AMKent books

Key Linguistic Equations

1: God-head observes → Creation arises → Creation observes → God-head collapses → Observation sustains → Repeat

2: Macrocosm: divine self-observation ↔ microcosm: human self-awareness.

Introduction

Consciousness is not generated from matter but through the act of being observed by a primordial, non-agentic awareness, the ethereal antagonist. I propose that external technological pursuits in finding systems with which reality functions are a Cartesian demon, deepening the illusion of both continuity and external validation. All external designs are a manifestation/ echo of the human mind, therefore, the true experiments are those of thought, the non-physical. Essentially, our tools are creating representations of representations, syntax without a translator. Reality and the function of existence is fundamentally internal, baked in to consciousness and potentially reflexive. Whatever creates the line from matter to consciousness mirrors the external universe, an isomorphic relationship, recursive even. Cognition and the universe are two sides of the same coin, as above, so below, this will be explained in greater detail later. When countered with hard science, quantum physics, quantum foam and ideas of God as an underlying algorithm rather than a self-pollinating flower/ ethereal, paradoxical top-down antagonist. I feel we enter the classic pancomputationalist infinite regress. Keep layering: self-reference, distributed meta-loops, emergent recognition, quantum holism, integrated information, etc. Every rebuttal I make just opens another door, “but the system itself generates that observer“. I think the answer is to scrap the science, which is constantly changing in order to progress, and seek the origin of consciousness first. It seems rather absurd, but, we are conscious, so, why can we not figure out how? Without the need for all the fancy trinkets, probing of everything around us and deterministic love of materialism and mathematical realism.

The Autopoietic Martyr & The Problem of Infinite Regress

Design, is a self-regulating and organising movement towards persistence, although it is an action in technicality it does not have an agency. Continuity, an anthropic tool used to understand and inform knowledge of the workings of reality, is epistemic, not ontological. Systems, such as design as previously designed, are subject to circular-causality, much like the bootstrap paradox. Rather than reducing this to sequential, continuity bound causation, this is instead to be seen as an ontological primacy. Entropy within this paradigm is also a counter-argument, a necessary evil to keep the symmetry and flexibility of the cyclical observational nature of the absolute and its creation continue its design towards persistence. In this sense, entropy is a co-agent without agency, instead a cause and effect that take it in turns to play one another. The cyclical nature of the universe, the martyring absolute, is primitive, it is self-causing in a non-linearity that operates as a primitive structure rather than an endless loop. Our hard science is a well crafted map, but it is not the genesis of the universe, we are writing the symbols of creation without understanding what they mean. Thus, any theory born of hard-science suffers from the inherent phenomenological constraints of qualia, there is no first-person immediacy, just third-person functional equivalence. The current problem with hard science is that it somewhat loses the creativity of the consciousness that seeks to progress it, theories such as quantum holism, pancomputationalism, and ITT are descriptive adequacy, not ontological reduction.

If we compare this paradigm to the creation of a conscious mind, we come to the resemblance to the homunculus problem, my solution in terms of metaphysics is to say that the prime observer, the god-head, does so without agency, along with its cyclical nature of being sacrificed on the altar of its own creations observation, just to switch places in an endless paradoxical recursion. The observer is not emergent, it is an underlying-structure when speaking of the absolute ethereal antagonist or God-head. If this is the case, then consciousness is defensive ontology, a creation of the inversion of observation mirroring itself, matter collapse that makes self-awareness arise through a palatable intertwining of macro biology and quantum matter.

Human Consciousness

If we apply the same functionality to the internal, autopoietic consciousness, than our consciousness stems from the brain becoming conscious through palatable matter collapse, much like dualism, but then it mimics its creator by both being born and dying via its own self-awareness, something that requires the biological recursion of maintaining the human form. This would make sense due to our 3D limitations of experiencing fundamental movers like time as linear, also explaining our reliance on continuity. If this is the case, then much like the atom thats design is to keep the form of itself, ours is the same, our materials is self-awareness, and entropy is our crucifixion. From macro-metaphysical loop to micro-expressions within the human form. If all existence is self-organising through recursive observation, every localised system that reaches a certain complexity must repeat that pattern on its own scale. The brain becomes a miniature ouroboros: matter folding back on itself until its processes generate the inward echo we call consciousness. the organism continually reconciles the impossibility of its own self-awareness by turning the tension into experience. A phenomenological collapse, opposed to traditional physics of similar veins like ORCH-OR that describe quantum super positioning. Consciousness in this sense would be a necessary delusion of a finite mind echoing an eternal recursion, the palatable coping of the discontinuous oscillation of being/non-being into a smooth narrative. Palatable collapse within this paradigm is defined as the collapsing of matter from the absolutisms observation, that in 3D form becomes a palatable stream that our biological brains are able to use as material and design self-awareness. Quite literally, consciousness is a reaction to the observation of the observer.

Conclusion

Emotions in this sense are a reflection of a neutrality that observes, this would explain the flux of emotional presence and concepts such as good and evil. Whilst I explored this in-depth on my section of the temperament of the soul, I shall retread ground and add to it here. The neutrality of the ethereal-antagonist, the absolutist observer, essentially gives rise to all dualities, such is its paradoxical nature, akin to the paradoxical dimensional footing it must exist on. With this, comes the echo of continuity and chaos, as secondary reactions and reflections of undirected awareness. If this is the case, then quantum entanglement, collective unconsciousness, and synchronicity are echoes of this deeper mirroring, matter remembering its shared observer. The universe, to describe primitively, would be an eternal experiment in self-recognition through form, and much like Baudrillard’s ‘Simulacra’s’, this form would abstract from the 1^st to the 3^rd, i.e. Its creation. Continuity, our 3D Cartesian demon, is less evil and more a coping-mechanism of perceiving time as linear when, in-fact, it is formless and timeless. Our understanding is through the recursion of the micro-design created by the macro, and not through our own trinkets and external bias.