Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - The Consciousness Iceberg: CTMU, Hofstadter, Penrose, CEMI, McGilchrist [Layer 4]

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

Explore the deepest mysteries of consciousness in Layer 4 of the Consciousness Iceberg: Strange loops, quantum theories, CTMU, and more. Dive into the paradox of self and the mind's hidden dimensions. SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe New Substack! Follow my personal writings and EARLY ACCESS episodes here: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com TOE'S TOP LINKS: - Enjoy TOE on Spotify! https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE - Become a YouTube Member Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Join TOE's Newsletter 'TOEmail' at https://www.curtjaimungal.org - Support TOE on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything #science #consciousness #mind #theory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gift-giving can be tricky. So, if you're looking for something that lasts far beyond the holiday, then Masterclass has been my go-to. Imagine learning from some of the most influential minds of our time. You have people like Noam Chomsky guiding you through media and critical thinking. You have Bill Nye making science accessible and practical. You even have Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin helping us connect with

history in ways that actually resonate. Now Masterclass isn't just another streaming platform. It's about becoming the best version of yourself or helping someone else do the same. Over 200 instructors on topics that you're fervent about or perhaps you're just curious to explore and the feedback speaks for itself. 88% of Masterclass members say it positively impacts their life. It's also risk-free. There's a 30-day money-back guarantee.

So if you're ready to give the gift of unlimited learning, then head to Masterclass.com slash theories. That's T-H-E-O-R-I-E-S. They've got great holiday offers, sometimes up to 50% off. Again, that's MasterClass.com slash theories. Welcome to the Consciousness Iceberg, Layer 4. In Layer 1, we explored foundational concepts such as what is consciousness, what's the mind-body problem, and the nature of

dreams, identity, as well as free will. In Layer 2, that took us through tackling the hard problem of consciousness, theories like global workspace, and even delving into various forms of Indian non-dualism. In layer three, we then twisted the proverbial knife with Heidegger, ideas of Heidegger and the attention schema theory, and even modern theories and thoughts from minds like Joschabach and Donald Hoffman among others. And now as we enter layer four, we find ourselves at the precipice of some of the most ambitious theories yet.

In this layer, we'll explore Douglas Hofstadter's strange loops, as well as the paradox of self-reference. We'll also explore Penrose's quantum theory of consciousness. We'll also explore Christopher Langan's challenging CTMU. And we'll touch on John Joe McFadden's electromagnetic field theory of consciousness, as well as David Chalmers' extended mind hypothesis, oh, and Ian McGillchrist's relational dual aspect monism.

My name is Kurt Jaimungal, and on this channel, I research mathematical physics and philosophy in front of you in podcast form, bridging these disparate subjects, making abstract concepts digestible and relatable without sacrificing the rigor. Let's begin our journey into layer four of the consciousness iceberg. Douglas Hofstadter's strange loops is a concept he meticulously explores in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Girdle Escher Bach.

Strange loops is a framework for understanding the emergence of self-awareness and consciousness from how the brain models the world and itself. The core idea is that consciousness comes from self-referential feedback loops within the brain, where a system becomes aware of itself by representing itself within its own model of the world. Okay, you'll hear the term self far too many times to count throughout this entire iceberg, so expect some jamais-vous. Imagine a video camera pointed at a TV screen displaying its own output. What happens? Well,

you get an infinite regress of images within images, each of them nested within the other one, creating a visual representation of self-reference. Hofstadter argues that a similar process occurs in the brain where symbols and representations, initially referring to objects that are external and also events that are external, begin to refer back to the system itself, creating a loop.

So this is what he calls a strange loop. He proposes that this strange loop is the key to self-awareness and the emergence of an I, a quote-unquote I. Because of this, this is more of an explanation to me at least of self-consciousness rather than consciousness itself. Now that Gödel in the Gödel-Escher Bach refers to Kurt Gödel, not Kurt Jaimungel, the other actually cool Kurt, who demonstrated that a formal system of sufficient complexity—you have to put an asterisk there because there's some formalities to that—can contain self-referential statements that are both true and unprovable within the system itself.

These quote-unquote Gödel sentences demonstrate the inherent limitations of formal systems and, according to Hofstadter, give some clue to the nature of consciousness. How so? Because the network of interconnected neurons and its ability to process information in a hierarchical and recursive manner is seen by Hofstadter as a formal system capable of generating girdle-like sentences. These are those self-referential statements that point back to the system itself, creating a loop that gives rise to self-awareness.

Okay, quite complicated, so let's say, how does Hofstetter's idea compare to some of the others that we've encountered in this iceberg? Well, the Buddhist view of consciousness would say that the self is an illusion, at least according to some schools, and that may seem to contradict Hofstadter's strange loop, which suggests that there is a real, albeit emergent self. While a strange loop could be seen as a process that creates the quote-unquote illusion of the stable self, rather than a real and unchanging entity, this interpretation, the Hofstadter one, still posits an emergent self,

which is at odds with the Buddhist view of anatta, or no-self. How about how it compares to global workspace theory? Well, that theory suggests consciousness comes about when information is broadcast widely to a global workspace in the brain. This global workspace, by providing access to information from various brain regions, could be seen as a necessary condition for a strange loop to form. This means that while global workspace theory doesn't entail the strange loop, it may give the neurological grounding for the loop to occur.

Panpsychism, on the other hand, which is that view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world, could be seen as both compatible and contradictory to Hofstadter's strange loops. On the other hand, if consciousness comes from fundamental properties of matter, then the self-referential loops in the brain could be seen as a particular manifestation of this fundamental consciousness. How about how it relates to John Ravacki's theory of relevance realization, the one that emphasizes the mind's constant process of determining what's important in any given situation? A strange loop could be seen as a high level relevance realization where the system itself becomes relevant to its

own model of the world. The system by representing itself within its own model recognizes its own existence and agency. Now this is merely speculation on my part. Then there's a eliminative materialism. Try saying that five times fast. That's the view that our common sense understanding of the mind is fundamentally flawed and that consciousness is an illusion that people like Daniel Dennett state, or at least stated. Daniel would have argued that there's no Cartesian theater in the brain, there's no central place where consciousness resides, and instead

Daniel Dennett may see consciousness as a product of distributed brain processes without any need for self-referential loops. Now one of the main criticisms of Hofstadter's theory is, how the heck do you test this? Strange loops are more of a conceptual framework than a testable hypothesis. Another criticism is that Douglas Hofstadter's theory doesn't fully address the qualitative aspects of consciousness, what philosophers call qualia.

While strange loops might explain how a system becomes self-aware, they don't explain why this self-awareness is accompanied by subjective experience. Roger Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction Roger Penrose, the mathematical physicist and Nobel laureate, argues in his book The Emperor's New Mind that consciousness comes from quantum processes. But where specifically, and how specifically?

Well, some of that came about later when Stuart Hameroff entered the picture. Stuart says it's within microtubules, of course. Now these are tiny structures inside cells and neurons in particular. Penrose pauses that these quantum computations are responsible for the non-computable aspects of conscious experience. Remember Gödel that I just talked about. To Penrose, Gödel showed that there's something non-computational, non-formal going on with our mind's ability to understand. It's this ability to understand in particular. This is roughly because we can understand or we can see that the girdle sentence is true, even though the formal system itself can't prove it.

Okay, so back to microtubules. Microtubules are the cylindrical polymers of the protein tubulin. Even though they're pretty much found in all cells, they're particularly abundant in neurons. But what do they do? They play a role in maintaining the cell structure, transporting molecules, and regulating cell division. Okay, so what's the big deal? Well, Penrose and Hamerov suggest that the tubulin molecules within these microtubules can exist in a superposition of states. So many people talk about microtubules, exist in a superposition of states.

So many people talk about microtubules, but actually they should be talking about tubulin. Now this superposition is a hallmark of quantum mechanics. These superpositions can be sustained. But for how long? Well it has to be sufficiently long enough for there to be some meaningful quantum computation. Penrose proposes that when these quantum superpositions in the tubulin reach a certain threshold determined by gravitational effects, a non-computable process called orchestrated objective reduction occurs. He suggested that these events are

moments of conscious experience providing a bridge between the quantum process and consciousness. The orchestrated part of orchestrated objective reduction just means that the quantum computations are orchestrated by the brain's electrical activity, or activity in general. But what does this orchestration quote unquote do? It acts to synchronize the activity of microtubules across different neurons. Penrose and Hamerov argue that this synchronized activity gives rise to a unified conscious experience. Now Roger Penrose doesn't explicitly endorse panpsychism but his theory can be seen as compatible with it. How so? If consciousness arises or comes about from quantum processes

and these quantum processes are somehow fundamental to the universe, then it could be that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality that is present in some form in all matter. This aligns with the panpsychist view that consciousness is not limited to brains, but instead is a property of the universe itself. Now the reason I say that it could be seen as compatible, but not that it is compatible, is because for Penrose, consciousness isn't a feature of the universe that's just present within any given subatomic particle, but rather, it's the collapse of particles that produce consciousness.

And that's decidedly different. Thus, in some sense, it's a physicalist or materialist theory of consciousness. In fact, I spoke to Roger Penrose about this in particular, and you can click in the description for that full podcast. One of the primary criticisms of Penrose's theory is that quantum effects are easily disrupted by any environmental noise. There's no consensus on whether microtubules actually play the role that Penrose suggests, even if just a couple months ago, superradiance was found in microtubules, which is a quantum

effect. However, it wasn't the quantum effect that they were looking for, but it does demonstrate that microtubules are capable of demonstrating something quantum-like, even though they're relatively macroscopic. CTMU, the cognitive-theoretic model of the universe. Christopher Langan's cognitive-theoretic model of the universe, also known as the CTMU, is highly ambitious. It's like, super ambitious. It aims to explain everything, including consciousness, within a single unified framework.

Now, here's a bit of a background. A theory of everything in physics is something that quote unquote harmonizes general relativity with the standard model. And Langan takes this word from theory of everything, the everything word, farther than just those two, standard model and general relativity. He takes it to mean everything in the universe, including the universe itself, including consciousness, including the laws, including you, including even what we can't model. Some more background is that Christopher Langan is an autodidact with an extremely high IQ.

This was measured several times, and he's had a rough, underprivileged childhood. I've spoken to Christopher here for four hours on his theory, so click in the description to see. Langen argues that the universe is a self-referential system. In some sense, he thinks that consciousness comes from the universe's ability to reflect upon itself, though even what I just said isn't quite right. It's difficult to summarize the CTMU shortly. The CTMU is grounded in the idea that information and cognition are both fundamental to reality. Information is self-referential. Okay, what does that mean? Well, it means that it refers back to itself.

He suggests that the universe is a quote unquote self-configuring and self-processing language capable of understanding and manipulating its own information. Actually, to be more accurate, according to Christopher Langan, reality is both the language and the processing of that language. And that's the entity that Langan calls self-configuring, self-processing language. Consciousness then is a fundamental aspect of this universal language, with humans and other conscious beings acting as tellers, quote-unquote tellers, or agents

that contribute to the universe's self-actualization. You'll notice that many theories of consciousness deride language as being a low-resolution means of communication. I personally think that's an extremely impoverished view of language, and you can see my Substack article here about how language is also the process of creation and discovery, not just transmission. Langen is similar in that he doesn't hold a language with such low regard, and in fact, he elevates it to the highest category. It is what the universe is. The universe is not only expressed in language, but is that language. So how does the CTMU align or disalign with other theories we've explored? How about idealism?

Well, CTMU somewhat aligns with idealism. How so? It sees consciousness as fundamental to reality. Yes, the CTMU suggests that the universe is essentially mental and that the physical world is a manifestation of consciousness. Now, this resonates with idealist philosophers like George Barclay and Bernardo Castro. However, while Langen aligns with idealism, he would say that it's incomplete and akin to talking only about, say, the number three on a dice. Sure, there are three dots that about, say, the number 3 on a dice. Sure, there are three dots that exist, but there are other dots. We talk about this in this podcast with

Kastrup and Langen here. Now, how does CTMU align with materialism? In some sense, the CTMU aligns with materialism in the same way that it does with idealism, in the sense of encompassing it. Materialism, by the way, would say that consciousness is a byproduct of the physical processes in the sense of encompassing it. Materialism, by the way, would say that consciousness is a byproduct of the physical processes in the brain, whereas in the CTMU it sees consciousness as fundamental to the universe itself. One of the primary criticisms of the CTMU, other than its use of abstruse language, which is somewhat punny given it's a theory about language, is its reliance on the concept of self-reference. While self-reference is an established concept in mathematics and logic, its application

to the universe as a whole isn't clear. It's not clear what it means for the universe to be self-referential, but at least to me, it's not entirely unclear, nor is it for him. Wheeler, for instance, drew this image to talk about the universe and an observer. In fact, I talk more about that in this podcast here with Amanda Gefter. John Joe McFadden's Conscious Electromagnetic Field Theory, also known as Semi-Field Theory Have you ever wondered how this supposed lump of meat that we call our heads, which is what a denigrating materialist may say, gives rise to what we call conscious experience?

Well, John Joe McFadden, a molecular geneticist, proposes a different sort of theory of consciousness that centers on the brain's electromagnetic field. He calls this the conscious electromagnetic information field theory or semi-field theory. McFadden argues that the brain's EM field integrates information from different brain regions. The EM field of our brain isn't just a by-product of neuroactivity. Instead, it's the substrate of consciousness itself. McFadden suggests that this EM field integrates information from different brain regions, creating that unified experience we all know so well.

Semi-field theory goes against the traditional view that consciousness is solely a product or byproduct of neural activity because EM field is the main dog here in consciousness, at least according to John Joe. How so? Well, it acts as some kind of global workspace that binds together information from different brain regions. Notice that word quote unquote binding, which should remind you of our previous layer, linked in the description, about the binding problem. McFadden suggests that this problem is solved because the brain's EM field unifies the diverse neural activity into a singular conscious experience.

How? I'm unsure, but this is what he believes. I don't understand it. Additionally, semi-field theory gives an explanation of free will. It suggests that the EM field's influence on neuronal activity allows our conscious intentions to shape our actions. The EM field acts as a sort of feedback loop that amplifies and synchronizes neural activity, leading to the emergence of a unified conscious experience. But how does it compare to

other theories? So let's just take dualism for instance. Semi-field theory could be seen as a form of property dualism, where the brain's EM field is seen as a non-physical property that emerges from the physical activity of neurons. However, McFadden himself rejects dualism, arguing that the EM field is a physical phenomenon that can be explained by the laws of physics. How about panpsychism? Well, semifield theory doesn't align with panpsychism. It contradicts it. Panpsychism again says that consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter,

but semi-field theory says that consciousness is a product of the brain's EM field, which is generated by the electrical activity of neurons. Now one of the main criticisms of semi-field theory is that it's unclear how the brain's EM field could give rise to subjective conscious experience. While the theory suggests yes, okay, the EM field has something to do with consciousness, it doesn't explain how this integration of different brain regions result in the qualitative feel of conscious experience. So another criticism is that semi-field theory, like many others, they don't address the problem of qualia.

Why would it be that a certain field configuration produces a specific quality of conscious experience, such as the smell of books in a library, or the slipperiness of ice, or the painfulness of pain? What's wonderful, though, is that McFadden's theory is potentially testable. We could look for evidence that the brain's EM field is correlated with conscious experience, while we do already with EEG studies. If there are changes in the EM field that are consistently associated with changes in conscious experience, some would say that it lends credence to the semi-field theory. and no matter your team, your favorite skater or your style, there's something every NHL fan is going to love about Bet MGM.

Download the app today and discover why Bet MGM is your hockey home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with Bet MGM, a sports book worth a celly and an official sports betting partner of the National Hockey League. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns

about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Bet MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. David Chalmers Extended Mind Hypothesis David Chalmers is a prominent philosopher of mind. He's one of the top figures in the consciousness study scene, and he's the one that's known

for formulating the hard problem of consciousness. In fact, without David Chalmers, we probably wouldn't even be talking about consciousness, at least not in this high-browed philosophical manner. Maybe we would if we were meditating at a monastery. But that'd be it. Now that hard problem of consciousness is something that comes up over and over again throughout this entire iceberg, as you're well aware. And what it is, is an explanatory gap between physical processes in the brain and subjective

experience. How do you ever bridge that divide? How does one give rise to the other? Now David Chalmers is known for that, but he's also known for his extended mind hypothesis along with Andy Clark. Okay, so what does this hypothesis suggest? That the mind is not limited to the brain. It can extend into the environment. Through what? Through

interactions with external objects and tools. Think of it like this. If you have a notebook, you store information on that notebook, it becomes a part of your cognitive system. Same with your phone in a sense, and thus potentially part of your conscious experience. Now, does that mean that when you leave your room and someone stabs your notebook like Harry Potter did to Tom Riddle that all of a sudden you'll dissipate into a sea of nothingness? Not exactly, but the extended mind hypothesis does go against the traditional view that the mind is confined in the brain. It suggests that the mind can incorporate external objects and tools into its cognitive process,

and these external elements become integrated into our cognitive system, although our conscious experience still remains rooted within us. So you don't have to worry about any horcruxes. Can we extend this idea from notebooks to other technologies? Chalmers argues that we can. Again, he says that our smartphones, our computers, the internet can be a part of our extended minds. We increasingly rely on these technologies to store and process information and they become integrated into our cognitive apparatus, whatever that means. They may even contribute to our conscious experience. Now keep in mind that David Chalmers

emphasizes that this hypothesis is about cognitive processes extending into the environment rather than consciousness itself extending beyond the brain. He steadfastly maintains that while cognitive functions like memory and problem-solving can be supported by external tools, consciousness remains largely an internal phenomenon. Maybe even entirely. To be clear, Chalmers notes that while our minds can extend into the environment through these cognitive processes, our consciousness, the subjective experience of awareness, doesn't necessarily extend beyond the brain. Alright so now let's look for similarities, coherence, decoherence, and contradictions.

How about with embodied cognition? Well the extended mind hypothesis comports with embodied cognition in the sense that it sees the mind as embedded in the environment. Actually the four E's of cognitive science in general are consonant with Chalmers' view. Embodied cognition emphasizes the role of the body and the environment in shaping cognitive processes. How about Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance? Well, that's an extended mind theory as well. We talk about that here with Rupert Sheldrake, and feel free to click on the screen or the link in the description.

Internalism is something that does contradict the extended mind hypothesis. That's the view that the mind is entirely contained within the brain. Internalists suggest that mental states are internal to the brain and that external objects and tools can only influence the mind indirectly by causing changes in the brain. Idealism is also something that the extended mind hypothesis doesn't fully align with. Why? Because the extended mind hypothesis focuses on how cognitive processes can extend into the environment through interactions with external objects without making claims about the fundamental nature of consciousness or the fundamental nature of those external objects. So one of the main criticisms of the extended mind hypothesis is that it blurs the boundary

of the self. If consciousness can be extended beyond the brain, where does the self and the environment begin? Now, this may not be such a critique, since defining the self, the quote-unquote self, is one of the trickiest aspects of any theory. Indeed, it's a tricky aspect of any theory of objects, that is, what defines the essence of an object that delineates it completely from others. Ian McGilchrist's Relational Dual-Aspect Monism

Ian McGilchrist is a psychiatrist, a neuroscientist, and a literary scholar who proposes a theory of consciousness. This one's often described as relational dual aspect monism. That's a mouthful, but we'll explain it. This view, which is deeply informed by his research, by the way, I constantly say there are only two books I recommend, Girdle Escher Bach and Master and His Emissary. Girdle Escher Bach we talked about earlier, Master and His Emissary is Ian McGilchrist's.

That suggests that consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality. But that consciousness manifests in two distinct manners, the material world and the world of experience. McGilchrist argues that these two aspects are not separate substances as traditionally thought of in dualism, but they are two sides of the same coin. He suggests that consciousness is a relational phenomenon. What does that mean? It means it comes about through the interaction with the brain and the world.

It's only through interactions, through comparisons, through connections that we get the essence of mind and pattern. McGilchrist's theory is rooted in his research on the brain's two hemispheres. He argues that the left hemisphere is specialized for analyzing the world into discrete parts, abstracting and seeing sameness, while the right hemisphere is specialized for synthesizing these parts into a unified whole, seeing context and distinctness. Ian suggests that consciousness comes about from this exchange between the two hemispheres, or you can even call it a conversation.

What's important though is not to see as the right as being right, or the left as being more right or wrong or what have you, it's that each hemisphere provides a different mode of quote unquote attending to the world. I spoke to Ian McGilchrist for hours on end, four hours actually, both here and with John Ravecki. So, solo one is here and one with John Ravecki is here. Many people consider it to be one of the best conversations on the theories of everything channel and also one of the best conversation with Ian himself, at least according

to the comment section. Click on that if you'd like to see it. I highly recommend. Now let's compare McGilchrist's theory with panpsychism. Again, panpsychism says that consciousness is a property of all matter. McGilchrist considers himself to be a panentheist. You can actually hear Ian claim this explicitly. Again, the podcast is linked on screen and in the description. This means that God is in everything, but also transcends everything. This contrasts with panpsychism, where consciousness is just fundamental to all matter and that's all, whereas McGilchrist's view implies that there is a deeper unity, a more holistic, whatever you want to call it, view of consciousness that isn't just a property of matter. Panentheism

accommodates both the immanence of the divine in the material world and its transcendence. Now one of the hugest criticisms of McGilchrist's theory is that it's unclear how would it be that the interaction between the brain and the world gives rise to subjective experience, again the hard problem. While the theory suggests that consciousness is a relational phenomenon, it's not as if it gives a specific mechanism by which this relation could produce conscious experience. Whatever it is though, Ian McGilchrist's theory challenges us to reconsider our traditional assumptions about the mind-body relationship, not even just that, the mind-world relationship and your relationship with everyone else and your relationship with yourself. New update!

Started a sub stack. Writings on there are currently about language and ill-defined concepts as well as some other mathematical details. Much more being written there. This is content that isn't anywhere else. It's not on theories of everything. It's not on Patreon. Also, full transcripts will be placed there at some point in the future.

Several people ask me, hey Kurt, you've spoken to so many people in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy, and consciousness. What are your thoughts? While I remain impartial in interviews, this substack is a way to peer into my present deliberations on these topics. Also, thank you to our partner, The Economist. Firstly, thank you for watching, thank you for listening. If you haven't subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so.

Why? Because each subscribe, each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself, plus it helps out Kurt directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc., it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube, which in turn greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit for Theories of Everything

where people explicate toes, they disagree respectfully about theories, and build as a community our own toe. Links to both are in the description. Fourthly, you should know this podcast is on iTunes, it's on Spotify, it's on all of the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gain from rewatching lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comments that hey, toll listeners also gain from replaying. So how about instead you re-listen on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use.

And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal and donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal, there's also crypto, there's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind, it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on toe full time. You also get early access to ad free episodes, whether it's audio or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon, video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more than you think. Either way, your

viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much. you