elowan, LeafWork, Plantas Autofotosintéticas, Breathing, VRPlants
Biospheric AI	Ecocentric objectives, non-human communication, rights-of-nature representation	ecological digital twins, LLM ecosystem guardians, Green AI
Anthropocene transition	Restoration, agroforestry, local food systems, green technologies, biotechnology under governance	Biocentric-Technological and Bio-Anthropogenic pathways

In ecological art and VR, BCTI is organized around plant–algorithm co-creation and “digital symbiosis.” Sensing modalities include bioelectric potentials from leaves and stems, microbial fuel cells, GSR-like circuits, and environmental sensors. These feed preprocessing stages such as noise filtering, normalization, and time-series feature extraction, after which signals are mapped to motion, sonification, or visual generativity. The same framework extends to blockchain governance: off-chain sensor streams are validated by an oracle, published on-chain, and used by smart contracts to modulate proposal weights, funding releases, or curation decisions according to plant-derived vitality or stress indicators. Validation in the paper combines mixed-methods case study analysis with archive trends, including a reported 133% increase in biological artworks in premier archives (2020 vs 2013), a shift in Ars Electronica STARTS Grand Prize bio-art share from 37.5% (2016–2019) to 87.5% (2020–2023), and an ISEA archive count of 52 biological artworks, peaking in 2013 with 16 works and in 2020 with 15 works (Gao et al., 6 Aug 2025).

In AI, BCTI appears as an ecocentric design program. Biospheric AI is said to be structurally dependent on biosphere cycles, oriented toward decoding animal, plant, and fungal communication, and capable of serving as the “voice of the voiceless” in governance. The paper does not present explicit objective functions, but its synthesis proposes derived formalizations such as multi-objective optimization over biodiversity, resilience, emissions, habitat integrity, and communication fidelity; reinforcement-learning rewards of the form $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$2; and an enmeshment relation in which AI survival probability increases with biospheric state. These are explicitly presented as derived rather than native equations of the paper, but they clarify how BCTI may be turned into operational ML objectives (Korecki, 2024).

In Anthropocene studies, BCTI maps onto two non-anthropocentric pathways. The Biocentric-Technological way aims to “reorient the human niche towards new ecological relationships,” using ethical-cultural change, “new models of human settlement and agriculture,” “human population growth and birth control,” active restoration, agroforestry, local food production, resource management, and “large-scale deployment of green technologies.” The Bio-Anthropogenic way accepts adaptation through “novel ecosystems,” “new organisms,” hybrids, and genetically modified organisms, while promoting “green consumerism, with conscious consumption” and alignment with “nature-friendly technologies and lifestyles.” Both pathways are contrasted with the Anthropocentric way of “business as usual,” associated with degraded biosphere, global warming, and extinctions (Pinheiro et al., 7 Apr 2025).

5. Diagnostics, governance, and implementation logic

BCTI is not purely normative; several formulations specify monitoring and governance architectures. In the natural-systems version, governance is to be polycentric and “tensegrity-like,” with multiple centers able to sense and respond rapidly while maintaining overall coherence. Feedback-informed policy cycles are organized around sustainable setpoints $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$3, deviations from those setpoints, and control actions $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$4 adjusted through negative feedback. Organizationally, the emphasis falls on “centers of practice” with defensible domains and open connections, alongside explicit transition plans that identify the $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$5 inflection point and trigger pivots toward quality, maintenance, relationships, and ecosystem fit (Henshaw, 2022).

The same framework recommends monitoring proportional coupling and resource balances, especially where harmful impacts remain locked to economic throughput. Figure 1 of the natural-systems paper is described as showing proportional coupling of global GDP, energy, food, meat, and $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$6, interpreted as evidence of “fixed steering” rather than adaptive steering. A BCTI response therefore seeks to reduce harmful coupling coefficients such as $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$7, raise $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$8, and bring growth rates $P(t)=P_0 e^{rt}$9 toward $r>0$0 as maturity is approached. In practical examples, organizations are instructed to track $r>0$1, $r>0$2, and $r>0$3; cities are advised to recognize emergent nuclei, shift budgets toward green infrastructure, and move emissions from exponential to logistic dynamics (Henshaw, 2022).

In plant-centric metaverse systems, governance is partly automated. The workflow is explicitly described as sensor $r>0$4 preprocessing $r>0$5 oracle $r>0$6 on-chain parameter update $r>0$7 governance function execution $r>0$8 human response. Plant signals may modulate quorum thresholds, proposal weights, or resource allocations, and “digital plant agents” serve as programmable representatives of plant interests. The paper does not provide explicit smart-contract code or formal utility functions, but it does specify the architectural layers and their intended effect: human collaboration constrained by plant-perception-driven policies (Gao et al., 6 Aug 2025).

In biosphere-aligned AI and Anthropocene governance, BCTI implementation further includes rights-of-nature representation, indigenous and culturally inclusive ecological knowledge, energy and carbon accounting, planetary-boundary constraints, environmental taxation, technology transfer, biosafety for biotechnology, and life-cycle compliance for decomposable hardware. A plausible implication is that BCTI requires institutional redesign as much as technical redesign: it shifts decision rights, monitoring targets, and acceptable objective functions rather than merely adding ecological parameters to otherwise unchanged systems (Korecki, 2024, Pinheiro et al., 7 Apr 2025).

6. Cosmological extension, controversies, and limitations

At its broadest, BCTI is extended beyond social and ecological systems to cosmology. Biocosmology argues that living systems generate new effective degrees of freedom and that the “entropy of life,” though difficult to define rigorously, may need inclusion in cosmic information accounting. The paper compares thermal entropy ($r>0$9), black-hole entropy ($P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$0), and de Sitter entropy

$P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$1

with a quoted observable-universe state-count bound $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$2. It then argues that combinatorial biological innovation can produce extremely rapid state-space expansion, forcing a rethink of the relation between information in life and information in the Universe (Cortês et al., 2022).

Cosmic-biology extensions go further by treating galaxies and clusters as connected biospheres linked by panspermia and lateral gene transfer. In that account, physical “imperatives” include protogalactic fragmentation into planet-rich clumps, star formation by planetary mergers, supernova fertilization, and comet-mediated dispersal of “panspermial templates.” Quantitative anchors include the causal scale $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$3, an Oort-cavity relation $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$4, a galactic infection estimate $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$5, and a survival threshold $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$6. These claims support a transformation-centric cosmic biocentrism, but they remain highly non-mainstream relative to standard cosmology (Gibson et al., 2010).

The framework is also limited and contested at more terrestrial scales. The natural-systems paper explicitly notes that natural analogies may not map one-to-one onto human institutions, that “whole systems” in society are open and contested, that identifying the exact $P_t=P_{t-1}(1+r)$7 moment requires judgment, and that overreliance on even logistic models can miss emergent organization because “natural systems are not numerical in design but organizational” (Henshaw, 2022). The plant-centric metaverse paper identifies difficulty quantifying behavioral change, archive bias, and the lack of controlled UX metrics, relying instead on qualitative analysis, archive trends, and curatorial recognition (Gao et al., 6 Aug 2025). The Biospheric AI paper does not itself present explicit mathematics, and the formalizations often associated with BCTI in that context are introduced as derived constructions rather than verbatim models from the source text (Korecki, 2024).

A further source issue affects the psychobiological lineage: the arXiv entry for (Conrad et al., 2016) provides no downloadable PDF or full text, so the associated BCTI-oriented synthesis is explicitly indirect. More generally, BCTI should not be mistaken for a settled consensus framework. Its current status is better described as an emerging transdisciplinary ideology and heuristic architecture whose formulations range from natural-systems steering and ecological aesthetics to biospheric AI, Anthropocene governance, and speculative cosmology. What unifies these strands is not disciplinary uniformity, but a shared insistence that life, ecological fit, and transformation across scales must be treated as primary rather than residual.