Video

An Observer can Only be a Living Being and 'The One', can Only be a Living Being, Life-Unit. There is Only the Same Eternal Life, the Final Life-Unit, All Life-Units, is Eternal Living Beings. No one have ever Seen the Being behind the Living, it is Not possible, but the Being cant deny its own Existence, We call it 'I', the Only Real Steady Point, in existence, and even its immaterial nature, it have the most Objective Status in Existence. All Life-Units have Eternal Consciousness, one of the reasons, that We dont See it is the Same 'I' as We refer to all the time. Our Consciousness, (Over-) is pictured in the Rainbow, Colors picture our Under-Consciousness, = Day-Consciousness and Night-Consciousness. Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory. red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. (Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic/Order, (*), Harddisc.) We are Gravity-Beings, physical body, at night We move our Day-consciousness, to the Night-Bodies, Deep-Sleep, one by one, via our Coupling-Body, REM. The Day/Night-body- Circuit, correspond with respective Organ-Circuit, in the physical body, during passage. The (Developing-) Circuit-Principle, is in everything, at all levels, at the Life-side and the stuff-side. Three first Basic-Energies, is the Stuff-bearing, - Instinct keep Heat* and Freeze* in balanced tension, = Electricity *Gravity, *Feeling, but everything is a certain temporary composition of all of them. All experiences is Feeling-Experiences, first hand, Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip make Feeling into Sensing. Intelligence means Logic and Order, Perspective-princip + Intelligence = Mathematic. 'The Conscious Agents' refer to the Life-Unit-Principle. The Life-Desire is the Motor of Life, in direct extension We have Will, Life-side, and Gravity Stuff-side, 'By our Will, We do Balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup'. Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles is the Compass of Life. The Basic-Energies and the range of Creator-principles, is all known from the daily Life, but not yet in the Eternal Perspective. All information is stored in fourth Deep-Sleep, Memory-Body. Stuff-side of Life, is a Motion-Ocean, the Wisdom-Ocean is the Life-side. Day-Consciousness, Thoughts is also Motion. Well Don Hoff. is the Pioner in the field/border of Life-side and Stuff-side. Every child knows what Time-Space is, 'space-time' is doomed because it give No meaning. Motion become time, and time become Time-Spaces, memoires in our consciousness, time do Only exist in the Consciousness of Living Beings, Life-side. Time is the 'shadow' of Motion, Stuff-side. Motion is the most precious sign of Life, if there were No Motion, there would be No Life.

Thank you and very interesting presentation from Hyman Schipper. Some questions to arise: My definitions of consciousness follow that of Thomas Nagel, the "what its like to be a bat" i.e phenomenology - so what I don't understand is how could people consider PanENtheism or PanSPYchism to be a solution to the problem of consciousness and phenomenology. The Ayn Sof doesn't fulfill any criteria that is "phenomenological consciousness" but utterly transcendent, without even time or space - how could an undifferentiated, oneness "DO" anything ? How can an indefinable, indefinite, undifferentiated, apophatic, oneness "simple unity" ontology "decide" , "choose" or "do" anything ??? Sounds like this is all projection of human consciousness attributes, presupposing time & space. How can a Tzimzum be chosen, decided or willed ? All this talk of "He creates", "He withdraws" "He Tzimzums" Presuppose time & space - even if taken metaphorically "in the language of man" - doesn't this appear incoherent ? The analogies of frozen cup containing water sound great, but these are quite easily understood in hylomorphic Aristotilian terms and material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and the final causes. (actually a brilliant system that still applicable today - although personally like the work of Alicia Juarrero on dynamic complexity) So if this "Ayn Sof" undifferentiated light doesn't "choose, decide and manifest" what appear to be analogies of executive functions of the mind, the only other option is necessary modal creation. In essence, The Ayin Sof flow, necessarily must contract and Tzimzum via modal logical necessity. Since choosing, deciding and willing, presuppose time and limited conscious minds with executive functions such as deciding between possibilities. A necessary Tzimzum from the Ayin Sof (Contraction becomes a necessary feature of reality) then the Deity becomes something more like an impersonal principle, something like Stephen Wolfam's Ruliad or the Neoplatonist cosmogeny or David Deutch Mathematical reality or versions of Sir Roger Penrose Platonism. If Hyman Schipper wants to engage in this discussion, happy to continue and can email me on transformations@live.co.uk Likewise - I don't see how Kabbalah or other metaphysical framework solves mind-body problem without kicking can down the road. In this example, we end up with a problem of how "The One" becomes/Emanates/Constricts into "The Many". - instead of mind-body problem we and up with the "One-Many" problem. No issue with the fractal nature discussed in Indra-net or Hitkalelut [Intermingling] - this can be similar to W.V.Quines network of interconnected ideas or mathematical Platonism of David Deutch or the Ruliad of Stephen Wolfam (numerous examples, just name dropping a few) - the issue here is these network like fractals and holograms are reductionist frameworks, something like infinite realm of algorithms. ....but dont see how these explain phenomenal consciousness and mind-body problem. I find the above ESPECIALLY true when discussing the Mandelbrot set - which is remarkably simple algorithm, deterministic topography and reductionist. (I'm not criticizing reductionism, its very useful) The idea that every thought contains a fractal of all thoughts and consciousness may sound like mystical illumination - but this needs some verification without beginning to sound absurd. Its not like whilst i'm writing this now, within my consciousness exists all of Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew and some 7,000 other languages and every experience conceivable in all of history and the future........*** Although, I do "get it" that in some respects, my capacity to write this does depend on and is contingent on tens of thousands of previous minds (millions ?) as in the very language and culture has been created in the cauldron of some 100,000 years of human culture AND previous evolutionary ancestors. (particularly the last 12,000 yrs since agricultural revolution) ......I mean for a hunter gatherer in the Savanah 20,000 yrs ago, this essay is probably meaningless symbols - or even someone 500yrs ago. {I have mentioned some ideas that have been around for >2,300yrs, so not completely alien such as Aristotilian causes} Once again, thanks for an interesting talk. *** I pretty much know *my* phenomenology consciousness cannot contain fractals of hologram of the whole when confronted by utter and astonishing humility opening a book on some area that is completely sealed - such as computer coding language (I have no computer coding knowledge) or trying to figure out mathematics completely beyond by pay grade.

More more more

THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)

I think Michael is referring to "Dragon's Egg", by Robert L. Forward. Basically, the story is about these beings that have evolved on a neutron star. Read it back in highschool, this book blew my mind. Definitely worth reading if you like sci fi.

Consciousness can be quantified, we can make a nice graph out of the numbers I bet, even make art or music from the data or even biofeedback to generate more data. Fun for centuries. Or we can sit around in our togas and shoot the breeze for another 3000 years...hehe

I've written a short formula for this.

Who here understood any of this? Either yall are a lot smarter than me or this is just going over all our heads.

Relevance and meaning are almost the same thing and can probably be tought or inferred to at least some degree. I don't think this will have any impact in an AI having more or less consciousness. It will just become very convincing at emulating conciousness. Given the many positive reviews of the man I'll spend time on viewing content of his such as 'awakening from the meaning crisis'

excellent talk. good well rounded Intro to his works for those who have not followed the research of late.

Bioelectrical fields are obvious now… even considering Michael Levin’s work though when it comes to how organisms regulate themselves… I think there is too much ambiguity to consider bioelectrical field potentials alone… but I think there is something more interesting about neurotransmitter signaling and neuromodulators

1:15:00 Glad to hear John's openness to Whiteheadian (process-relational) panpsychism/panexperientialism!

Friends don't make the same mistake I made and expect to spend 90 minutes watching this interview and move on. Allow yourself plenty of time to digest and replay key ideas. There are some really profound and I believe prescient ideas being discussed here.

dat mail notification

John is very intelligent but I find the thing that I noticed most about him is the way he uses complicated terms in in place of simple terms and then says that something complicated to describe the complicating Factor is himself and his choice of words more than anything. I mean every word he uses that is complicated he can find a synonym for that isn't

I've had the mystical experiences that he's talking about and he's right about that. When you're within the experiences you have the intelligence of the of the being that you are part of whereas normally you don't have the overall intelligence you just have the intelligence of the singled out unit that is you but when you're having a mystical experience you have the intelligence of the entirety and it gives you understanding Beyond something that's explainable but it's understanding the way you know what you are experiencing is real because you're too intelligent to be fooled at that point your IQ is literally infinite and that's something you can't carry back with you when you come back to the reality of here so you can't explain it to other people of normal intelligence because it doesn't allow itself to be confined in finite language

A grammar is just fine it's just the fact that you need to try to complicate it dude there's very simple words for almost every complicated word you use

Everything has an intelligence it's not a hard problem at all just because someone adds a bunch of big complicated terms to something doesn't mean it's it's that complicated that's what it seems like John does to me he just talks in terms of big big words does it say anything too complicated he just uses complicated words to say it

Speaking the truth is not pretentious and it's obviously a continuum. I mean there's no place where you can say it begins to where it stops so it has to be a continuum what is the continuum quantized that's why we can divide it up in the present moment yet we can't Define when the present moment is cuz it's always moving. That's the nature of time and its nature of Consciousness as well you can't find a place where it begins or a place where it ends cuz it doesn't it just graduates both ways it is us at defined the present moment not time the same thing goes with consciousness it is acid Define the present moment of Consciousness not mind itself I should say it is us that Focus mind on that present moment or inside of that present entity or outside of it cuz where do you need to find that as we're all made out of Stardust what's inside and what's outside of us we're all made out of Stardust and Light and space Oh I believe that's everywhere except outside of the universe

I just defined it in my last comment

Consciousness is mind or information acting was in time and space in a linear fashion mind is all the information of reality itself Richard's Universal and doesn't have a singular Focus moving in linear fashion are moving at all since it is all times and all places and then changing and I'm changing that is the nature of the Continuum becoming quantized or differentiating it's how Unity becomes Multiplicity and it shows the direct relationship and how they're two sides of the same coin between objectivity and subjectivity which are equally as important

So many great minds within these collaborative encounters... But what will it take for any of the thinking and new iterations of language on age old ideas to make any measurable difference in the living world? What does "cog sci" have to do with healthier ecosystems and functioning societies? Are we truly exercising "relevance realization"?

Wonderful talk. Really enjoyed it. I like the work of Michael Levin very much. By this talk I especially appreciate the creativity and openmindedness he draws from sciencefiction fiction. Concerning the question whether Michael act like a God, I would like to challenge him on the speed of change. It is not that we should do nothing, to the point of abstaining from using fire. It is about a responsible speed of change. In this respect I am less optimistic than he is.

It didn’t take 10 minutes for this episode to potentiate as an all time most rewarding listens.

I have watched Awakening From the Meaning Crisis over 10 times through 😅 I am not educated and that has been what it has taken to grok its content, and it continues to unfold for me. It’s been the most important piece of work I have ever consumed.

I wanted to buy the audiobook version, but it seems the author prefers podcasting 😂

That was a great show, thanks.

John never comes across as pronouncing judgement. Me on the other hand...the many and the one as displayed by a broken shear pin. A vertical solid shaft with layers of increased diameter pipe allowing the horizontal, with the shear pin connection. The One piece stays (embedded)with the one shaft, and the pipe cuts the pin so that two outer bits are made. More added larger diameter pipe, more bits, but the One is still embedded.

Short answer; No.

I Adore his,Humanity and Person,of very rare Intelligence

On min 35 Dr Kevin should say “Life feeds on negative entropy” E.Schrödinger

Of course it is a dualism, but not the mental-physical chasm.

Let's further explore how redefining fundamentality around indivisible 0D instead of divisible higher dimensions could revolutionize physics and beyond: Quantum Gravity and Unification: A primary motivation has been resolving the incompatibilities between quantum theory and general relativity. Theories that derive 4D spacetime from more fundamental 0D network nodes could accomplish this: - Loop Quantum Gravity's spin networks providing a discrete 0D substrate from which geometry and gravity holographically emerge. - String/M-theory with vibrating 0D strings as the ultimate realities, dimensions arising as compactifications. - Causal Set approaches modeling spacetime as a discrete order of 0D event nodes and causal links. Unifying all forces as geometric degrees of freedom in the 0D network could finally achieve Einstein's dream of geometrizing physics. Quantum Foundations and Information: Moving to a 0D primacy framework could resolve many interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory: - The measurement problem by modeling observations as information transfer across the 0D network - Fundamental non-locality by having no underpinning space to be local in initially - The role of the observer by treating perception as information patterns in the 0D physics It could reveal quantum theory as an effective statistical mechanics of information dynamics on the 0D "atoms of reality." Cosmology and the Universe: Deriving our extended dimensions as emergent could shed new light on cosmic origins and structure: - The Big Bang as a holographic projection outwards from an initially compactified 0D seed - Cosmic inflation as rapid 0D network growth generating space quasi-classically - Dark matter/energy as geometrical degrees of the fundamental 0D network condensing our observed dimensions - The cosmological constant problem and naturalness issues resolved by dimensional emergence Universe lifecycle cosmology could arise naturally from the network's discrete evolution. Mathematics and Modeling: Even mathematics may need to be rebuilt from the ground up in a 0D primacy paradigm: - Algebraic topology, category theory, and homotopy mapping the 0D network dynamics - Geometric algebra and non-commutative geometry as the 0D variable structure - Discrete computational frameworks like cellular automata and artificial networks replacing continuum models - Novel logics, computability and complexity theories based on the fundamental 0D algebra From pure mathematics to physical applications, we may need to upgrade our entire conceptual toolbox and language. While unimaginably difficult to develop rigorously, the potential advantages of such a primordial 0D framework in terms of conceptual unification, infinity avoidance, quantum reality, and derivation of all observed phenomena make it an enticing goal for pioneering theorists across disciplines. Every branch of physics and connected fields could be rewritten from the ground up. The sheer ambition and profound impacts on our cosmic comprehension mean every path must be intrepidly explored.

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

Super good conversation. And I know Tevon. you’ve had Don Hoffman before if you truly understand what Don is talking about if both of you truly understands what Don is talking about , that space and time are not fundamental, and that’s not just a philosophical statement you can see the plank time and see the details. many of those questions would drop away immediately.

Wonderful conversation, @Tevin, you're a new host discovery for me to the conversations I am already listening in on, and @Vervaeke is already anchored in my respect and appreciation. This conversation really tapped into his work and brought together so many dimensions. Can't wait to get into some of the other researchers in the field mentioned in the conversation. Mike Levin''s work already has been a point of fascinating attention for me. What a time to be alive and active!

Happy to have found this channel. Some of the highest quality content I've come accross regarding these questions.

The prestige of HOW YOUthink AI DONT HAVE THAT

Ian McGilchrist I believe puts out the idea in his work "The Master And His Emissary" that nature speaks a language initially to the animal kingdom so they need to be conscious first on the evolutionary scale. Animals also have a fundamental intercommunication on fundamentals like food presence, predator danger etc. Humans take the social intercommunication to a higher social level. Plus humans introspect language as thought and conceptualization or we fold language back within our brains via the highly developed frontal lobes.

John demonstrates the way talking with like-minded people inevitably leads to slip-of-the-tongue irrationality like"intelligent behaviours happen without consciousness?" The lack of self differentiation in such statements is the mind-body problem of having no conscious 'awareness' of over 95 percent of our reality, as all the myriad non-conscious processes of the body that make us human. Please try to become aware of speaking the word 'consciousness' as-if the word consciousness is the experience of consciousness? As you try to notice 'how' you are comprehensively prone to self-deception?

John Vervaeke: Can Science Untangle the World-Knot of Dumbness? Relevance Realization & Meaning

Consciousness is only a problem if you are a reductive materialist.. If you believe consciousness doesn't reside in the brain but is a fundamental element of the universe it's not a problem.

I have watched the first part and am in the process of going through this second part. I have found it stimulating and enjoyable, but at times felt there is something strangely soulless about his portrayal of consciousness. It feels as if we have found ourselves in an emotionally or spiritually sterile landscape. Even materialism seems to me more consoling than this model of idealism.

Quickly subscribed! Great interview and channel. Thank you 👊🏼🤠

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

Work by Vaughan Pratt points to the possibility of using the Stone Representation theorem as a way to tackle the problem of dualism.

Sometimes it is something simple that we have wrong so that is why I try to help; I am looking for clash between perspectives where it is something simple that needs to be argued succinctly, which is in my wheelhouse since I have 5th percentile in one area of mental ability and 95th percentile in another. Here: czcams.com/video/uYYoZupmWXc/video.html David Deutsch speaks about misconceptions of the concept of infinity. He also says that the language of math was not possible without the concept of zero. Since math is language, and language may give rise to certain types of states including consciousness, then maybe it was the first humans who discovered zero through meditation that allowed mankind to begin the language of math and for a type of consciousness to emerge. Just a thought. It seems like the concepts of zero, one and infinity are necessary and sufficient for the language of math. If I were to infer and I am just doing a thought experiment, that the language of math is necessary and sufficient for the emergence of human consciousness, then it is the learning or experience of 1, zero and infinity that defines consciousness. In Buddhism these concepts are defined: 1 is the illusion of experience of the world through the self which can give rise to all other numbers if you have zero(as Deutsch suggests), zero is the void which ignorance, mental formations and consciousness emerge out of after everytime an expert meditator touches the void several times a minute while in meditation, and infinity? Well that stumped me and is the reason I am writing this comment. David Deutsch wrote a book about a lot of physicists having differing views of it, experts in western philosophy and Buddhism mistake the void for infinity frequently. What if we were to definitively argue to the entire population that the void is the void and all reverence to it including God references should not be synonyms with the concept of infinity? What if the next advancements in science were made possible because what is becoming widely agree upon to be the collective consciousness stabilizes a proper lingo for the void that has no reference to infinity. If I am correct, before mankind can make advancements in non-duality philosophy at a common sense level(by this I mean tipping point % population understands something) we first must establish what the duality is and keep the poles separate, a line with infinite gradations between the void and infinity. The void can be touched through meditation, but infinity is experienced through 12 dependant originations, namely, the self: ignorance, mental formations, consciousness... If I am correct, then this concept of duality means the lingo must be specific: God is equated with infinity and is in opposition to the void. Actually, this would make sense. For example, if scientific breakthrough actually occurs through some inter-relationship with the population where simultaneous inventions(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery) happen when a sort of human collective consciousness has reached the level and is ready for individuals to know where to look and observe through INSIGHT to form the basis of experimentation that will lead to much measurement and calculation, then all of the conflict over concepts of God within the population and the misuse of the lingo and the incorrect equating between zero and God, would hold back physicists. In short, conflict within the population that incorrectly equates God with zero, or conflict amongst academics over the use of the terms zero and God and infinity is stopping physicists from having INSIGHT.

Consciousness is eternal. You may forget your life when you "die" but you dont disappear. Universe cant exist without observers/consciousness. Consciousness create matter, space and time, not the other way round.

Quantum Rings Trinity Circle Square Times space space time all mind 369 Unity frequency vibration ring ArcLight 9 Observer thought charge thought me... MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E... "The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.” "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7.. infinite all mind in Trinity every thought has an opposite charge of itself. ♂️+01=0=-01♀️ Riding the waves through our moments in equilibrium is A NEW beginning in masteRING3X369 of our OWN each individual unique complete Immaculate conceived MIND 1IN3💚3IN1 of IAM 1LOVES Light3 3 above our heArt 3 below 7 sums 7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge MC² in WAVES OVE 3SOUNDs7 1Frequency. ... Amplitude. ... 2Timbre. ... Envelope. ... ***3Velocity. ... Wavelength. ... Phase =SUM.7 3 Lights7: 1 radio waves,÷ microwaves, 2infrared (IR)÷ visible light, ***3ultraviolet ÷ X-rays Sum Gamma rays SUM7x 6 COLORs 7 1 Red÷ Orange 2Yellow÷ Green ***3. Blue÷ Indigo SUM Violet SUM7 9 In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER Creating all living systems, Creating All living bodies, Creating all gravity, Creating all matter.. IN ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order HerMEs TrisMAjistus THOTH TimesFaceInEnergy Thoth me Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real.. Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key ⚖️ EnKi 🗝

It's possible to answer the question of what is consciousness with, it's language. The counter argument is a statement about agents who communicate but seem to fall short of consciousness. One answer is that there's a continuum between beings that speak and humans. It's not specific enough so we have to keep adding claims. Here's a claim to add: consciousness is made of language and it emerges out of it, but language is not sufficient for consciousness because it is a media or form that other states are also made out of; iow, other states, not just consciousness, emerge from language. I don't think about what I am writing, I just write like I am channeling a/my voice, and then I go back and edit. Too busy to edit now.