 Bernardo, I want to ask you this question as well. You're familiar with Cloud Shannon and the Oh, of course, of course. And yeah. And so the, you know, the idea that we've been talking about kind of like what would be a hypothesis in some ways of what his work an extrapolated potentially version of his work would be, I have a way to ask you about that process. Is it the same way to envision a zygote and the way that a zygote becomes an adult? And the same way that a seed becomes a tree and the same way that a big bang becomes a civilization. And there is that compact information theoretical substrate that does that process. And then there's, and then is there, would you say, a recursive function as well in all of those processes? So you're alluding to Shannon's information theory and communication theory. Shannon was basically trying to model what colloquially you can refer to as the amount of information that is transmitted given a transmission and receiver and a channel that has noise and he modeled all that. The information that is transmitted is inherent in the transmitter. So it's not created out of, you know, out of nowhere. So if I understand your line of thinking, you're thinking about the information being implicit in that implicate order to use it as a metaphor based on the work of David Bohm. And that information is just unfolding and becoming visible, exfoliating as an acorn grows into an oak or as the big bang grows into a civilization. Am I interpreting it correctly? Yeah. Whether that information, well, I would say it is an implication of determinism. Problem is determinism is not doesn't hold quite well at the at the quantum level. I would say that almost by definition, whatever is whatever happens, whatever unfolds is the realization of an implicit implicit potential of the universe. Almost by definition because if it's happening, it was a potential before otherwise it couldn't happen, right? So there is a, at least theoretically, there is a plenum, a level in the hierarchy of existence where you could say that everything that has been is or will ever be already is as a potential. And then and then what we are interested in is how that potential unfolds and becomes a reality or what are the influencers of that process? Can we guide it? Can we steer it in a certain way? It's a valid question. At the same time, it's an extraordinarily complex question. It may be, well, it almost certainly is beyond human cognitive abilities today, I think. Well, in a sense, the way that you can take a zygote and that you can begin screening the embryos and be able to take even maybe multiple embryos. And, you know, this is, you know, there's some bioethics implications that occur here. But to be able to screen many embryos and then to be able to identify ones that potentially have single or multiple point mutations that are causing downstream illnesses and say that, you know, let's not continue the evolutionary process of that. But actually, these that have a more, that have better health outcomes, but also that we can, you know, it is in a sense an ATC and G in double helix that can then be reprogrammed as long as you know, we do this longitudinally and figure out the right combinatorics for the right outcomes. That we're doing an interventional process that has these downstream effects. So in that analogy, it would be the same way that you can tweak zygote's embryos and in the same way can tweak the existing making the Model T 100 years ago and then having the motor vehicles begin spreading around the world or or now there's 100,000 or more commercial flights that happen every single day across the planet from the idea of like, we want to do that thing called flying. And so there there is a there's a way to affect, you know, like John von Neumann would would call it like this strip in a sense and like you are in a sense making a mutation in the strip. And that mutation that you make to enable humans to fly across the planet for every, you know, you know, iteration of a human that exists downstream is going to have the airplane present for them to to enjoy. Look, the history of science is the history of manipulating possibilities and putting things to work in a way you want them to work for you. Using the laws of nature in your favor. Technologies basically applied science. Science is about figuring out what are the patterns of evolution. I'm using the word evolution here in a broad sense, not necessarily Darwinian evolution alone. But in the sense of dynamism, things happen, things are dynamically unfold. And therefore we can say that they evolve in the history of science is the history of figuring out how this evolution happens. And then putting it to use for us like creating a model T and now now shooting humans to the moon on the top of a big rocket. Did these improve our lives? From a certain perspective, undoubtedly, we live longer, more comfortably. We have the means to do things today that previous generations wouldn't even dream of. Of course, there are enormous ethical implications for further increases in this power. You know, we stole the fire from the gods. We took the realm of evolution on earth. In all senses, even in a Darwinian sense, we have taken the realm now for how species evolve, which species will die, which species will live. We decide, we've decided that, for instance, wheat would be the most successful grass on the planet. We've decided it. We've decided that cows would be one of the most successful mammals in the world. Now, of course, from the point of view of the cow, that's terrible because they are being killed and tortured like pigs and chickens every day. But from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective, they are on top of the world. There are more cows now than money, many, many, many more than has ever been in the history of this planet. So we've taken the realms, whether we like it or not. Whether we like it or not, it's our decisions that will decide whether most of the species in the world today will go extinct or not. It's our decisions that will define whether we survive one more century or not. So whether we like it or not, we've stolen the fire from the gods. And how to use this power correctly is a whole discipline in itself. It's ethics. How far can we go in manipulating nature, which is basically everything and manipulating everything? When should we stop and say, well, we have the power to manipulate it, but we haven't yet acquired a sufficient understanding of what we are doing in order to manipulate it responsibly? Should we use the power you have for the mere fact that you have that power? Or should we enforce some matter rules on yourself and say, well, I have the power to change it, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm doing, so I will not use it. I mean, to give you, I'm a member of the computer retro community. I like to fool around and change with these old computers. If you would give a computer to a kid, the kid has the power to press every key, to press different buttons, connect and disconnect things, but chances are that you will zap the computer if you do that. So the kid has the power to do that. Should the kid use that power until the kid understands what a computer is, how it works, how it's supposed to be used? So one could say the same thing about the operating system of the human body as well. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we are messing around with it in all kinds of unexamined ways. For instance, we mess with our operating system just by watching television and we mess it in a very bad way just by watching television of all things. By choosing where you breathe your air, you're messing with your operating system, by choosing what thoughts you think and there's nothing new age about it. We know that mind and body are deeply interconnected in surprising ways, by allowing certain thoughts to go unchecked. You are influencing your operating system. The thing is, when it comes to our own body, we don't have a choice because choosing not to influence it is, in fact, to influence it in an unexamined way. We don't have a choice there, right? We better get our act together because whether we want it or not, we will be influencing it. But the mere fact that we are living, that we are going about life, other things are not necessarily like that. So I don't have the ethical answers to this. I'm not an ethicist. As a technologist, I have the instinctual tendency to err by doing more than I should because I'm a technologist. And if I see that protein power in my hands, the fire of the gods in my hands, I have an instinctive urge to go and check. And what can I do with this? To press the buttons, even if I don't understand the buttons. But there is my Freudian id, the supervisor in my mind who is saying, hey, hey, hey, wait a moment. Don't give in to all of your instinctive urges because there are more things at play here. That's about as much as I can say about this, Alan. It feels like a lot of that has to do with what has been quoted as this pause, the pause that is what enables us to be observant rather than reactive. And that pause when unlocked the Promethean fire, to pause and to observe and to compute the combinatorial longitudinal effects. Take stock before you start messing about with things, right? I would say that, look, there are certain problems we face today where we no longer have the luxury to pause and contemplate. We have to act even if we don't know exactly what we're doing. For instance, if I take climate science seriously, which I do, I think we are no longer in the luxury position of pausing. And let's see how this goes. For all we know, it's already too late. The fact that we don't know it is already an urge for action. And I would be willing to endorse, nobody's waiting for my endorsement, but from my in my own mind, I would be willing to endorse people who'd say, hey, let's develop some technology to actively try to compensate for the climate effects that we are causing. Let us, I don't know, let's blanket the Sahara on a white sheet. In a sense, it's so simple in the sense of just transitions intelligently from the use of hydrocarbons to nuclear fusion and all of these other extremely futuristic Star Trekian styles of energy and complete abundance for all and for use the mass energy equivalents to make replicators and synthesize whatever you would like from pure energy. And this, it really is in a sense going like, like, what do you want for your great grandkids in 100 years? You know, you want this absolute flourishing, prosperous society for them and for all. And so the question then is how do we make that those incremental architectural steps and why not galvanize the world? Like one of the problems that Eric Weinstein talks a lot about is just that what's going on with our sense making apparatus around allocating the brilliant minds with the proper incentive structures to things like the SDGs. We know that solving these things like the SDGs is exactly one of the biggest longitudinal success points that we want to have. Yeah. You touched on a number of things that that are my buttons. So very me. Look, the first thing is for as long as our mainstream metaphysics is materialism, people will not move to better the world for four generations in the future because, you know, their grandchildren will be dead by then. They will not get to know their great grandchildren and they will be dead. And under materialism they will cease to exist. So it is all quote immaterial. What will happen for generations from now? And that's a big problem of materialism because it sort of stimulates this short-term pillaging mentality, which is very dangerous. But under idealism, hey, your great grandchildren are you in another form. So is a planet. So are the birds. So you have a stake. You're invested in this. Now, having said that, the problem of energy that you touched upon and this futuristic energy sources, energy is the key because, you see, we can solve everything else if energy is for free and abundant everywhere. We can desalinate ocean water and have potable water anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat and solve the freshwater crisis, which is one of the biggest looming crises in the world today. Recycling. You know what the main problem of recycling is? Is that it's a major energy drain. To recycle things, you need to heat them up. You need to reprocess them. It consumes a lot of energy. But if we could have energy for free everywhere, we could recycle everything, everything. Another one, the food crisis. Hey, vertical farms would solve the food crisis. What's the problem? Yeah, you cannot count on sunlight because sunlight only hits the top layer. The layers underneath are in the shade. Food doesn't grow, but you can put artificial lighting. You can put LEDs and you can grow things 24 hours a day in urban areas to feed the entire populations. Why don't we do that? Because it takes energy. And energy is not available everywhere. Now, the reason we got away from the magical, abundant, forever source of energy, which is nuclear energy, is that it's unsafe and it produces waste that the risks of storing that are just unacceptable. But we think of nuclear energy in terms of the 1950s when reactors needed what we call active safety. In other words, if everything shuts down, then the reactor explodes. If you put a plug in everything, the reactor explodes because it needs to be actively controlled. It's active safety. Since then, we have passive safety, nuclear reactors, thorium reactors, wavefront reactors. This technology exists. And these reactors are such that if anything goes wrong, the whole thing shuts down. No, I mean, if you put a plug, the whole thing just shuts down. The reactor doesn't react. The reaction doesn't continue unless you're constantly stimulating it in just the right way. If Fukushima happened and that was a passive safety reaction of reactor, nothing would have happened. The whole thing would have just shut down with that wave. And that's fission. And we have fusion, tokamak, stellarators. Oh, that is even better. That's even better. But it doesn't exist today. And that's the galvanization of resources and talent to tackle that. Yeah, yeah. But I'm insisting on this because passive safety reactors exist, but the laws forbid us from doing more R&D and deploying them. Now imagine for a moment that we could deploy them. These are reactors that use as fuel, spent fuel from old generation reactors. So you would clean up the earth by using them. If we would deploy them and have the courage to understand that the technology has changed, we could deploy them everywhere and we would solve nearly every problem. We could recycle everything. We could grow vertical food farms everywhere, desalinate ocean water. I mean, the world would be different not to mention the fact that we pollute a lot less because these reactors produce no airborne pollutants. Anyway, this was my pet subject. I'm so happy you did that. You're like, there were so many of my buttons pushed there. I must get this all out. I love that. Yeah. I want to ask about if we observe the the observers that is this now, the notion that there are an infinite amount of observers and that there is a dimensionless singularity that is indivisible and undescribable and that there are all of these potential infinite observances and that there is an evolutionary process that is occurring in all of those and we can even just focus it in on this one, but I am curious of what you think about those about that other idea. It's almost like that the function is to validate the infinity and that's why the infinite observers occur and then there's that evolutionary process and then the idea is that the telos of this evolutionary process potentially baked right in there in the initial source code like we were talking about earlier. Is that telos to or boros? Is the telos for the recursion or the quine? What is that telos? So it's both that infinite consciousness, multiversal perspective plus the telek perspective. I think you hinted at the answer already and I think you know you did. I would just agree with you. Just on the terminology, I think there are infinite perspectives but one observer like Schopenhauer said, the one eye of the world that looks out from every creature, what is different is the perspective, what goes in your visual field in each instance, but the eye is the same. The subject is the same. I think the subject in you is the same subject in me. If we would become amnesic in an ideal sensor deprivation chamber together what it's like to be you would be identical to what it's like to be me and we would basically be identical. What changes is the perspective but it's okay to talk about multiple or infinite observers because that's how physics defines the observer. It defines it in terms of the perspective but philosophically I would say the core subjectivity of every observer is the same so there's actually only one observer. Yes that is then in a sense you could say fractal out. You can immediately get intuition about it by closing one of your eyes and then two perspectives, the same observer. That's interesting. And if you put your finger in front of your nose and you look with one eye and look with the other you see that the part of your finger that you see with one eye and the other is completely different. So there isn't even a part of the finger that is common to the two perspectives but the observer is the same. Examples very interesting even at the child level can begin getting that. Yeah the only difference is that in the case of what's happening here the two perspectives are separated but they are co-conscious in time or at least they seem to be. I have a friend, Professor Bernard Carr, who was first student of Stephen Hawkins. I'm not sure I should publicly say this but not that I started it. Sorry Bernard if I said too much. He's working on a theory of time, a multi-dimensional theory of time that may explain why or how one subject can be many and my personal intuition about it not necessarily what he's saying. I don't know what he's going to say but my personal intuition about it is that we are the same subject in different timelines interacting with it with itself across those timelines if that is conceivable at all. Yeah so where is this all leading? Where is that acorn? How would the oak look like? I am an empiricist as well so I take my cues from what I see happening and if you look at the evolution of life which is the apex of cosmic evolution as far as we are aware of when you look at how life is evolving and what is the apex of that there is a very important sense in which we are the apex in the sense that we have become for good or worse the dominant species on this planet. What is it that has allowed us to occupy this position? What is the unique cognitive ability of our consciousness as humans that has differentiated us from everything else alive in the world today and arguably everything else that has ever been alive on this planet in the in the last three and a half billion years of the history of life? I would say it's metacognition. It's our ability to not only experience things but to know that we experience things. It's the ability to say I am having this thought as opposed to just having the thought. It's the ability to say I am the one having this feeling as opposed to just having the feeling. When my cat is eager to go out in the morning my cat feels the eagerness. It's an experiential state but I think from my cat's perspective he is the eagerness. My cat I don't think has the ability to step out of itself and say I am the subject feeling eagerness. I'm not the eagerness. I am the one having the eagerness. Douglas Hofstadt called this stepping out of the system in his monumental and magnificent book Goldo Eshebar. We have this ability to step out of ourselves, step out of the system and then contemplate the system from the outside and the system is us but we have this ability to metacognize, not only cognize but to cognize the cognition. In other words, metacognize. So in so far as we are the apex of the evolutionary trajectory and what defines us as consciousnesses is metaconsciousness. In other words, conscious metacognition, self-reflection, self-awareness. Then I would say the whole of nature seems to be pushing towards this ability to metacognize, to self-reflection, self-awareness, to the ability to not only feel but to step out of the feeling and say I am the one having the feeling and maybe beyond us nature is instinctual and it's overwhelmed by the flow of its own instincts which probably is not very pleasant. It's probably very confusing, very stressful or perhaps fantastic as well in other ways. I don't know but it's not able to step out of itself and contemplate itself in the way we can do that. So perhaps it is doing that through us. Perhaps we are those eyes that turn back and looked back at existence and said oh, this is what's happening. This is what's going on. Maybe this is this universal metacognition, conscious metacognition and we are just the beginning. I don't know. Yes, this is where I could also include some of the existing technological advances that have enabled us to feel even more like we are getting a mirror of the nature of reality and those advances are things like artificial intelligence, they are like virtual realities, simulation technologies. Yeah, so then that question is that is it then or oroboros and recursive? Is the tree dropping the seed for another tree? Metacognition is the ability to turn your cognition towards itself. It is the oroboros. There is no better symbol than the oroboros. It's when you stop looking out and you turn to yourself and say oh, this is what I'm feeling. This is what I'm thinking. That is the oroboros. Metacognition is oroboric. That's super interesting. So the relaxation of the awareness into the simultaneous individual universal transcendent, the feeling of truth when you relax the awareness inward is the epitome of the oroboros. But then, yes, I like that a lot. And then on the trajectory of where it seems like an automata, orthogenesis is what it seems and feels. But it's growing towards, right? So look back at itself. And then there's that oroboric moment like you just described. But then there's another like whatever ends up happening with the synthesis of AI, VR, simulation technology, wherever that ends up going, there's the transcension hypothesis of going inward and that kind of solving like the Fermi paradox and stuff like that of just the oroboric moment of going into infinite designer virtual worlds and just going into the next the inner world, which is the outer world. This is rich territory. I think this is a fascinating subject to go back to technology. Do you know the Oculus Quest? That's virtual reality. Do you have one? I've played with it. Yeah. Okay. I own one. And there is something everybody can relate to without a psychedelic trip just by using that. Of course, the psychedelic trip brings the same insight a thousand fold stronger. But if you use the Oculus Quest for half an hour, you become so immersed in that you take it so much for granted as reality, as the world where you're in that when you take it out and you realize, oh, I'm not completely out of the world. That's the first thought. And then the next thought is this too, maybe just like that. That's the next thought. Yeah. What makes me believe that right now it isn't the exact same thing going on. You have that a lot with psychedelics when you trip, you have the feeling that what you're experiencing during the trip is more real than real. It is so palpably and richly and unambiguously real. And then you come back and you tell yourself, well, that wasn't real, right? Because after all, what is real is where I am right now. And then you think, oh, wait a moment. Maybe the exact same thing is going on. I can either say that both are real, which is okay. Or I can say both are unreal because if you tell yourself that after that unambiguous feeling of reality, you come back and you pointed it and say, well, but that was not real, then what reason do you have to say, but this is? You see? Yes. So yeah, I think VR, mind manipulation technologies are going in the way of facilitating this kind of insight, which is ironic, right? Because you would think meditation and non-dualism, the Eastern traditions, they would not converge with the madness of our technological society. But guess what? Man, that's probably one of my favorite focuses is that grand synthesis of the non-dual Eastern spiritual perennial wisdom with what is the rocket ship of what has happened since the Enlightenment Industrial Revolution towards this computers were just such a massive unlocking. It may even be that like biology has an automata orthogenesis to create computers. And in an artificial, like we are a biological bootloader, as Elon Musk said. And I think that's quite fascinating and interesting. And then the recognition that the West did create a serious amount of flourishing across, there's just no better thing for you to do when you have like a serious, like a femur snaps or something than for you to go to, you know, like medicine. Yeah, exactly. So there's that. And then there's also like, yeah, like AI is somehow in VRs and simulations are somehow synthesizing with like indigenous and spiritual wisdoms of the planet, which is super interesting as well. So yeah, this is such a big interest of, it's just that whole idea of not dividing into two and realizing that it is that it's the same source code there in the implicate order, right? So it shouldn't be surprising that it's unfolding in the same directions. But somehow we cognize it as surprising. Look, I am an admirer of Eastern traditions. No question. No questions about that. I'm an admirer of Native American traditions. I'm an admirer of African traditions, which are, I think, unjustifiably ignored. Yeah, because the African thinks with his heart. And that's something we need that color in the rainbow of humanity, if you know what I mean. But I am a very proud outcome of the Western tradition. I don't poo poo the West at all, like many of us seem to do. I think the Western path may be misinformed as it may be, or whatever you can say about it. I think it is a valid path. It's just a path that carries more responsibility than everybody else, because we have the Prothian fire in our hands, and we can end the game for everybody in the drop of a dime. So that means that our responsibility is greater. You can even ask, can the earth afford the existence of the Western tradition? Is this not too big of a gamble? Because the payoff is drastic. The payoff may be instant forced enlightenment 100 years down the road. No need for 35 years of meditation, man. Just put this little helmet and there you are. That's a major payoff. But the risk is fantastically high. That said, I'm a proud philosopher in the Western tradition, and I think we poo poo our own tradition too much. We should honor what is ours. We should honor our inheritance like Arthur Schopenhauer, Emmanuel Kant, going all the way back to Parmenides. How many people know what Parmenides said? And how many people interpret him correctly amongst the ones that know what he said? I mean, 12 scholars in the world. I mean, it's ridiculous how much we ignore our own tradition while turning our eyes to the richness of other traditions, which are unquestionable. I think the influence of Eastern traditions in the West has been very useful, very benign. It has given us language, a conceptual toolset that we didn't have, but this should not come at the cost of our own tradition. We are products of the Western world. Amen. Yeah, that's so well said. Then there's always room at the big buffet of union. Again, yoga does not mean holding a stretching pose. It means union in Sanskrit. So please, everyone, remember that forever. And at this big buffet of union, that there are all of these options and for the parent to expose their child to the options and to follow the child, to follow their curiosity, and for the child to truly dig the well to water in the sense of realizing that infinite consciousness at the same time as for them to be able to sample from that buffet, some West, some East, some science, technology, biotech, neurotech, VR, AI, quantum sciences, all the way to understanding what the Buddhist teachingers or Lao Tzu's teachings, Confucius' teachings, the African traditions, the Native Americans. There's so much richness to select from the buffet. In this sense, the more exposure also that you have at least to, you know, leverage that Pareto, leverage only looking at maybe the five or 10% of all of those that give you the most like 80 or 90% understanding of what the essence of it is. And if you get really efficient at that process and education, then you become that polymath that is able to put on all of these different costumes to engage with the world in all of these different ways. And you're making novel connections between fields that nobody else sees. But, you know, in the process of doing that, one of those clothes to put on should be our own, right? Yes. But let me give you an example. I think there is a profound point when an Advaita teacher says, thought is your enemy. Your monkey mind will just get you caught up in all kinds of conceptual narratives. And you will completely lose sight of what is right under your nose, which is who you actually are and what is actually going on. We get so, you know, tied up in that conceptual web. So thought is your enemy. There is a very important sense in which this is correct. But you see, the West has a tradition that uses thought to get you out of the web. Peter Kingsley calls this logic, true logic, as opposed to just reasoning. He considers true logic an enchantment. It's a way to enchant your own mind out of the delusion. To sort of throw some fairy dust in your mind in a very subtle way. And you see it. And we have a tradition of people using logic to do that, like Xenos paradoxes. So you know about it, but you probably recognize that there are many people who never heard of Xenos paradoxes. That's a way to use logic to tie you up in such an impossible conclusion in their contradiction that it works like that Japanese hype. No, not the haiku. How is it called again? It's part of Zen Buddhism. Part of Zen Buddhism. Oh, the like the one hand clapping. Yes, yes, like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I forgot what the word is. But yeah, if I blank you blank too, I mean, this happens so often, right? That's our non-local connection here. So Xenos paradoxes work like that. And in modern science, we have the tendency to say, well, now we figured out the answer to Xenos paradoxes. No, we have the notion of limits and derivatives and integrals. It can make sense of that. But actually, you can't really because you make sense of that by imagining that you've reached a limit that you actually never reach because it's infinite. It's an infinity. So you actually don't make sense of it. You just postpone it infinitely. And but we don't follow that path. We say, well, you know, forget logic, forget the thoughts, forget the monkey mind. There is an important sense in which that's true. But it makes us blind to our own the richness of our own inheritance, our own tendencies, our own tools to get there. And you know, I'm making a point of it because it's one of my, you know, I have a beef with it. And I like to highlight it every time I can, you bring up what is probably the most salient and simple way of endeavoring as a more thought provoking human in our world, which is posing these questions of this true logic, where when you do pose such a question, it makes the other person the the the does not compute emotion or or like the mind blowing emotion. Yeah, it it it's inspirational because it drives people to to further inquiry that they they didn't know that that that those things existed. And like you said, there's so much there's so much malware that is programmed in. And we treat these things as mere curiosities, like a little game you play, you don't get an answer for it. But then you just dismiss it. Oh, it's just a little little game. It's not these are tools for for very deep thinking. But we dismiss them. It's unfortunate. Yeah. And then the Rupert Spira said there's this difference between a something that's not real, which is like the square circle, or taking the half the distance to the wall. Yeah, that's Zeno's paradox of Achilles in the tortoise. Yeah. Achilles never overtakes the tortoise. You can prove that logically that he can never overtake the tortoise. It just causes a tilt, you know, an old arcade games, if you shoot the machine too hard to tilt to stop working. So Zeno's paradox is just tilt your logical mind. And that's how they take you out of the story. Because you realize that if you follow the logic very strictly, it's sort of short circuits. It contradicts itself. And then there is a moment that you go like, space is not what I think it is. Now. Yes. Yeah. Now you are there. And now you've got it. But then you immediately come back. And there's these cards that I think are another very interesting way to do it is you take these you take three of these little cards and you put the words past, present, and future on them. And then you give them to somebody and you say order them as you please. And then there are certain people in the world that put them in order of past, present, future, like a linear order. And then there are other people in the world that stack all three on top of each other. And I think that these are also those small, in a sense, like, there's it's like true logic. It's also kind of like mind blowing activities. It's, it's questioning the nature of reality and fun childlike engaging ways you could even write the number, you know, I think even people like Takashi 69 have come up with interesting things, just put the number six on the sheet of paper. And then you look at it and I look at it and you see that I see a nine and you see a six. And it's the same thing with the dress, the dress in 2015, about half. Yeah, half of people saw it as as black and blue and half people saw it as gold and white. And when you when you there's also the the necker cube and the Rubin vase. There are all these different ways of if you slowly incrementally realize that it's not that you're you perceiving the dress as gold and white is incorrect. And me perceiving it as blue and black is correct. But that both of us are holding that truth. Like that simple recognition. So all of these activities that we've been talking about are all just really solid ways to to bring activities and questions to adults and children to slowly bring them towards a more awakened state. Yeah, I love technology VR surely. Yeah. Yeah, I love that.