 Dan Fajal, like saying that we're crickets imagining the big game. Yeah. Exactly, right? And so that's why God is actually, you know, coming from a kind of scientist who's not a kind of a theist or anything. Like the word God is useful because it points to the fact that, well, what does God mean? It's another word, but it points to something utterly beyond words, right? Utterly transcendent, imminent and everything. And so I actually have a kind of pet peeve, I think in the kind of spiritual communities when we use the word consciousness for the kind of, for this ground of being, because we're now just instead of say, instead of really sitting with the fact that the ground of being is truly beyond words, if we say it's consciousness, then we're kind of, it feels like it's tempting to give it a label, right? But I think it can get confusing because I would say, if you think the ground of being is consciousness, then you would think in that perspective that at the Big Bang, there was some experience. I'm saying the kind of ground of being is some mysterious process and the Big Bang was not a conscious event. It was unconscious kind of things happening and consciousness exists in these kinds of reflections of living systems. So it's not that everything is in consciousness in my worldview, but it's important to understand that the world isn't divided fundamentally into matter and mind. Everything is process. Everything is just this kind of strange creative thing unfolding, which is what we see in quantum mechanics. If you try and say, where is that subatomic particle? Good luck. It's nowhere. It doesn't have a pre-existing location because you're part of this kind of web of co-creation. And what we call matter is not this pre-existing stage, it's this kind of process that gets co-created. And consciousness is also a process. And so I think that's why you can author scientific theories of consciousness because all sciences is another map. It's a map of the territory. And we can come up with a map that describes how matter behaves. We can come up with a map that describes how consciousness behaves and how they fit together. And I see no problem there. Yeah, beautiful. So we are constantly trying to make better and better maps of the reality. Yet the most simple way to say it is that there is an indescribable, this ineffable, and then there is a creative, likely an eternal creative unfolding. And that the unfolding has a feedback mechanism. And that feedback mechanism is this co-creative ability for us to, out of all of the infinite potential that you have as an artist, that you get to pick what you want to unfold out of the infinite potential, what you want to collapse, what you want to become. So, okay, so an eternal creative process. Now, the reason why it's tempting, I think, to put, to subsume cosmogony in consciousness or infinite consciousness is because there is no, in a sense, nothing else besides this experience that we are having. And that, in a sense, consciousness is the tool that we use as, from whatever perspective of that God or source or whatever you want to call that, from that indescribable, we use consciousness as the tool to experience ourselves. I think my, so maybe my, my take on this is that maybe, you know, maybe because I'm a scientist that I want the problem for me of consciousness and also just as an individual who meditates and does other stuff. The problem for me is accounting for this particular thing that is like it's private, it's this qualitative space of awareness that's here right now and you have it, right? And we're going to give that the label consciousness and we're going to face this as a problem like where does that emerge in nature, right? So that's, that's one thing. If, if all of existence is in consciousness or it has consciousness or it is conscious, that's, it could be a similar kind of thing, but, but I think it won't have exactly the same properties. It doesn't have like a boundary and inside and outside, like, oh yeah, oh yeah, it's, yeah, it could be something related, but we, so we, you know, we could come up with a speculative or metaphysical idea of, of the infinite consciousness, but then there's organism consciousness. Yeah, yeah. And we can talk about those differently, right? Oh, interesting. Okay. So as, you know, Rupert Spira talks about this and Bernardo Kastrup does as well. There's the screen, the infinite screen of consciousness or awareness. And then on it is all of the, all of these little perforated, like dissociative private consciousnesses and that organism consciousness, as you said. And I like, I kind of like that, you know, if we were to make some sort of a division of this one into two, it would be interesting to do it like a metaphysical consciousness that's indescribable and then like a little private or organisms consciousness in the whirlpools. That's kind of interesting. Yeah. Okay. And that kind of takes it from a scientific side as well. And I, yeah, yeah, which is very important. I agree with this process. I totally agree. I've lived too much in San Francisco and the Bay Area is like spiritual as community, where there's a very strong tendency to kind of just go with whatever new age impulse arises and that it's very important to, it both embody whatever that intuition is, but also embody the science that comes along with it. So yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think for me, it's again, it may be, yeah, I, you know, if it's my whole life in science, this might be just an interesting difference between, you know, putting our environmental factors might be what's, what's kind of bringing up our differences. Yeah, our differences on this topic. And I do think there's a kind of fundamentally, like I guess I've always been fascinated by kind of describing these things as part of nature. You know, nature is this like, it's sort of like Spinoza had this idea, like nature is God effectively, like it doesn't need to be a personal God with like anything like that. But it's this, it's just this lawful, beautiful like thing that's, that's, that's far bigger than us. And so that's my kind of, my scientific perspective is like, when it comes to this kind of speculative metaphysical consciousness that might be bigger than my own consciousness. I guess I kind of have to, I, you know, I don't, I guess I draw the line there for myself as, and saying my job as the kind of spiritually engaged neuroscientists is to think about this consciousness. But I can't, I can't speculate about, about that stuff as much. But also it's because of my spiritual worldview is, is also like I, you know, in like something like the Dao Di Ching, like, you know, it's, it's all about how, you know, the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao. It's like, if you're going to try and describe this thing by calling it anything, if you think you've got a handle on it, you're fooling yourself. It's so utterly beyond, you know, we can call it metaphysical consciousness or absolute infinite consciousness. This, this is starting to get a vibe that it sounds very big. It sounds very grounded. It sounds like it's the right kind of word. But then you have to realize that it's going to be utterly, it cannot encapsulate the ground of being like, so I, I quite like the spiritual side of me just likes to kind of come up against this mystery and say like, yeah, like I don't, I can't know what this thing is. I think it's unknowable in its, in its essence. And then the scientist in me is like, okay, do I think there's a reason to think the Big Bang was conscious of itself? I can't see any kind of mechanism by which that would happen. So I'm going to suspect no. And that's when you start to get into the, these kind of fascinating questions of like what we might call organism level consciousness, which I guess I'm just calling consciousness. Yeah. This is so beautiful because it's so extremely important to embody the truth of mysterianism and the idea of the eternal Tao that can be named as the Tao that can be named as not the eternal Tao, the idea that the more that you both truly surrender to the essence of the nature of reality, both very important, but also simultaneously balancing that with the true scientific spiritual inquiry into what actually that is. And like, you know, Eric Weinstein calls it, you know, the source code or, and, you know, really uncovering what that, what that is. And, you know, Hilbert talked about the, the importance of, of uncovering that like we must know. And, you know, whatever, you know, boom was so focused on uncovering whatever the implicate is. And like, we must know. And so it's like this balance between we must know and, and probing at it with the mysterianism. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think I'm a big advocate for kind of reigning science in and putting it in its place when it comes to, you know, I think that, you know, fundamentally, we're humans, we're here, we're having a weird experience of existence. And, you know, all of the kind of the feelings of awe and meaning and stuff, that's the first stuff that you experience. Then a scientist might come along and say, okay, let's try and do some clever tricks to come up with good stories that fit the world. And we do that game. And I fell in love with that game. I think it's wonderful. You know, it clearly is, it works very well. It's what's allowing us to talk now. So it clearly gives us some kind of knowledge, but it doesn't eradicate just this immediate felt conscious sense of here we are and spiritual experience, right? This is for me, it's like the spiritual experience of, of meaning and awe and just existence comes first. And then science is this quite should be this humble storyteller. It should be something that, you know, and I guess I'm, I'm describing science here as, I would say science and philosophy, like, if you're going to make claims about the world, try to do it as carefully and rigorously and honestly as possible. Yeah. And I think, and I think that's why I actually am very happy to stop very, stop short and say, what is the nature of the kind of ground of being? I don't have any tools for that. I haven't got a microscope to look at it. I haven't got philosophical tools to think about it. And so I think I maybe stop short further shorter than other people would in speculating about what it, what it could be. And, and yeah, that's, that's just the place of it's recognizing our limits as these kind of naked apes that came up with these funny ways to figure out the world. I would also plug here, Shreya Urbindo and the Mother Mirror also talk a lot about the super irrational enigma that, that it truly is and that it really does require a, when you use the body itself as the mechanism to intuitively tap into the nature of reality, there is going to be better and better ways to scientifically analyze the biometric correlates of these sort of awakened states. And that's going to be a very interesting way. For example, when someone has imperturbable peace and causeless joy, and that's a sign of living in the infinite. That's a sign of being God or the Dow. That's a sign of being truth and butterfly affecting it out. And that's a very, you know, spiritual statement. And scientists would be like, what do you mean by that? Let's do that more. And I'm like, yeah, we can, we can totally play that. That's very important. We must plant flags beyond the edge of knowledge. And we must, and this is what, you know, Richard Feynman, so many other scientists have been doing this forever, is planting flags beyond what's known. And then in a sense, making a hypothesis and then testing it, which we are, we are going to do now. But the Vedic Rishis 5000 years ago, Parmenides and Heraclitus, we're talking about guys that knew and girls that knew the nature of being at its most fundamental level by leveraging what is just existence, phenomenological awareness as what they believe to be that true nature of who we are. And I think that we must realize that science is that incredible toolset that that is very important to making a map and to understanding, enabling incredible things like this. And then to also enable the other tool to help, which is in a sense, this spirituality, this, like we can't, we can't choke the God in man along the way. We have to enable the God and man to flourish at the same time. I want to ask this question, this has been a great back and forth there. I really liked how we talked about some sort of a, if we were to break it into two, this like metaphysical first principle consciousness with this organism consciousness, I think that's a very interesting way to break that down.