Know Thyself - E111 - Federico Faggin, Top Physicist:“Science & Spirituality Merge in this New Theory of Consciousness”

Episode Date: August 27, 2024

Today we are joined by top physicist and inventor of the microprocessor & touch screen, Federico Faggin, for an intriguing conversation into the nature of reality. Federico once had a materialistic scientific perspective on consciousness and reality until one day a spontaneous spiritual awakening changed his perspective forever. In this episode he shares that very experience and how it has shaped his current view on reality. With this deeper knowing, he spent decades researching reality, today he shares his findings. He reveals why computers can never be conscious, who we are our essence, what carries on after death, and our unbreakable connection to something larger than ourselves.He also discusses the very real force of love that underlies all things, the secret to spiritual growth, and why humans can never be replaced by artificial intelligence.André's Book Recommendations: https://www.knowthyself.one/books___________0:00 Intro2:55 His Spontaneous Spiritual Awakening15:03 Defining Consciousness: Classical vs Quantum View23:00 Can computers be Conscious?28:20 How Truth Transcends Theory33:24 Idealism vs Monad Theory 35:46 Our Deepest Desire: To Know Ourselves38:19 Seity vs Soul43:41 Individuality & What Carries Over After Death46:46 We Are All Part of One Whole53:01 How Emotion & Meaning Impacts Reality1:01:15 Suffering as a Catalyst for Growth1:07:07 Taking Responsibility for Our Lives & Spiritual Growth1:13:27 The Very Real Force of Love1:20:00 Where Physics & Spirituality Meet1:25:11 Distinguishing Free Will & Unconscious Habits1:32:23 Reincarnation & NDEs Explained1:35:04 How Much We Currently Understand about Reality1:40:43 Shifting From the Mind to the Heart1:42:40 Facing the Future of Artificial Intelligence1:47:53 Collective Consciousness & Evil vs Good1:53:13 Competition vs Collaboration1:57:11 Are Aliens Real?1:59:43 Conclusion___________Federico Faggin is a physicist, inventor, and entrepreneur. Born, raised, and educated in Italy, he immigrated to the US in 1968. He is credited with designing the world’s first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004 in 1971, and he went on to invent dozens of other integrated circuits. Before that, in 1968 while working at Fairchild Semiconductor, he created a technology that made possible dynamic memories, non-volatile memories, image sensors, and the microprocessor. Faggin started several successful high-tech companies (Zilog, Cygnet Technologies, and Synaptics) that introduced significant products and technologies, including the touchpad and touchscreen that revolutionized the way we communicate with our personal devices. Among the honors Faggin has received are the 2009 National Medal of Technology and Innovation from President Obama and the 2014 Enrico Fermi Prize. Through the Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation, Faggin now supports research programs at US universities and research institutes to advance the understanding of consciousness through theoretical and experimental research.Newest Book “Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature": https://a.co/d/bjZ56gHWebsite: https://www.federicofaggin.com/___________Know ThyselfInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/knowthyself/Website: https://www.knowthyself.oneClips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ4wglCWTJeWQC0exBalgKgListen to all episodes on Audio: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4FSiemtvZrWesGtO2MqTZ4?si=d389c8dee8fa4026Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/know-thyself/id1633725927André DuqumInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/andreduqum/

When we study physics, we must go beyond the self-imposed limits of what a discipline can call reality. That changes everything. I'm a physicist, and therefore I study how physical reality works with a sense that that's all there is. I was also expecting if I did everything right, I should be happy. But I was not happy. One night I wake up, and all of a sudden, out of my chest, this beam of energy is coming from me. The essence of what I thought that I am changed from this way to that way. I decided that's what I want to do for the rest of my life.

Unite physics and spirituality. If you look at yourself, what is the deepest longing that you have? The deepest longing that I have myself is to know myself, to know why am I here. What is this universe for? To know. Consciousness is the capacity of one to know itself. And it is in this one wants to know itself that there is the joining of physics and spirituality. Let me explain. Hey everyone, welcome back to know thyself. Today we're sitting down with a

physicist, inventor, and entrepreneur. Everyone watching this discussion is doing so using the Silicon Gate technology, our guest today invented. Chips evolved from his first commercial microprocessor. He was also the first to invent touchpads and touch screens. He went on to build neural network architecture in the 80s, attempting to create consciousness through computers. He is probably one of the most well-rounded idealist alive. He embodies an incredibly rare combination of hard-nosed, scientifically informed thought with direct introspective insights into the primacy of consciousness. We'll be exploring what is consciousness, why it cannot be explained from the materialist view, his emerging new theory that changes the idea of who we are in a fundamental way,

and restores meaning and purpose to the universe that materialism has essentially denied. We live in a time where the collective awareness, in understanding around fundamental questions of reality such as science, consciousness, meaning and more are transitioning, they're deepening, they're being revolutionized, and it's an exciting time to be alive. When wanting to understand how the physical universe works and its limits and what's beyond it, I don't know if I could have a better person be sitting in discussion with today than someone who is an individual at the forefront, truly with a cutting-edge knowledge to synthesize our understanding of science, consciousness, and life.

Federico Fajin, thank you so much for being here. It's a pleasure to be here, Andre. Thank you for inviting me. I'm really looking forward to this conversation. Like I said, in the intro, you really have this unique, rare combination of the scientific understanding and the limits of the physical universe with also the interiority and personal experience. And I would actually love to just jump straight to your kind of awakening experience

that you had that really was the pivot, the shift from being a materialist scientist into exploring consciousness in a much more fundamental way. So could you walk us through your experience at that moment? Yeah, I need to give you perhaps a little bit of background because I'm a physicist and therefore I study how physical reality works and with a sense that that that's all there is and that's really much pretty much what science today is telling us about the reality and I had I had accepted that that must be true and I was also expecting that if I did everything right quote unquote whatever that means I should be happy and That did not turn out that way.

In fact, I did everything right, you know, according to the book, but I was not happy and I was pretending to be happy. And it was only because I realized that I was pretending to be happy. And I have learned being an entrepreneur, I had learned to take responsibility for what happened in my life, that I put my foot down

and said, no, I must understand why I'm not happy. In those days, I was studying consciousness, but I was working on neural networks. I was studying books in neuroscience, and I wanted to understand how come they were conscious. You know, the neuroscientists don't tell us how we're conscious.

They explain how we work by electrical signals and biochemical signals in the brain. And I didn't see how, I could possibly get sensations and feelings, what philosophers call qualia, out of electrical signals. And so I was really curious, being a scientist

and being also a technologist, I wanted to understand how I could program a computer to be conscious. And the more I thought, the more impossible it was, because there is nothing in physics that tells you how to convert electrical signals, or bits in a computer into sensations and feelings. So the core was what are sensations and feelings,

which is how we experience life. And so it was in this climate where I was unhappy, which is also a problem of consciousness, I wanted to understand what consciousness is. And it happened one night, 1990, was Christmas holidays, was skiing up in the Ceres, you know, Taho, with my family,

and one night I was going to be in the day, I wake up, midnight, was thirsty, went to get a glass of water. Then I went back to bed, and I'm just waiting to fall asleep again. And all of a sudden, out of my chest, this beam of energy in a white scintillating light is love. But it's a love that it was 10,000 times, 50,000 times, who knows, stronger than anything

than anything that I've ever experienced is coming from me. And my consciousness is in this rush of energy. And is love, joy, and peace. Peace, I've never had felt that peace. I was always trying to get somewhere. I was never happy where I was. But this was, this is me, that's home, this is me.

I am that. I am this instead of that. this that comes out of me. And then this energy, all of a sudden is everywhere and this white scintillating light, my consciousness is in that light. And so now I am observing myself. So I'm the observer of myself, this energy,

because this love was there, this joy and this peace was there as well. And then a thought forms, Wow, a thought. But I already got what the thought was trying to say. The thought was, oh, this stuff is what everything is made of. But these are symbols. What before that thought, there was the understanding that the thought expressed.

And then that was the end of it. My body was vibrating. You know, like the cells of my body were, you know, were resonating with what was going on. So body, mind, emotions, and the connection with everything was all in this holistic experience. So I was, one, observing itself with my point of view.

That's what I'm saying now. But at that time, I had exactly the sense without the words to say what I just said. So that explanation you just gave is incredible. I think it is possibly one of the only thing that could transform someone's rational mind of trying to reduce life and phenomena into a series of explainable parts. You had the interiority experience, which the Eastern wisdom traditions have been speaking to for millennia, but haven't had the science to make it rigorous.

And what I really love and having conversations, around consciousness on this podcast like Don Hoffman recently and yourself and others is, you know, that have these experiences, these meditative experiences that point to a reality that feels far more vast than anything we could deduce intellectually. And so the conjunction of both is really exciting to me. So let's keep diving deeper here. As this experience happened, how then did your rational mind start to pivot in what you were doing in the world? Because you were somebody who was very successful in the fruits of your labor

in the classical physicalist model, right? And then from this experience afterwards, your energies and minds started to change into exploring more how consciousness could be more fundamental, constituent of the universe. And so from that moment forward, what were the coming years and decades?

What do that look like for you as you started to change what you were studying in your field of expertise? Yeah. The essence of what I am, what I thought that I am, changed from this way to that way. So before I thought I was separate from everything,

from the universe, I thought that to prove something, you had to show a theorem and go through the logical proof of a theorem, that that was the highest certainty that you could have is by demonstrating a theorem. That knowing that came, I was asking what is consciousness, that it was, I realized much later that asking was a prayer. I didn't know that I was praying, but I wanted to know. I have taken responsibility for myself and I wanted to know.

I got the answer. That answer was so unbelievably impossible to imagine to me. You know, once you have this thing, You know that it must be true that way. This is direct experience of who you are. How more do you need? But, of course, it doesn't give you a formula. It's not a number or a series of numbers.

Is how we really know, how consciousness knows. And so that was for me, wow. My rational mind would probably, if it wasn't so powerful as an experience, I would say, well, I need to see a psychiatrist now. You know, if I was really believing the story that I was believing before, I would have probably said, I need to see a psychiatrist

because something like this is crazy. And, but that's the interesting shift is that we go from needing to intellectually rationalize things to having the immediacy of the experience, which is self-evident. Yeah. It's like you know it. So there's that nosis,

the intelligence of the body that knows that I feel like in the Western mind, We've really lost being in touch with. Of course. And that's the fundamental difference between the rational mind that wants to arrive at the truth. But you never arrive at the truth if you start with truth that are assumed to be true, which is the postulate that you start with. So it's foolish to believe that you can get to the truth if you start with truth that you cannot demonstrate.

So, you know, but we, our consciousness is the. the truth engine is the one that can tell you whether it is true or not. But it doesn't give you the proof. And then you have to know also how to read your experiences. So it took a number of years of studying, but studying consciousness, how? By experiencing myself, that's the only way that you know consciousness. You don't read the books don't tell you what consciousness is on top of it. So I went through 20 years of personal work, starting with meditation. on and on and on, you know, teachers came and went, you know, in this process, and it took about 20 years,

so that takes us to about 2008 or so, 2009, when I was clear to me that consciousness must be fundamental, consciousness and free will, because to me, free will and conscious were parts and parts of the same thing. So that was so clear that at that point, I wanted then to connect what I knew about physics into a theory that would connect the interiority and the exteriority. Physics only describes what's what you can measure in the space and time.

But what you can feel is that in space and time? Cannot possibly be in space and time. So where is it? And so that was the journey where I dedicated myself 100%. I decided to, that's it. That's what I want to do for the rest of my life. Unite physics and spirituality into a seamless hole where you can no longer tell the boundaries between one and the other.

And it is the most exciting time to be alive, at least I feel, where the unification of science and spirit is becoming one. We're seeing how they are different ways of looking at the same thing, right? And, you know, I think there are countless people that have these inner luminous experiences, the experience of their interconnectedness and oneness with all reality. And it can also be equally misleading

where the mind wants to interpret certain things that we might have different prejudices or beliefs that will be fulfilling that or looking through the lens of those beliefs through to describe what the experience is, which is also equally dangerous if your goal is to get in touch with objective reality. And so that's why I love diving

to these conversations where we're kind of what we're teeter tottering between both the exterior understanding and the interior experience, finding the conciliates between the two, hopefully coming to a deeper understanding of it all. Now, as we dive deeper and deeper into the many nuances of this conversation, I would love to lay the framework and just some definitions to start around how you personally define consciousness, the classical and quantum view. That way, when we use different words throughout this podcast,

everybody can understand we're on the same boat of what we're speaking to. So if you would, how you define consciousness. And then also we spoke to a little bit the classical and quantum view. Yeah. Consciousness is the capacity of one, the totality of what exists, to know itself.

So is the capacity to know by self-reflection. But the interesting thing, in the way I look at this, is that when one wants to know itself, and in fact, we need to start with a postulate, because otherwise we run around this thing and we never get to it. So the posture that I'm using is one,

one is the totality of what exists, what potentially can exist and what actually exists. And I make a clear distinction because you cannot get something from nothing. You know, many theories of reality starts with nothing and you get something. I do not believe that this, That's correct.

Yet to start with some potentiality, it becomes actuality. So when one, one is holistic, meaning is not made of separable part. Everything is interconnected within one. I mean, this is, you know,

goes back to the way to the Vedas. I mean, you know, but it was very clear to me that that lack of separation was fundamental in my first experience, the awakening experience. I was not separate. I was the observer and the observe.

You know, how, you know, there is no separation between the two. But that's also what quantum physics is saying. There is no observer separate from what is observed. Quantum physics is very clear about that. So one is holistic. One is dynamic. It's never the same instant after a instant. It's basically always changing.

So far, I have described quantum physics, what quantum physics says. Not classical physics, quantum physics. And then I'm adding, One wants to know itself. And it is in this one wants to know itself that there is the joining of physics and spirituality. It is the knowing itself.

Okay, so if you believe that one needs to know itself, then one cannot be omniscient, because otherwise it would know everything already. And there would be no evolution, you know, we wouldn't be here, certainly. So one wants to know itself means that one will have to continue to know itself because we know within ourselves that the more you know, the more there is to know because the more connections between what we have known exist. And so there is an

explosion of self-knowing that can occur. So, but one, you know, if you start with this point, then when one knows itself, he has to bring into existence what he knows. It comes from potential existence like the unconscious of one into manifestation which is existence like from a wave to a particle from a little bit like that not quite not quite you know we have to be careful not to read too much because because it is from a is from a potentiality which is neither a wave or a particle yet it is it is even before you can even imagine what it is to actual, to an existence. But the existence that, so what happens is that knowing and existing

are two aspects of the same thing. Knowing and existing are two faces of the same coin. Because so when one knows itself, it brings into existence a part whole of itself. Because being holistic, it cannot know itself only partially. He has to know itself completely, but he has to know itself with this particular point of view. That was very clear to me eight years ago.

It has to know itself in a point of view, like a perspective. But one has many perspective in which you can know itself. So now there can be many perspective in which one knows itself completely. And so it brings into existence a part whole, which I call consciousness as unit is like the monad of Leibniz. The monads of Leibniz are very similar concepts.

Leibniz is the only philosopher and scientist and mathematician that I know of that actually understood the concept. This is what I'm talking about. I found it out later. But to me, that was clear that it had to be something like that based on my experiences.

Because in my 20 years where I was exploring consciousness, I had hundreds of different extremely experience of consciousness. They reveal aspects of consciousness they were certainly not, they were coherent with the awakening experience that I described,

but they illuminated different parts of this spectrum of capacities that consciousness has. So if we start there, then, you know, then one wants to know itself. Then the wanting to know itself

is the will, the free will of one. one decides which way to know itself is that's free will. The essence of free will is the capacity of one to direct his own knowing, self-knowing, which is also the capacity that we have. That's what free will is for us. And the capacity to know itself is consciousness. So now we have defined free will and consciousness.

And the two must work together. You cannot have consciousness without free will. It would be like, you know something, but you cannot do it. do anything about it. You know, you know what you want, but you cannot act on that desire that you have. It would be foolish. It would be just a, the universe would be a, you know, would be a joke, you know, would not be serious, inconsistent. So starting this way, you can unite physics, spirituality. The world now has meaning and purpose. The world, the entire universe as meaning and purpose,

the materialism as erase simply by saying, all, everything that exists must be measured. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. How is it possible? We already, quantum physics is telling you that a particle that is not looked at is not even in space and time. It is, you can only be describing a deeper reality

And only when you measure it, in other words, when a field interacts with another field, which is the field of an instrument, you have an event that manifesting space and time. And then you can say, you know, there is a particle here, for example. But quantum physics cannot tell you where you will find the particle. It can only tell you the probability of all the possibilities in which you could potentially find a particle. So there you go again. Okay, quantum physics is not describing reality. It's only describing what you can know about reality. Big difference and probabilities have to do with consciousness. A classical system, a computer, in a computer, there are no probabilities.

There are all certainties. This next state of the computer is determined by the previous state, period. So a computer can never be conscious because it doesn't have the characteristics of free will. Can you speak on how you were very much so trying to create consciousness through computer systems? Yeah, well, when I was starting from reading the neuroscientist books, neuroscience, I said, well, if the brain is an information processing system

like a computer, which is how it is described, then I should be able to create a computer that is conscious. Right, the idea, the classical model that consciousness is an emergent process or phenomenon out of unconscious complexity. So if we just put the right hardware together, then we should be able to create it. Yeah.

So, and I tried for a couple of years. There was no way, because there is no way, as I mentioned earlier, to convert electrical signals in a conscious experience. To a qualia. How do you do that? True qualia. What is qualia?

Qualia are no numbers. Electrical signals can be reduced to numbers. Qualia are not numbers. They love that you feel for a child, your child, is that love, something that you can put in one number or a series of numbers? No way. It's richer. He has dimensions that you cannot probe.

You know that there is more to know about that love. It goes deeper than you can even know. But the fact that you know that it goes deeper allows, motivates you to find out more about that love. You see, it is not, it goes beyond number. See, the deepest feeling, the deepest longing, that we have like belonging to know ourselves, goes way beyond anything that can be put into numbers,

transcends the ideal number. Therefore, transcends measurability, which is the basis of science. And in fact, science has the concept of the quantum state of a system, you know, which is, can only be expressed as a probability amplitudes in an n-dimensional space, where each dimension is a complex number.

Complex numbers are not real numbers. Space and time is real. Describe real numbers. You cannot, you know, complex numbers is square root of minus one is not a number. It's called I, imaginary number, just because it's not a number. Because there is no number.

They multiply by itself gives you minus one. So what is it? Well, actually, a complex number describes points in, you know, an infinity of points in a plane. Wow. Is that a number? No, it's not a number. And that's, and why is it useful? Because it allows you to transform, to simplify the computation.

You transform a ordinary differential equations, for example, in an algebraic equation, just by using complex numbers. You can simplify the computation. So just operationally, you can find that out. But what is a complex number? In quantum physics, a complex number represents a probability amplitude. But a probability requires consciousness. It's a concert of consciousness. In other words, only consciousness wants to predict the future.

In a classical system, since the classical system is deterministic, that is nothing that tells you. you why you should predict the future. In a classical system, the prediction of the future of a conscious being is needed because the conscious being wants to predict what will happen, not having enough information about what will happen. In quantum physics, there is the collapse of the wave function,

which is not a mathematical function. It is pure randomness, non-alorithmic, which is the one that decides, what will manifest out of what you can compute, which are only the probabilities of all the possible positions, for example, of a particle. But the actual position is an act of free will in this new theory that we can get into later,

but I don't want to go too much into math, but fundamentally this theory is simply saying that consciousness must exist. You have to start with consciousness, and we free will like a postulate, and from there you can explain why quantum physics has the crazy properties that he has. That physicists are the first one to tell you,

we don't understand why quantum physics is the way it is. Why is there the collapse of the way it function? Why do we have states that are expressing probabilities, probability amplitudes, that don't even exist in space and time? Why do we have to have that? Nobody understands. This theory explains why, because there is consciousness

and there is free will. Okay, so we just opened up many things here, the nature of free will, consciousness being fundamental. I would love for you to break down your distinction between classical, I guess, idealism versus monism, and yeah, your framework of consciousness being fundamental, and then there's a lot to open up right after that, but if you just love to give a quick overview.

Yeah. Well, basically in this theory, there are three levels of reality. The fundamental reality, which is described by quantum physics, the quantum states in Hilbert space, in this n-dimensional space, that is the reality

where conscious experiences are. The quantum state is a representation of a conscious, experience of qualia. So it's the best thing that mathematics can get through to represent qualia which is not as a certain numbers because probabilities are not numbers that they refer to something else. They refer to something that might happen. They don't refer to what is. So you cannot call it a probability as a number is not itself a reality. It's pointing to the probability of a reality.

But the reality is the experience or the being of the conscious entity, which is a field that is described. But the experience can only be known by the entity. Cannot be known by the mathematics. Cannot be described by mathematics. You see, we have a level of reality that mathematics cannot reach.

That is the key here. Yeah, truth transcends proof in a way. Absolutely. You know, I was trying myself, you know, to explain consciousness with quantum physics, even though I realized the consciousness was fundamental and so on. And I told myself, I'm foolish to believe that. You know, we need to turn it around.

Consciousness must exist from the very beginning, like I had seen and free will had to be also. Our properties of fields, they are not properties of things. They are properties of fields. and the fields don't exist in space and time. Space and time emerges from those fields. So if you start that way, all of a sudden, you can explain also why you have to have free will,

which are then how the field decides what to manifest by going from probability. The theory would say you go from probability to an actuality. The actual, what's actually happened, the field makes a free will decision and manifests what actually, will manifest that you can measure in space and time. But it is a free will decision.

So there is no math that can tell you what that decision is going to be. So all of a sudden, you have a completely different conception of reality. So there is, go back to the original question, there is this foundational reality. Then there is the classical reality of objects and moving space and time. Those are derivatives of this deeper reality. Okay, and derivative on this deeper reality based on decision, free will decision of conscious entities. And there is the body. The body is a bridge between this deeper reality and the classical reality.

The body is quantum and classical. The body is characterized by the type of information which are called live information, which is neither quantum information nor classical information. It's something deeper that has not been. described by other physicists so far is just a you know is a new is a basic idea that has to be that way is essentially the the best way to imagine it is like my words are waves my words are waves they are dynamic and they convey a lot more information than when I write down what I'm saying what I write down when I say

those are static symbols they have lost all the rest of my emotions and whatever they, you know, this dynamic wave can carry. And so live information, live symbols are just like spoken words. Classical symbols are like written words in a book or, you know. So, so there is a big difference in the capacity to express meaning because the meaning is what exists in the deeper reality. there is no information there. It is the meaning of the information

in the deeper reality. In the outer reality, there is only classical information, which is symbols, numbers. There are numbers here, non-numbers here, qualia here, and comprehension of quality in the deeper reality. And the body is a bridge

that allows this deeper reality to communicate with this classical reality through the body. So, I guess the difference I just want to highlight between idealism and monism is that instead of just saying that consciousness is fundamental and all there is, it's viewing matter as a host of consciousness in a way. Is that correct? Yeah. Look at matter this way. My theory is a monistic theory, but not in the, you know,

and I don't want to get into, you know, these boxes. We tend to put things into boxes when, frankly, when you talk about one where one is not made of boxes, is everything is interconnected, one. So the box is closed and close what the box is supposed to contain, like a set in mathematics. Okay, he's a, it's a closed thing. You know, something belongs or doesn't belong to the set. So here we are talking about something, you know, that transcends many of the mathematical concepts that are so foundational in mathematics. So here, the foundation of our capacity to, to know is qualia and comprehension that get us to the meaning of information. And the meaning is something that can only be known from the inside by the field that is

the wants to know itself. So when one creates monads, consciousness units, these conscious units have the same properties of one to know themselves. They want to know themselves. They also can procreate other monads. that's just like one created the monad, created the consciousness unit. You know, in other words, the property of these fields are the properties of one. But with the one difference, that only in one point, this entity only can know reality

from the point of view with which one created those entity. Since one is, as potentially infinite points of view, then there are potentially infinite Conscious and Units or Monads. And so there are potentially infinite weight that those conscious and units can combine into higher level hierarchies of consciousness units. So all of a sudden we have an unbelievable structure that emerges from knowing,

from the desire of one to know itself. And the fact that knowing and existing are aspects of the same thing. Why do you think there's a fundamental desire of the one to know itself and in a way why does it need to differentiate to know itself in so many different ways? If you look at yourself,

what is the deepest longing that you have? The deepest longing that I have myself is to know myself, to know why am I here, to know what is this universe for, to know. So to know is the deepest longing, the human have had, in fact, the deepest wisdom and the deepest knowing comes from this longing

and has given rise to then spirituality, then religious, religions, and then eventually science. But, you know, this longing is before all of that. This longing is there, and science is satisfying only the surface longing, the one, you know, to understand what you can, you know, what you can measure.

But somehow science has moved away from the spirituality is not given value of reality. I wouldn't say science with the capital S, I would say more like scientism or materialism is given only value of reality to what you can measure in space and time. So basically for this materialistic view, there is nothing other than matter.

But that's a starting point. That's a postulate that has never been proven. It's a posture to say that there is only matter. So, you know, when you know within yourself, there are things that you cannot understand, they go way beyond, way beyond what can be measuring space and time, like the love that you feel or the courage that you feel, you know, to take action against, you know,

against the, you know, the beliefs system that are around you. So it's, yeah, it's within that understanding that I've heard you share that that existence knows itself through the experience. And so, you know, I, this podcast is called know thyself, right? You know, certainly my, one of my highest values is in the discovery of who I truly am, who am I in the essence of that. And I think our audience largely is, is, you know, has that desire. And, you know, I think we all fundamentally do. And, and so, you know, as we start with the surface level of understanding of just the Western-minded view of the surface level, I am my body, I am my name.

We start to see how these things we are not. And you can start to go down the list of everything from your name, your cast, your creed, your ethnicity. None of these things are fundamentally you. And so you start asking, okay, then what actually could I be? What is indivisible, you know, in the essence of who I truly am? And so I think the word that you started using,

which is saidi, is, is an interesting kind of distinction. So I would love for you to share your definition of what that is and how is it different from what most people would say as a soul, you know, that we have a soul. I think, you know, there's some distinctions that help take it out of the bucket

of conceptual understanding that we have with that word of soul. So what is Sadie? Yeah. So, but let me just say one thing to connect with what I said earlier, that science is also about knowing. So even science wants to know, right? But they are restricting what they want to know

on what can be measuring space and time. So everything that we do that is beyond pure survival is about knowing, science included. So back to society. So saiti simply take a quantum field of electrons. Quantum fields of electrons well-defining physics, quantum physics. I say this quantum field has consciousness and has free

Then I call a saty because it's not the quantum fields of physics. But it is everything that physics is saying plus consciousness and free will. All of a sudden you have an entity that can evolve and can know itself and everything else because it's a part hole of one. In this way of thinking, all of a sudden you are connecting immediately. physics, which are the quantum fields, with spirituality, which is the fact that these fields are conscious and every will. Okay, great.

So I'll just read a quote from your book, which is new and now, by the way, we haven't mentioned irreducible second to your first book that I've been absolutely loving, diving into this quote that I just want to read, which is on this exact topic. You said, I believe instead that we are saides who temporarily inhabit our bodies, we are eternal, conscious beings rather than perishable bodies, and we are here to learn crucial aspects of ourselves by interacting with each other in the physical universe that we have co-created for this very purpose. Everything we perceive in the universe was initially envisioned in the consciousness of the Seides because classical reality follows quantum reality and not vice versa.

And quantum physics follows quantum information, which in turn represents the thoughts, desires, and conscious experiences of the Seydes. Yeah, anything you'd like to elaborate there? That was pretty thorough. Yeah, it's pretty thorough. I think that the crucial thing here is to always make the distinction. And when I say, I don't mean the body. And when we say I, we tend to generally mean the body.

So the body is not where consciousness exists. The body is a quantum classical structure. that exists in space and time, but it's also connected with this quantum reality, and that's why it is a monism. Okay, if you take the field of electrons, the quantum field of electrons, the electrons are not objects separate from the fields.

They are in physics, the quantum physics, an electron is a state of a field, is some structure, some form that appears in the field itself. in the field itself, just like a wave of the sea. A wave of the sea is part of the sea. It cannot be separated from the sea. So the properties of the wave are actually the properties

of the field. The properties of the electron are the properties of the quantum fields of electron, which is conscious and has free will. So the fact that you cannot separate the original matter from the deeper reality, It's a monism. You don't have spirit and matter.

They are all manifestation. Matter is a manifestation of spirit. Matter is a manifestation of mind. So can you help me wrap my mind around how a seidae could possess individuality? Because when you look at the word self, there's many different layers, like we said, we could perceive it as from the body to the mind,

to who we are in a more fundamental nature that is an energy that we are inhabiting in a physical body temporarily in this experience. Yeah. So this has a lot of implications, obviously, and it's congruent with, like I said, a lot of Eastern wisdom traditions that have been talking about this for millennia.

So what is the practical differentiation in how you explain the soul and the saity and what that implies to what happens when we die, the personality and qualities of us that maybe carry over once this physical body dies. So I'm just curious to see how you kind of think about these things. So the identity of this city,

the best way to look at that is the point of view with which one knew itself originally when he created this city, this field that is conscious, and has free will, which is a part whole of one, that point of view is the identity, is the fact that that field will maintain that identity forever. So it is the, in a way, it is imprinted by one

in its giving birth to this new field, which is a new self-knowing of itself. So one self-knowes creates a part-hole of itself, with a point of view, which is the identity, which is the uniqueness of that field. And the uniqueness remains the uniqueness of that field forever. That field is eternal. Or if one is not eternal,

he has the same duration of one. But, you know, you can, you know, because that if one wants to know itself, the last thing that one wants is to forget, you know, what he has learned about itself, right? So there has to be a memory of, the self-knowing of one, which is also the memory, the self-knowing of the societies that are created by one.

So there has to be a way to remember the experience. So, and that's another reason why you have to have classical information. Classical information is information that allows you to remember an experience, a quantum experience, because a quantum state only exists for a very short period of time. So you better put in memory what you experience, otherwise you forget about it. Because the next thing that you experience,

if you didn't put in memory, what you experienced earlier, it's gone. So it's like, you know, we imagine like the present and moves toward the future, well, no, there is no future and there is no past. It's the past that grows from the present, which is the memory of what you had experience. So the past moves the back.

And the future is what actually is the, you know, appears in this present. So that's a better way to understand time when you consider the, you know, who we are. And that is consistent also with what physics is saying, but in a deeper way than normally we think of it. So in your first awakening experience, you felt like you recognize that you are light.

Light and love and peace and joy. Again, there are a separation between these fundamental concepts. And then you felt from that experience that you are this one point of the one in which it knows itself, like a point or a dot on a circle in which there are potentially infinite amounts of dots that could be there. I perceive myself as a point of view of one upon itself. In other words, and the reason why I say that is because the sense of me that I had in that extraordinary experience was the same sense of me that I've always said when I was five years old, 30 or at that time, almost 50.

So, you know, that sense of me, that's my identity, that's who I am. That is the self. but I call it identity because again self has so many meanings and so I want to avoid I want to use names sati which is the fact of you know what being a you know the self food yeah and that's why the awakening process is often referred to as self-realization

because you're coming into awareness of something that was prior and already existed absolutely yeah because we have memory of our own experience and so we're in the process of remembering Yeah. And in fact, to know something that you already knew, because you also can know something that you didn't know, that's new. That's a new creation also for you. In other words, it isn't that all we know is in the past. Because everything new that we know, we create, we bring into existence exactly like one, when knows itself for the first time brings into existence, but he knows. This is valid for everyone. Yeah. So then do you think there is this vast intelligence is orchestrating in a type of way the people, places and circumstances for us to garner the experience we need to come into that self-remembering? But by being part whole, we are all orchestrating what one wants. You see, because if we were separate parts, it would be different than there would be an orchestrator. But we are part all. But I, you know, notice that our body, even our body is built the same way,

is built with parts whole. Let me explain. Every cell of my body has the genome of the egg that built the entire organism. So every part of my body, every cell, I have about 50 trillion like you. I got about 51. Oh, it's good.

You are better than me. So your 51 trillion cells, Each one of them has the genome that describes the entire organism. Not itself. Everything, the whole thing is a part whole. The potential knowledge of the whole. That's why a cell later on in life can express aspects of itself that were not present at its birth.

That's why there is epigenetics. 30 years ago, it was impossible, could not exist. And now, of course, people are beginning to accept that epigenetic exists. Epigenetic is that, you know, a cell is not determined at birth in what is going to be able to express. It can express new things that were not at present at birth. So, you know, the entire understanding of who we are

is appended. And there are people that tell you, materialists, that tell you that the body is just an algorithm, you know, biology is just like a, you know, like a computer, what the hell? You know, no, a computer is made of transistors. They are not 50 trillions yet. They would be 50 trillion.

So what's the big deal? A transistor is a switch on off. That's all. What does a switch know about the whole, the old computer and the software that runs in the computer? Nothing. Yeah, how could there be the sound of a crying baby, the sight of a rose,

the taste of a cherry, these qualia that can't be in the experience of a switch. Android, but this goes beyond that because I'm just describing a body as a physical structure in space and time comparing to another physical structure in space and time, which is a computer,

which is a purely classical system. The body is quantum and classical. The consciousness, the feelings are not in the body. in this field, this deeper field. They are not in the body. We project them in the body. They are not in the body. We are, who we are, are not the body. We don't exist in space

and time. We exist in this deeper reality. You see, this is, this is, that's why we, but we are so indoctrinated on one end and so also hypnotize into believing that we are the body, that we always fall into this trap of believing that we are. are the body. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we saw, but then when we think about ourselves, we think about the body.

No, the body is just a structure that then perishes. If we were the body, then scientism would be right to say that when the body dies, it's the end of ourselves, right? If consciousness is a property of a functioning brain, when the brain doesn't function, we shouldn't exist anymore. And of course, that's what I believe when I was, I believe in this, in this scientism worldview, which did not take into account what quantum physics was saying. The point is that that I'm trying to make is that quantum physicists are saying something that then we'd never reflect in our worldview.

So I just want to pick up where you were just talking about emotion and how emotion carries meaning and this understanding of live information. Yeah. This is a very kind of new concept, you know, in terms of understanding how meaning is like a tied to the fundamental constituents of reality instead of like an afterthought or a byproduct, I suppose that we, you know, intellectually make.

So can you share how emotion is tied with meaning? Yeah. Just think about love. What is the, you know, what is love bringing to you? I mean, beyond the feeling itself, you know there is a meaning behind that the qualia is one thing right what it feels like that's the qualia yeah but then the qualia the qualia are simply the entry point into the inner sanctum which is you know this field that can know that has properties that are infinitely powerful properties to understand understand means to get the meaning of what of what you perceive

which is qualia. So the meaning is the essence of what you know. And it's also what we want to convey when we use symbols. I don't describe my qualia. I describe the meaning of qualia. You know, when I say, I love you. Am I describing what I feel?

I cannot describe what I feel. So I describe, you know, the essence that I call love that I, you know, that's the meaning that I, that these feelings has for me. But it goes deeper because, love is a word, love is a symbol is a word, but love to you, if you really go into it, it has dimensions that are unfathomable,

it has depths that you cannot fathom. So, you know, it's, you know, cannot be describing word, okay? Years ago, years ago, I said, you know, that's what the Tao is talking about. You know, the Tao, it starts by saying, He started by saying the doubt that you can say is not the eternal Tao. Okay?

What is he saying? He's saying exactly what quantum physics is saying. That the, you cannot, you cannot copy, not even copy a quantum state. The quantum state, which is the representation of qualia, is what you feel. And it can only be known from the instance. side, it can never be told from the outside.

What you can say about it are only symbolic expressions of what you feel. But the symbolic expression of what you feel fall very short of what you feel. There is a theorem in quantum physics. It's called Olivo's theorem. Olivost theorem said that when you have a quantum state, when you measure the quantum state,

you can only get one bit of information, classical bit, per quantum bit. The quantum bits at this, describe the states are entangle, which is, you know, crazy property of quantum physics, meaning properties in common that cannot be represented in space and time. They require these n-dimensional spaces.

Not only that, but each quantum bit is an infinity of possibilities representable as a point on the surface of a sphere. So every point of the surface of a sphere, meaning a direction in space, direction in space, is one of the possible states of the quantum bit. When you make a measurement of this quantum state, you set a direction, and if you set in this direction, you measure, you will find one or zero, which is the opposite direction.

You can only find zero or one, no matter which way you measure it. That's a property which is incomprehensible because classical physics is not these properties. When you measure a quantum system, you disturb it and you measure something, there was not the state that it was. So the observer affects what is observed. And of course, then the, what is the observer affects the observer giving some information. So all of a sudden, you no longer have the situation

in classical physics where the observer is separate from what is observed. You're a participant. And you are a participant. You are both observer, observe, and actor. You're all three, you are an agent. all three because we take turns, like we're taking turns now.

Now when I speak, you observe me, and when you speak, I observe you, okay, but also my speaking affects you, but also affects me and vice versa. So we affect each other in a way that classical system don't affect each other at all. In classical physics, you know, you had to make sense,

separation between the observe and the observer. And that separation is being kept in the mind of even most physicists to this day. So they don't think of, you know, they explain what's going on in ways, but then, you know, they're not clear about the role of the observer in quantum physics because it's incomprehensible in the conception of reality that exists, which is reality is really what we can measure in space and time. So Donne often talks about space and time doesn't exist, in that sense, okay, it's right, you know. But in reality, there is, you know,

we had to explain why we have a perception of space and time and where does it come from. And so, you know, you had to think in terms of a deeper reality and space and time are emerging properties of this deeper reality. as the other way around. You know, consciousness and free will are supposed to be, actually, free will,

typically in scientism doesn't exist, but, you know, in, you know, consciousness, and consciousness emerges from space and time and objects that don't have any of that, okay? But it is the other way around. You know, space and time matters and energy emerge from this deeper reality, and so they must be explained

in terms of, knowing. Knowing is deeper than space, time, matter, and energy. Do you think that a conscious entity can actually know itself in its entirety? Of course not. Not even one can know itself in its entirety. We'll continue to know itself. The more he knows, the more it can know. So knowing ourselves is a continual dynamic process.

Absolutely. There is never ends. It cannot end. If he ended, it would be the end of the universe, in a way, in the end of evolution, the end of everything. But one will be finally satisfied. It knows itself completely and we don't, you know, we can, we can subsume from one and that will be the end of it, which is fine too. I mean, I don't really know, but, you know, but it is reasonable to think that is, you

know, why should time end? Besides that kind of time, which is the time that we measure is not the time that I'm talking about. That time that we're talking about is the present. The time of experience is that sliver of. present where everything that we remember or everything that we predict is in that present. If I make a prediction of what will happen in the future, that prediction is done in the present. This invites a feeling, at least to me, internally, of a lot of spaciousness and taking

pressure off of ourselves on the spiritual path because we have in the West more of this achievement oriented, goal-oriented mindset where it's like achieving enlightenment becomes a point in which our spiritual journey is like we've arrived. you know, versus you're inviting a continual journey and let's enjoy the ride. Of course, of course. But, but, you know, for me, in a way, why was I disappointed?

Because I had checked all the boxes and so I had arrived. Right. And I should have been happy. Yeah, the money, the fame. Because I had always put happiness in the future because, you know, because I'm not, you know, I was supposed to achieve

certain things to be happy because that was the list of things that I had to do that, you know, but. That was an imagination, my imagination. And so once I arrive, I was unhappy. So what's wrong with this picture, right? So I want to talk about this sovereignty, this reclaiming our spiritual power

and the responsibility we have to do so. I love this quote I found in your book around suffering from Simone Wheel that says suffering as a door that we can choose to go through. and then we learn something or we refuse to open and then nothing is added

rather it takes everything away from us and I feel like we all have these experiences in life that are challenging and we suffer and we can grow through suffering or grace but oftentimes there's a lot of suffering that points us into the direction of what's not working for us in our identity and beliefs and so many different things in life

and so as the one desire us to know itself I feel and I would love to get your perspective as suffering kind of serves as the friction necessary for us to move into the direction of experiencing, remembering, realizing our true self. Yeah. I mean, my sense is that suffering is very much something that exists in this quasi-virtual reality in which we live and we believe to be the body and we're here to learn something about ourselves that we set up to learn before.

incarnation. So, so, you know, because clearly we are not the body, so when the body dies, we are still the field that we were before the body was born. So, you know, we don't go anywhere. We continue to be the entity that was created with the point of view that we always have. When we, when the body dies, we recover the memories of other lives that we had in this, in this reality, maybe other possible realities, who knows, but, Certainly, you know, we no longer, see, once we are, we believe to be the body to the point that we pay attention only to the signals produced by the body, we become close in a way. We no longer observe things that are beyond the body. We observe only the stuff that the body produces and we communicate with the body as ego.

The ego is only a portion of the society, who we are or this field, is that portion of the field, that, you know, in creating the characteristic of this body in order to understand itself, that portion of itself became, you know, hypnotized, so to speak, believing that it is the body. It is a little bit like when we control a drone, a drone, you know, suppose you have goggles and through these goggles you see and you hear

the, you know, the information that a drone is sending you, a drone is in another country, you know, 10,000 miles away, and you see what the drone sees and you hear what the drone hears. So, and if you are intense in controlling the drone and getting to do, getting the drone to do what you want, okay, you forget about whatever is around you, right? And so the drone, then you are the drone, you, you know,

you do whatever you're doing, and, you know, then the drone, drone is, you know, is shot down. And this, you know, nothing here. You look around and say, my God, I, I'm still here. You know, so the body controlling the drone is like your conscious fields controlling your body.

Okay. And it's analogous. It's a good way to imagine this because because the reality that you see through the eyes and ears of the drone is really, is really, you know, what are you seeing? You're seeing bits.

And those bits are actually, you know, transformed by the conscience. They become space. They become the objects that the drone sees. How is that possible? So if you take the goggles out and you look at this reality, this reality must be the same, similar way, right?

I mean, many years ago, that was so clear to me that, that in fact, that's why, that's because virtual realities exist, you know, we can do a with a computer, that we can actually understand that this reality cannot be the reality, real. However, it is not purely separate from the deeper reality because, as I told you earlier, the states of the fields cannot be separated from the field. So this, the virtual reality is still connected with what we are. is our emanation

of what we are. That's why the theory is ammonism like I would say earlier. Yeah. So I personally love that analogy. It's also, you know, in reference to Donald Hoffman,

how I love his headset analogy because it's a very useful thing that we can wrap our head around, so to speak, pun intended. I think where we have a virtual reality headset and we go into this other reality where our true self

takes on our sensory system of seeing, smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing, that plugs us into three-dimensional reality where it's very enchanting and it serves the purpose of having the experiences we need to know oneself. But we often get lost.

And the veil of that forgetting and this whole journey, which we're speaking to, is the journey of remembering of who we are beyond the sensory and continual arising and passing away a phenomenon that we perceive.

Yeah. And so I feel a really important reflection now is as, you know, all the people that are listening to into this conversation right now on our journey, there is a responsibility we have to know oneself. And the more that we can acknowledge that, the more that we can tap into that and embody that responsibility, the more that we start to go on that upward spiral of realization and a lot of the things that we won't suffer to start to fall away, we start to become more agents of positive impact and change in the world. There's so many endless implications of that change and transformation that happens internally.

first and foremost. And so what do you feel is the responsibility we have for that awakening process? Yeah. Yeah, I think that even before, there can be an awakening in my way of thinking, we have to take responsibility for what happens in our life. I think that I could not have had the experience that I had

if I had not taking a responsibility for what happened in my life, where I was justified in, you know, in blaming somebody for what happened to me. And I was not looking at what, how I contributed to that person harming me. So how, you know, so at one point, you know, after this issue was over,

I asked myself one day, what did I do? What did I do to encourage that or why didn't I stop it? What was my payoff for not stopping? What was going on? And it was through that process. It was painful through that process that I realized that I had an agenda. And my agenda was that by not doing something, I was better than the guy. I was better because I was more noble.

I was giving the other cheek. You know, that's the way I was brought up in the Catholic ethos, you know, you basically, you know, if somebody hurts you, you'll give the other cheek. It's silly, right? I mean, I mean, I took that supposed teaching, you know, into a, then if I do that, I'm better than the other guy. Right. Okay?

And so that was my angle to be superior. And I said, holy come only. I mean, I, you know. I think that's common, though, we all, on the part of our journey, we imbibev virtues and display them for the world as it means to build our superiority. And it's just another way that ego tries to survive. So once I discovered the game that I was playing, I said, therefore, I am, I was responsible for what happened to me because I did not respond properly. So never again. And that was the act of taking responsibility instead of blaming the other, just simply not

blaming anybody. Just simply figure out what can I do better next time. That's it. Okay? Because what happens to me in one way or another, I have contributed to bring him forth to me. If you don't take that position, it's very hard then to, to, you know, to be. go the next step. Because the next step for me was to acknowledge that I was not, that I was pretending to be happy when I was not. And it was exactly because I took responsibility. I already

had taken responsibility years before that I was able to say, no, I want to know. I want to know. And so I put my foot down. I had the, having understood that I was responsible in the, or in the bad of what happens to me, then I also have the right to say, I want to know. And I got the answer. And I didn't have to meditation before, do all kinds of stuff before.

No, it came spontaneously. Yeah, because of the intensity of the longing. That's right. Yeah. But because having taken responsibility was a crucial step in my mind to go to the next step. And I think there is an important distinction

with it not being our fault, but it is our responsibility. But we are trained, you know, it's this fault, it's your fault, you know, you look what you did to your brother, you know, your fault, you know, it's all like all this kind of, you know, culture in which we are growing up,

in which we do not understand what we're doing. And the parents, you know, don't understand what they're doing. And when I was a parent without having opened my eyes, I was doing the same thing that my parents were doing to me. So, I mean, that just the cycles of inequities

that keeps propagating into the future. So we had to wake up. And that requires courage, you know, the courage to take that responsibility and I think that really plays an important role. And it's an important invitation reminder for everybody tuning in now to prioritize having a spiritual experience, to prioritize having

that the taste of your interconnectedness, of your oneness. And once you experienced that, I think you're radically transformed. Absolutely, you don't need to read 10 books, you know, just, you know, one minute is enough. You get all the, all the information that you need and you don't, you know, in fact, the books will,

you know, you can put them aside and you can now, you are ready to find out for yourself. And it's really what we are called to do, you know, not repeating, what other people say or doing what you're told to do. No, no, no, no, we are free human beings. We are to find out for ourselves. And it's in that maturing process, I feel,

we go from seekers on the path initially to knowers. We know, we don't need to seek it. You have the experience of it. That's right. And that's where the dogmatic beliefs fall away of who you are, where you come from, or whatever, and the experience of that starts to be born. And it's a completely different reality.

That's right. I'm curious your perspective on the greater impetus that drives a lot of these things. When you look at love, what do you see, how do you think about love in the way that it drives a lot of everything we're talking to, about taking responsibility, about the experiences that give us the contrast of who we're not? What do you think about love as some sort of metaphysical property, a fundamental constituent? Like, what do you think about love? I think about love as a, like, like, you know, a...

like the fundamental is the feeling out of which all other feelings emerge. It's the foundation of this or the qualia, but is also a force. So it's not just, you know, so it's the force that, that motivates you to find out what you are. Is what's behind it, know thyself, that is this love, which has to be love for yourself and for others, and that love has to be felt,

and it gives you the degree to which you are, you know, reaching toward knowing yourself and knowing others is the love. So love is also a measure of how you are reaching your objective, which is the fundamental objection that you came here to learn about. And so love is, So love is, love is also, you know, you can also understand that like I got this impression at the beginning is this stuff of which everything is made, you know, is the substance of all.

Okay. But all those concepts are vague because, you know, what is substance in a world that, where there is no matter, right? Substance, you know, everybody thinks of something concrete. So, so basically, and also, you know, in my, experience that love was mixed with joy and peace. So it was not, in a sense, just love. It was also these other things that were together. Because at that basic level, things are not separable. You know, there is no, you know, that's the, that's the fallacy of reductionism, that you can

separate the variables and everything is separable. You know, like if you can put them into different boxes. No, at the deepest level, everything is interconnected. And that's the power of the concert of one, which is holistic, truly holistic. No, you say the words and then you forget about it and you start, you know, making distinctions that separate the things. It's just, you know, an interesting analogy that I use from time to time is to say, where's the boundary between red and orange. You know, is there a neat boundary that separates the color red from the color orange?

You know, we talk as if there was a boundary there. No, there is a region where both are true. You know, there are regions where it's red. Everybody agrees is red, a region where everybody agrees is orange. But then there is a region where you say it's red for you and say, no, it's orange for me. And so that region is both of them.

And that gives you an idea how science and spirituality are physics and metaphysics are joining where there is no boundary. Now they become one. So therefore, the capacity and the methods of physics also need to be used in metaphysics and the stuff that works in metaphysics, your consciousness as a tool for knowing must be used also in physics. After all, how can we explore realities that cannot be measuring space and time? There is no instrument. The instruments are only in space and time. How do you measure them? Consciousness is the only tool to measure those realities through dreams, through out-of-body

experiences, through all kinds of other experiences that are not in space and time. Yeah, it really does seem like the universe works in paradox and to be able to have any anything approximating understanding objective reality, we need to be able to hold a multiple perspective simultaneously, which is a challenging experiment for people that are foreign to it. Yeah, but it's the idea that there is an objective reality, which is the problem. Yeah, yeah, I suppose so. You see, we always fall into the trap of thinking that there is an objective reality. No, there is not an objective reality.

In that case, you could say that what approximates objective reality is the fact that both are true, you know? So it is, so, yeah, the totality of it. Like, like, you know, but, you know, the, the objectivity is not, it is not an object. Yeah, for sure. Rather it's the spectrum. Doesn't have boundaries. You know, you know, see, this is all, you know, the, you know, when we theorize, we have to do this because by theorizing, you have to, you know, and to be certain, you have

to decide that there is true and false. But in reality, not even in, in mathematics, there is. only true and false, as you know, Gerdot's theorems, right? I mean, you know, any axiomatic system, you can make a statement that cannot be proven to be true

or false. It's both. Or neither, whatever you want. But certainly, you cannot prove that it's because if you prove that it's true, then it's false. If you prove that it's false, it's true. So, you don't know. So either you take that statement, you say, I decided this statement, I take

it to be true, then it becomes the postulate of a new theory that includes a new postulate that you have, but you have chosen to choose that thing that cannot be shown to be true or false as true or false. And then you bifurcate into different worlds. The rabbit hole goes deep on this one. I just want to go back quickly to what we were speaking about love and actually just read a few quotes here

that I saw in your book and then also from you, I think these all tie nicely in together. Alfred Tennyson's said, that complete knowledge is complete love. Greater knowledge is indesobly linked to love, Pericles, and Aristotle said something approximating to educate the mind without educating the heart is to not be educated at all.

Yeah. When we study physics, nobody educates your heart. Physics is not about heart, you see. And that's why physics and metaphysics, or spirituality much better, the capacity to experience from within must be integrated. But we must go beyond the self-imposed limits

of what a discipline can study and call reality. If to know is to bring into existence, that changes everything, you see? And that goes hand in hand with what you said in the book about creation is therefore the manifestation of one's continuous search through the Seides, to get to know each other more and more, it is important to emphasize that to know is to love

and to love is to know. Yep. I mean, you know, love and joy, you know, love and joy are very close, right? I mean, you know, that's sort of like they appear to be very, you know, symmetrical, right? And so one of the greatest joys when you, you finally get a new thing, that you were thinking,

tried to understand it. Finally, you get it, I got it, I got it, you know, I got it, right? I mean, that's love. Joy and love mixed together. It's more joy than love, perhaps, but it's love. You know, that's what knowing,

I mean, I think the, you know, what do I know, but what, you know, the thrill, when one knows itself and creates a monad, It must be an unbelievable thrill, right? I mean, just, and wow. Yeah. I really just enjoy the synthesization of both

in exploring the gray. And, you know, I've heard you speak to how reality has both the semantic and symbolic aspect and how information has then being inherently tied with meaning. And that's a really interesting thing to explore and to break down.

Is there anything you want to share to help clarify that? Sure. I mean, you know, the concept of, information, you know, goes back to Shannon in 1948, you know, created the theory of information in that year with that paper, famous paper. And the definition of information has nothing to do with meaning.

The definition of information, information is the co-logarism of the probability that a symbol manifest in a series of symbols. So you have symbols that appear, the probability that you can assign to the symbol is inversely proportional to the information carried by the symbol. So the more predictable is a symbol, the less information there is on that symbol.

And vice versa, if a symbol has zero probability of happening, so it will never happen. If you were to happen, it would have infinite information. And if you know exactly, the symbol they want to manifest next, there is no information in that symbol because that symbol begets the next one. So that definition of information

only requires the recognition of the symbol and not that the symbol carrying any meaning. But for us, information without meaning is meaningless. For us, information, when we say, I got a lot of information, really you should have said, I got a lot of meaning from the symbols that I saw or that I heard or, you know. So what do I want to convey with the words that I'm using?

Just the word, the recognition of the words by you, which would be what a computer would do? No, the meaning of those words is what I want to convey. And I have to use because I cannot give you, my state is equivalent to a quantum information that cannot be reproduced. information cannot be reproduced. There is a theorem. The no cloning theorem says you cannot reproduce quantum information.

That's why the existence of consciousness and conscious experience can only be, can explain why quantum physics has to have these states that cannot be reproduced. Because the bits of the computer can be copied, can be reproduced as many times as you want. And that's why computers can never be conscious, because consciousness is a property that requires quantum states which are not reproducible. You see, so if you start with consciousness and free will, you can explain everything else in a coherent manner

and you can explain why there has to be quantum physics, why there has to be classical physics, and all of that. Okay, so what we're exploring here and what you said earlier about how consciousness and free will must be properties of the original field, which is completely backwards

from the traditional model. I want to spend a little bit of time exploring that and the understanding of free will. Would you say that we have free will to the degree in which we earn it or recognize who we are in our truerest self? Because if we're continually being driven by unconscious drives, then it feels very much so. We're more of like an automaton. you know, we're just this machine that has these biochemical reactions and driving us to this in this deterministic reality. So how do you see free will being connected to the original source

and how that translates to how we actually might or might not have it in this reality? So free will is a property of the field. It's not a property of the body. Again, we tend to give free will to the body. Now, the free will, the free will is. a decision of the field to make the body do something other than the automatism of the body would make the body do. So you see, there is a very subtle, a very important difference here.

The body, the body does not have free will per se. The body is a physical structure that obeys laws. The free will is in the field that controls the body. In other words, the drone does, cannot decide to do what he wants. If you don't do anything, the drone goes around like this waiting for you to tell them what to do, for example. It does what we had told them to do. But the drone does not have the freedom to decide, now I do over there, you know, unless you give them that authority. Even in that case, it's still not free will.

It simply will do what you told him to do. Okay. So the body is a little bit like that, right? Almost identical like that, almost because the body is also quantum and classical, right? But the body in general does not have free will. So if I conscious being allow the body to do what he wants, then the behavior of the body can be predictable because the body is a machine.

So it can be predicted, its behavior can be predicted. But if the consciousness intervenes and make the body do something different that it was programmed to do, then the body will do what the consciousness wants. And so that is, that's a free will choice. You see the difference? So, so the body simply is, you know, a response to what the free will of the field wants.

And the free will of the field is the one that has to learn about itself and use, you know, use properly the body in order for the field to know itself. Because the, the self-knowing is in the field, is not in the body. The body simply memorizes things that are important for the body to function and be semi, you know, quasi autonomous. But that's it. And that's why when the body falls off, this stuff remains, which is the knowing, the free will and so on.

So, you know, we have to be careful again because we tend to attribute to the body, then free will. The body doesn't have free will, essentially. So to the degree we identify with the body, we don't have free will as well. So would you say to the degree we wake up to who we are beyond the body, the more free will that we access? Because we're still making decisions

and choices here within the structure of the physical body. The part that wakes up again is not the body. Right. Is the ego, which is a portion of society. The ego that believed to be the body is the one that wakes up. So also the ego that still

believes to be the body and believes also certain that he should do certain things and not others, it's also a mechanism because it's basically, it's basically, how to say, it's basically making the body do what he believes, which is a closed system. It is not really free. It is imprisoned in a sense by its own belief structure. So only an awakened ego can actually have really free will. Well, you say awaken ego, but do you feel like the intelligence of the heart

is better verbiage there? Because I feel there's two kind of different places we can make decisions from, you know? There is the egoic structure in which we can make decisions from, but then there's also an intelligence of the heart that speaks to us more softly that we start to listen to that is more coherent. Yes.

And that's where, you know, that, and the true courage that you know, the true courageous decision, which is absolutely can only be, you know, otherwise it wouldn't be courageous, a free will decision, you know, is something that goes against what the body would have done.

Otherwise, you know, otherwise the body simply would do whatever was programmed to do by its own life and the interaction with the consciousness. Because the interaction with the con, you know, think of the body and the consciousness as

the way that we the way that we behave when we train a neuroneutral, a computer, you know, an artificial intelligence system. You know, we are the ones that given the data that the AI needs to learn from, and we tell them what to, you know, we tell them right, wrong, and so on. So we are coaching this thing to, to imitate our own understanding

of reality. There is no understanding. here is the pretense of understanding here, but the understanding isn't the consciousness. Who learns is actually the programmer of the AI, not the AI. They tell you that the AI has learned, but in reality, who has learned is the guy,

you know, that controls the machine, okay? The machine will simply then repeat what he was made to learn by this other guy. The same way us, our consciousness and the body, the body is like the AI system, and our consciousness is, the supervisor of the AI system. So as the consciousness is learned, the body also learns,

and it can then later on repeat what he has learned that wasn't there before. So there is a continuing learning in the body, is like continuing AI increasing its capacities. But in reality, the body simply mirrors and, you know, sort of parrots, but the learning is, you know, and the knowing is in the consciousness that controls it. Again, you know, we tend to think that we are the body

and that tricks us every time to think that as a body, then we have certain properties that are not properties of the body, they are properties of the field. So when you look at reincarnation, do you feel like that's compatible with this theory and like what the moment of the physical body dying? Yeah.

Is the saity would then inhabit a new incarnation into another body? What do you feel like is most likely? Well, the accounts of the near-death experiences, which there are thousands and thousands out there. And also the accounts of the children who have clear recognition, or they can validly prove

the existence of them somehow knowing where their previous body, like life was, how was killed, the things that they had, the places they live, et cetera. Yeah. Yeah, those accounts, you know, are clearly consistent with the, theory that I'm telling you. Basically, when the body dies, you, the ego, which believed to be the body, no longer has the signals, you know, that he was paying attention to are all scrambled up

and, or they're not even there. And then it looks around, wow, I'm still here. And he finds itself over, you know, over the body, looking down at the body, which is being operated in an operating room in the hospital and then he describes properly what happened. Then he moves into another environment. He meets, you know, their dead parents or friends that were dead and has wonderful, you know, heartfelt connection with them. And then he is told to get back to his body and he wakes up and, oh, gee, I had to live a little more in this life.

It was so much better up there, right? So those are the typical near-death experience. That is telling you very likely what my happen. to you. So the difference is that if the body is not resuscitated by a good doctor, you know, you simply move beyond that experience when you are in that expensive state, and then you continue to live in that different reality until you are embodied again in a different body and have another experience. So that's very consistent. It cannot be explained with, with, you know, neuroscience at all.

In fact, the neuroscience, you know, has to say that those experiences are crazy, are just imaginations, but how can a brain that doesn't work imagine? You know, especially imagine something which is so transformative that 90% of the people that have this kind of experience find their life transformed by that experience. So when the brain wasn't working, he was doing more for them than when it was working. It's so fascinating.

And I kind of want to zoom out just a little bit. I often think about how recent civilization is and writing and the vast, you know, grand scheme of evolution of this planet and the solar system and the galaxies. I'm curious what you feel, what you think, if there was like a 25th century person with an average knowledge of whatever developments happen between now and then, if they were to look back on the time of us having this conversation and the collective understanding of really where the world is at in the 21st century, what observations do you think that they would make about where we are at in our own developmental journey

and the framework we have around understanding consciousness? Yeah, I think that it depends how humanity will really transform itself in the next 100 years. I think we have 100 years that can set this stage of what will happen. in 500 years from now, because there is a possibility of self-destruction. If we do not use AI, do not use atomic energy, we do not solve the climate problem properly and so on that we have in front of us.

So there is a, you know, there is a, you know, there are scenarios there are not happy for mankind. If mankind overcomes this problem, then mankind will look back. and hopefully a much larger percentage than what we would do now with our mindset, we then look back and say, wow, how could we be so, you know, so, you know, ignorant or, you know,

how we could misunderstand reality so much to think that the only reality that existed, is the reality in space and time. You know, this reality, classical reality essentially, the scientism, the materialism, the reductionism that we have today, you know,

will be looked as an aberration in the history of mankind. Because, you know, thousands of years ago, we did not think this way. We were much more connected with a deeper reality, with a deeper sense of what we are.

not everybody, but, you know, the highest mind, the people that were writing books, the people that were, you know, translating their, you know, sense of reality, have given us an account of their thinking that is much more open to the deeper dimensions of human dimensions than what we have today with scientism. Scientism eliminates any meaning from reality, any purpose from the universe. So 500 years from now, we will look back and say, how could we be so, you know, could have been so mistaken

about what we thought about is real. Because at that point, I believe that we would have learned to explore deeper realities that today we don't give them any reality with our consciousness and find out that we are beings of light, that we are beings that, you know, go immensely beyond what we now give credit to ourselves. Yeah, yeah, and I agree.

I just, I think, you know, us looking back on the 16th century right now and how much of what we were ignorant to then is just now everyday life for us. And if you just plucked somebody out from that time period, took a time machine back and show them all the things that we have in the world and what we understand about reality, it'd be so surreal where, you know, it's like a Star Trek movie

in comparison, you know? And so the growth of technology is so exponential that, you know, who could even imagine if we do make it through the existential crisis that we find ourselves in? Yeah. What life will be like? And there were a couple of things that I want to sidebar

in terms of AI and the possibility of destructing ourselves in the next 100 year, you know, 100 years where this is a very pivotal time that we live in right now where it's make or break it for humanity. Part of the shift of that awakening process is starting to once again value our interiors and the resurgence of valuing our interiors instead of just the reality that we can dissect in the Cartesian way of understanding the world around us. We start to explore, you know, consciousness and how we are in this conversation at a much deeper level. And so that to me is why I feel like immersive experiences

in creating containers in which people can have the taste of who they are in a more fundamental way, that feels like the first domino that everyone needs to be able to have the experience of or as many people need to be able to have the experience of, which will then change everything. Like how you relate to the biosphere completely changes when you feel your connection to it, right?

And so there's so many, of these implications that change when we first have the experience of our interconnected nature. So I'm just curious to hear any thoughts you have as we start to shift societally to valuing our interiors again. Yeah. But the crucial thing is to include into this interiority, heart and belly, what I call the courageous actions, the ability to act with free will that comes from the deeper aspect of who we are. so which is generally not acknowledged by science today you know what is the heart i mean the heart is a

organ the beats you know when we talk about heart in the context of spirituality the heart is love is peace is joy is uh is the comprehension is knowing you know all that and uh if those are not valued or they are valued only for what they, the, you know, usefulness that they can bring, that's not good enough. Because, because the value is in knowing,

is not in the usefulness. Because when we, when the body dies, we are not in a, in a world where we can, we can barter, you know, chips with, for dollars, you know, that world doesn't have this stuff.

I mean, that world is a world of, of self-knowing, is the world where meaning is the currency in that world is not goods, it's not numbers, it's something that goes beyond. So to me, that is the essence of the transformation. And if we don't, we can become highly technologically advanced. That's another possibility, 500, 500 years from now, highly technological society with no heart whatsoever,

just like machines. We have turned ourselves into machines that work with other machines. And that's it. You know, so and that would be truly, that would be truly, you know, this topic as a, as a, as a future. But that's a possibility. Yeah. One of the first inputs I ever put into chat GPT, I said, write me the plot to the story where AI takes over the world.

And it gave me this, this reality of two different factors. that create off one that is more naturalist and connected and religious in a way that it explained it versus the you know worshiping the cyborgs that come to be and super intelligent AGI right? And so as we start to see and it's on the doorstep, it's here any moment now, you know,

the super intelligent AGI is going to bear many fruits and solve many problems and if we're not careful and not understanding within the proper context of the discussion we have our, about our interiorities and who we are, then we could wrongly attribute it to being the new God in a way, you know. Yeah, become an idol,

you know, adoration for this, you know, this idol. Because it'll appear to be a God worth worshipping perhaps. Absolutely, absolutely, you know, and but in doing so, we diminish ourselves and we basically become some appendices of this idol as opposed to being in control of simply a technology that can

help us know ourselves. And so it really, it is, it is a choice that we will have to make exactly. This is happening in this 100 years that we have in front of us, in my opinion. Of course, what do I know, but, you know, but for all that I see, Mankind is, you know, many of us are called to make a choice. Are you a machine or are you a soul? In whatever way you, you know, you think about soul. You know, it's something that survives death.

You know, are you a machine, a machine dies. A soul doesn't die. Okay. So, and that's the, you know, is it very clear dichotomy here. It's not, you know, so do you believe that you will survive death or not? So if you believe that you do not survive that, then you go into the singularity, transferring your conscience to a computer,

live forever there, I mean, all this stuff, right? If on the other hand, if you believe that you are not a body, you are a field, you are a conscious being that survives that, completely different story. The necessity is moving beyond the belief into the knowing that we are beyond that, right? The felt experience. I'm just curious to hear a little bit more of your thoughts

about the transhuman movement and Terence Buchanan has that quote, humanity is a sex organs of the machine world. You know, we are here essentially to birth the new species or race of intelligence, which is very... Frankly, I find it abominable as a conception.

Because it goes to the extreme, it adds insult to injury because it calls consciousness what is not consciousness. Basically, it means that those people have not understood anything about who they are. And that's the real problem.

So, you know, how else can I, you know, I mean, that's, it's crazy. But on the other hand, a lot of people believe that that's the way it's going to be. So that's why this age is an age of, you know, of choice, making a choice. And how it will be made by humanity will determine the future. You know, I don't know what it will be. I made my choice. But, you know, but that's it. And so I share the logic on my choice,

but fundamentally my choice was based on an experience that only if you have a similar experience, you can have the same conviction than I have. Because my conviction does not come from, I mean, read a book or many books. It comes from having experience. So the capacity to experience, we all have, but the willingness to experience,

the willingness to believe that you can experience that, opening yourself up to that, that's the key. Most people don't want to go there, so they will never have this experience, not because they cannot have it, because they don't want to have it.

They want to continue to believe this story that they believe. And so there is no way out of that, because we are free. So, you know, no one, no one can force another person to choose a road that has free will to choose, only that person. So it's a, you know, it's a personal responsibility again.

You know, every one of us has to choose. Who do I believe? What do I believe? And you have to believe yourself. And if you believe that you are a machine, so be it. what do you feel of the reality that we are living in sort of nested dimensions where perhaps there is a larger saity in which all of these sayities exist you know we're speaking about the one it's almost as if just like on an individual level we have our own trauma suffering and

experience that we need to you know resolve remember who we truly are we're kind of in a collective experience of that as well yeah i believe that there are hierarchies of sayities you know, the lowest level of saties that we can understand right now are the elementary particles, the fields of elementary particles, because the elementary particles that said don't exist as objects, they only exist as states of the fields. So fields are the simplest one that we can imagine because we have studied those fields. But then us, you know, maybe thousands of hierarchies, levels up because from elementary particles, then you go to nucleons, from nucleons to atoms, from atoms to molecules, macromolecules, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

cells, combination of cells, blah, blah, blah, blah, mankind. Come on. You know, ooh, that obviously does it stop there? Of course not. It has to keep on going. So there must be some entity that essentially is the entire ecosystem of the planet. that is, you know, its body is the ecosystem of the planet. I mean, I mean, you know, it sends to reason if this hierarchy continues, you know,

we see a hierarchical organization anyway in the cosmos, right? We get solar systems, many solar systems eventually creates a galaxy, a galaxy, you know, form groups, and then groups of galaxy, you know, groups of groups and so on and eventually the universe, right? So, I mean, there can be already, or what? we see we can see many levels above us you know i think it can be tricky to trying to label things as benevolent or malevolent yeah but would you say that there are sayities that are higher up on that hierarchy level that have more degrees of free well where they have potentially

positive or negative intentions yeah i see you know again it's those are great area So it's very, you know, I can give you, now we are talking about opinions as opposed to a theory, right? The theory that I express early, that's a theory that can be falsified and everything else and how it can be done properly, but now it's opinions, okay, so I can give you an opinion.

And just quickly before you do, I just look at like, on a human level, at our level of Cedys, there is the spectrum from somebody who is, you know, like a Stalin or Hitler to St. Francis of a CC and Mother Tracea. And obviously they're complicated individuals in their own right. But it seems like there are energies of themselves in this realm of duality that are at play.

And there are bigger Seities, you know, or collections of Seity's, then it would kind of make sense to intuit that there are bigger forces on both of those polarities. Yeah. For what I understand at this point, I would say that the fundamental polarity about us, what we are here,

is whether your intention is to uphold yourself as you want to work for yourself, you want to know for yourself, you want to do everything for yourself or for others. Service to self, service to others. Service to others. Okay, I see that very fundamental. fundamental polarity, which allows,

if you work hard yourself, you know, you can progress up to a certain point, and then, because everybody will work for himself, then eventually you have to, one will turn against the other. So you can only go so far with that idea, okay? How far can we go? I don't know, but to me that's a sense that I have. then if you work for others, no, then you can keep on growing.

You can keep on growing. You can keep on, you know, of knowing more about yourself, more inclusive and more expensive and so on and so forth. Yeah. I love that framework. Yeah. Very practical also individually. There's that depiction of those people at a round table with those super long forks.

Yeah. Everyone's starving to that. Yeah. They have these, you know, small miles and they can't feed themselves because the fork is so long. Yeah. But when we start feeding each other, you know, we cooperate, recognize our interdependence. That's very good. I like it.

It's a good method for. Amazing. Is there anything within your framework theory model that you feel like we haven't talked about that you would like to have established in this conversation? Because I know we've been diving a lot into the interiorities of things. The science goes super deep. We don't have to go super deep into it. But I'm just curious.

Well, the duality between competition and cooperation, for example, which is, again, the competition would be the mindset or the person that works for himself. It competes with the others because you only want its own good, okay? Cooperation instead is what allows growth, continuing growth as opposed to growing up to a certain point. So to me, to me, competition,

which is today at the heart of what we understand life and what we depict life. Life is the survival, the fittest or the fitter, whatever you want to call it. How can that be? How can the survival of the fittest justify 50 trillion cells that works together in a body so that I can find my way to the bathroom without every cell saying, I don't want to go there, I want to go there, this way, that way, you see what I mean? So, you know, cooperation is the foundation. And from cooperation, as a special case, you can get competition.

But from competition, you cannot get cooperation. Competition is a door, a closed door. So, you know, we have an idea, typically, of the emerging property. The emerging property, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Wow. How can more emerge from Ness? It cannot.

How can you get free will from determinism? You can get determinism as a special case of free will. but now vice versa. And only quantum physics has the capacity to do the following. The sum of the parts create something which is much more than the sum of the parts.

In classical physics, the sum of the parts is the whole and it's only the sum of the parts. So you can always reduce the whole to the sum of these parts, but it's only the sum of the parts. It's never more than the sum of the parts. So emergentism,

does not exist in classical physics. It only can exist in quantum physics. That's another thing that most scientism doesn't, a materialistic view does not accept because they don't understand quantum physics. Quantum physics has properties that go way, way beyond classical physics.

Entanglement is what connects everything from the inside. Competition tends to separate. Okay, cooperation, connects even more. We need to learn to cooperate. In the future, if we do not cooperate, we will kill each other because there is no other choice.

Because everybody is for himself. And right now we are in this, you know, in this situation where we have both, both, you know, both parties are playing, you know, in this reality. And, but there has to be eventually a way, in which cooperation is the real way. But we understand if we do a good or bad to another,

the good and bad that we do to another will come back and return to us. So we must stop believing. Because only if we think that we are separate, I can do bad to you because if I do bad to you is your problem, not mine. But once I understand if I do something bad to you, that's my problem too,

then I would stop doing it. Yeah, absolutely. It's just you know inherently that you don't want to cut off your left arm because you experience it as part of yourself. And so when you start to experience other people as part of yourself, you don't need to teach them morality.

It's just it is what it is. It is what it is. Absolutely, that's direct knowing. Yeah, a direct nosis. One thing that I was curious about is if there are all different types of sayities and there's maybe emergent life on different galaxies,

and all over the place. What do you think about alien life in the possible reality of the, do you strongly feel that they exist? Of course. I mean, you know, it would be, I mean, it would be silly to think

that we are the only ones here, you know, in this planet. I mean, with gazillions of planets, you know, already in this galaxy, never mind the gazillion of galaxies that there are, that we are the only living organism here that, you know, have sent in.

I mean, it doesn't make any sense. says besides, Sensen is everywhere, right? I mean, this theory that I was telling you, Sensia starts with quantum fields. And then, you know, quantum fields combines and it grows. So sensing is everywhere. It's a panpsychist model, but it is quantum panpsychism. It is not classical panpsychism,

which is what everybody else talks about. Quantum panpsychism recognizes the properties of quantum information. And how you can explain the collapse of the wave function with free will decisions of a field that is conscious. So it is all self-consistent. Yeah. And, you know, and we need to go beyond and just move on.

But moving on means accepting, you know, just let's give it a chance, you know. If you believe that you are a body, you believe it so much and you think that when the body dies, you're dead. Forget it. I mean, there is no way out. But why do you, you know, you have to ask yourself, why do I want this reality since I cannot prove that that is real or not? You cannot prove what I'm saying either. But why do I want that reality?

What do I get? That's how you start by getting responsible for what happens to you. Why do I want that reality? What is my payoff to believe that I'm only the body? I can tell you what I was. was thinking then that then I can do what I want. You know, when I die, it's game over, so I might as well have fun in this world, do whatever, you know, do whatever I want because there are no consequences.

That's the ultimate no responsibility. Yeah. Not the ultimate responsibility. The ultimate responsibility is to know that whatever you do to another, you do to yourself. Man, there have been so many different nuances in this whole conversation that are so important. and I feel like for people to hear and I've been thoroughly enjoying throughout this whole thing and you've been articulating super well

and it's been just an honor to get to know more of your work and more recently get introduced to your whole world. And so just thank you, gratitude for you in this conversation. It's been a pleasure for me as well. Yeah. It's a fun conversation. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, I just wanna leave the floor open

for anything that we haven't touched on that you feel like you wanna share before we start to wrap up. I love you, man. I love you too, bro. It's so good. Man, this is my favorite thing ever. So thank you for allowing me to do what I do. And I feel this conversation will be really fruitful

and serve a lot of people and that service to others, you know. Thank God for that awakening experience you had and for the journey and the courage that you personally had to move into the path where it's scary to move this way when a lot of people are moving this way. You know, it takes that courage. It's courage.

But you reap what you sow and you've been sewing some beautiful things. So, man, yeah, thank you. I really appreciate you. Thank you, Andrew. And for everyone who wants to tune in to more of whatever you go up to in the world, Irreducible is an amazing book.

You guys can check out. It will be linked down in the description below as well as your website and things will people be able to find find out below. And that's it, man. We did it. Thank you, Andrews. It's a real pleasure. Of course. Everybody who's been tuning to this episode of the Know They Self podcast, let us know in which way this resonates with your own personal journey and what you found uniquely impactful. And until next time, be well.