# Quantum scientists discover life after death? On consciousness and soul.



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

LIFE AFTER DEATH. Claim evidence shows consciousness may continue as a 'SOUL' | Science | News | Daily Express 

Its all I have feel free to add information.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

No, scientists have not discovered life after death, none of that article has revealed any new information and did you seriously just link an article from a tabloid that is known to make up 'is the universe ending tomorrow?' articles every week?


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> No, scientists have not discovered life after death, none of that article has revealed any new information and did you seriously just link an article from a tabloid that is known to make up 'is the universe ending tomorrow?' articles every week?


I know little about their discoveries and nothing about the paper but I do know not to listen to you. 

This must all be pretty great considering that you're here to argue against it. You know that it's good when people get riled up for no reason.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Majority said:


> I know little about their discoveries and nothing about the paper


Exactly, so why post BS about things you have no idea about?



Majority said:


> This must all be pretty great considering that you're here to argue against it. You know that it's good when people get riled up for no reason.


I didn't get riled up for no reason, I got riled up because of the idiocy of the article and clickbait headline.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Exactly, so why post BS about things you have no idea about?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't get riled up for no reason, I got riled up because of the idiocy of the article and clickbait headline.


You got me again, you are way too clever for me to argue with you. 

In the meantime there is this scientific discovery that would interest some of us, but not you.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Majority said:


> In the meantime there is this scientific discovery


No, there isn't. 



Majority said:


> You got me again, you are way too clever for me to argue with you.


Exactly, so shut up.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> No, there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, so shut up.


I'm not going to "shut up" in my own topic that said you are free to leave whenever. 

This is for the curious mind. No one will miss the negative, it is good riddance.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Majority said:


> I'm not going to "shut up" in my own topic


You will because non-news die very quickly. You can keep talking to yourself though.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Interesting. The article, not the little e-scuffle that just took place. :wink:


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> You will because non-news die very quickly. You can keep talking to yourself though.


There is nothing to "shut up" about if there is no conversation. I suppose that that is a subtlety that you fail to grasp.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Not too familiar with the topic, but I've heard of Hameroff's work, and I know it's rather controversial (despite the fact he's worked under someone like Penrose). AFAIK the term "soul" is applied as a metaphor, and probably as a soundbite in many cases as well. They could just call it "quantum information", would be more scientific.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Not too familiar with the topic, but I've heard of Hameroff's work, and I know it's rather controversial (despite the fact he's worked under someone like Penrose). AFAIK the term "soul" is applied as a metaphor, and probably as a soundbite in many cases as well. They could just call it "quantum information", would be more scientific.


The opposition to him has been so vociferous that I have to suspect it's only because he makes people uncomfortable. I'm not saying he's right; I'd actually be surprised if he was, but the reactions to him really make his opponents look much worse. 

I can remember another study (German, I think) that was vague in terms of its conclusions but a little more solid in terms of methodology. I don't know whether they ever followed it up, but it would be a shame if they didn't out of fear of stigma or whatever:

First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

nevermore said:


> The opposition to him has been so vociferous that I have to suspect it's only because he makes people uncomfortable. I'm not saying he's right; I'd actually be surprised if he was, but the reactions to him really make his opponents look much worse.
> 
> I can remember another study (German, I think) that was vague in terms of its conclusions but a little more solid in terms of methodology. I don't know whether they ever followed it up, but it would be a shame if they didn't out of fear of stigma or whatever:
> 
> First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study


Experiences of people who have not died cannot be 'hints' of life after death as people who are alive don't have experience of life after death.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Experiences of people who have not died cannot be 'hints' of life after death as people who are alive don't have experience of life after death.



Have you ever seen the movie Flatliners? About med students have like a club and carefully send people to death but then revive them before it is too late. Cool movie. Like they will stop the heart and lungs for a few minutes under controlled conditions. They flat line them. And the one student keeps wanting to push it further. He needs to be "dead" for longer to see his vision.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Have you ever seen the movie Flatliners? About med students have like a club and carefully send people to death but then revive them before it is too late. Cool movie. Like they will stop the heart and lungs for a few minutes under controlled conditions. They flat line them. And the one student keeps wanting to push it further. He needs to be "dead" for longer to see his vision.


Doesn't sound like my kind of movie.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Experiences of people who have not died cannot be 'hints' of life after death as people who are alive don't have experience of life after death.


They could be hints of consciousness after the brain has ceased functioning though.

Now I don't know, maybe there is some flaw in the study that I haven't seen yet, and it certainly doesn't prove anything. I don't even believe in life after death myself. But I'll admit I was surprised by the results.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

I think the eternal continuum of consciousness is a real experience, as an illusion.

You born... Your consciousness develops until you maintain self-awareness and memory... You live the life... You die... Your consciousness disintegrates until you lost your self-awareness and memory... You can't remember the moment when your consciousness suddenly started as you can't observe the lack of your own consciousness once you are dead. Life is a duration you can't reach any definitive references such as "right before the starting point" and "right after the finishing line" to recognize it's scalability. Which makes it relatively "forever" towards both ways from your own perspective.

_"British physicist Sir Roger Penrose agrees and believes he and his team have found evidence that protein-based microtubules – a structural component of human cells – carry quantum information – information stored at a sub-atomic level."_

Fine... We are made of cells, which made of molecules... And... Molecules are made of atoms, which contains shit load of quantum shenanigans. The thing is, that's nothing new or interesting because "consciousness" as we know it can't be something isolated from "the experience of being human". In other words, "the whole biological structure functioning properly" according to so many micro and also macro interactions. Indeed, we are made of bricks but it still supposed to be a wall to "let us feel like a wall", no matter if those bricks have some magical qualities. A standing and painted wall with measurable dimensions. So, it can serve a purpose, exist and make sense with everything else around it. Whatever he's talking about is nothing more or less meaningful than DNA, even if there's something mysterious really keep existing/interacting as a remnant of our identity. Sounds like a blueprint to define the characteristics of an individual. So, it can be studied as a canned reference by another conscious and inevitably alive/biological being to understand "how I was thinking/feeling with my biological body when I was alive". After all, yet another static information as an energetic representation, instead of composed matter. I don't know why I should feel excited and assume it means "I will keep floating around".






_Sir Roger states if a person temporarily dies, this quantum information is released from the microtubules and into the universe._

So, it's practically the same thing with transmitting my genetic code (let's say the entire map of my molecular, even energetic structure) into the space when I die. Again, how it will make me sustain/perpetuate my own individualism? Would you also experience a two dimensional afterlife if I take your photo right before your death?

_However, if they are resuscitated the quantum information is channeled back into the microtubules and that is what sparks a near death experience._

_Sir Roger added: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”_

He's ironically saying "once you die, you are dead". The continuum of your consciousness and it's biological requirements to create the experience of life by drinking, eating, shitting, sleeping, etc will be destroyed/interrupted. The second hand information can still travel and interact with everything else yet it's not so different than how your ID, photos, intellectual creations, etc can also travel around and studied by others after your death.

_Researchers from the renowned Max Planck Institute for physics in Munich agree and state that the physical universe that we live in is only our perception and once our physical bodies die, there is an infinite beyond._

So what? A meaningless infinity, an infinity that you can't observe or interact "as who you are", personally.

_Dr Hans-Peter Dürr, former head of the Max Planck Institute for Physics, has said: "What we consider the here and now, this world, it is actually just the material level that is comprehensible. _

Too bad... We are made of materials. Even worse, we existed, survived and ended up questioning those things after the evolution provided us by the stability of materialistic realm.

_“The beyond is an infinite reality that is much bigger. _

*facepalm* Let me know when you will have an infinite scale to measure how big it really is.

_“Which this world is rooted in. In this way, our lives in this plane of existence are encompassed, surrounded, by the afterworld already... The body dies but the spiritual quantum field continues. In this way, I am immortal.” _

Still, we are doomed to exist, think, feel, interact, etc towards one direction, inside of a particular layer. In this way, everybody is mortal. In whatever ways, you could be a pony sliding down from a rainbow. Which is irrelevant and begs your imagination, even if it's theoretically plausible.

_Dr Christian Hellwig of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, added: "Our thoughts, our will, our consciousness and our feelings show properties that could be referred to as spiritual properties. No direct interaction with the known fundamental forces of natural science, such as gravitation, electromagnetic forces, etc. can be detected in the spiritual. _

Let's find what the fuck is gravity and it's fundamental particles first. Then, try to detect it's interactions in the spiritual. That's how we figured out how many other forces in nature works already.

_“On the other hand, however, these spiritual properties correspond exactly to the characteristics that distinguish the extremely puzzling and wondrous phenomena in the quantum world.”_

Puzzling? I thought you already solved one of the biggest problems in philosophy.

As a side note, I fucking hate British tabloids and their poorly written/click-bait scientific sensationalism.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Not too familiar with the topic, but I've heard of Hameroff's work, and I know it's rather controversial (despite the fact he's worked under someone like Penrose). AFAIK the term "soul" is applied as a metaphor, and probably as a soundbite in many cases as well. They could just call it "quantum information", would be more scientific.


Haha.

An anaesthetist talking about "quantum consciousness", what utter bollocks.

A pet hate of mine is when uninformed amateurs wade in with big ideas on things like this. For some reason everyone thinks they have a right to talk about quantum mechanics in particular. Nobody discusses biology, chemistry, computing or whatever other scientific specialism with such reckless abandon.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Oh yeah, when a structure changes the probabilities of its previous form scatter and tend to gather anywhere the same situation is reproduced, wow big news.. lol


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

HAL said:


> Haha.
> 
> An anaesthetist talking about "quantum consciousness", what utter bollocks.
> 
> A pet hate of mine is when uninformed amateurs wade in with big ideas on things like this. For some reason everyone thinks they have a right to talk about quantum mechanics in particular. Nobody discusses biology, chemistry, computing or whatever other scientific specialism with such reckless abandon.


You can't blame them, as long as they have an impressionable naive audience like OP, they will keep doing it.


----------



## Acrylic (Dec 14, 2015)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Exactly, so shut up.


I agree that the claim is ridiculous, but... after seeing your post continue the same 'tone' it always has, I suddenly thought (don't know why I didn't think this sooner)... what is her MBTI type?

In 0.0324 seconds, I guessed what it might be. Then clicked... I can't believe it. INTJ. It took me 0.0324 seconds to guess that? _When I could've taken just 0.000324_? Now I know I'll never be good enough for Jeopardy lol.



Aladdin Sane said:


>


Is this your whole repertoire pretty much? For an MBTI type that is supposedly all about 'thinking'... this is the only gif you can 'think' to employ. One can only surmise you don't have enough brain cells, brain 'horsepower' so to speak... to rub together to compel you to find different gifs to post?

Did you know that using the same 'zinger' a certain number of times makes the 'zinger' lose any potency it may have had? Same goes for gifs.


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Despotic Ocelot said:


> I agree that the claim is ridiculous, but... after seeing your post continue the same 'tone' it always has, I suddenly thought (don't know why I didn't think this sooner)... what is her MBTI type?
> 
> In 0.0324 seconds, I guessed what it might be. Then clicked... I can't believe it. INTJ. It took me 0.0324 seconds to guess that? _When I could've taken just 0.000324_? Now I know I'll never be good enough for Jeopardy lol.
> 
> ...


As usual, I did not read past the first sentence. You always ruin any chances of communication pretty fast.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

HAL said:


> Haha.
> 
> An anaesthetist talking about "quantum consciousness", what utter bollocks.
> 
> A pet hate of mine is when uninformed amateurs wade in with big ideas on things like this. For some reason everyone thinks they have a right to talk about quantum mechanics in particular. Nobody discusses biology, chemistry, computing or whatever other scientific specialism with such reckless abandon.


He worked with Penrose though. Their ideas are based off his original mathematical model, which they've updated. I thought Penrose's work was credible but I could be wrong.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> He worked with Penrose though. Their ideas are based off his original mathematical model, which they've updated. I thought Penrose's work was credible but I could be wrong.


I studied nanophysics last year. We covered electrical signal transport in neurons.

I don't deny Stuart Hameroff's understanding of it all in a biological sense, to a far deeper level than myself, but what he said there was basics. To send an electrical signal, the nerve needs to produce a high enough voltage of power for the threshold to be broken such that the signal can pass the boundary.

But this is simple quantum physics. [1][2][3]

As I said, our Doctor here is an anaesthetist, not a physicist; I bet my bottom dollar he knows fuck all about quantum mechanics.

And this is why he got Penrose on board to explain it, but what Roger said there was about as enlightening as 'bears shit in the woods', at least for those who have even a mild grasp on the physics being talked about. 

But of course, if there's something quantum mechanical happening in the brain, the entire hippy dippy pseudo science community is gonna swoop on it, because they have no fucking idea about quantum mechanics or the fact that it happens everywhere anyway and is definitely not special or mystical in any way, shape or form.

To me it seems Penrose is simply interested in the way the physics happens in neurons and that's fine (though to me it seems rather obvious that classical mechanics can't describe what he's talking about); the other dude however is way out of his depth.

When things are described as waves, quantisation is an _obvious_ result. Quantum mechanics is extremely interesting but it is not special, not magical and bares absolutely no relevance on the utter unsubstantiable bollocks the wannabe, pseudoscience, 'make it up on the spot' community fires out of its arse on a daily basis.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

There's a big difference between information and consciousness. Assuming that information does persist, that doesn't prove that consciousness also persists. 

You could launch a hard drive into space to drift for eternity and the information on it will exist for a long time but that's not helpful if nothing can access that information.


----------



## Velcorn (Feb 15, 2016)

The problem with scientific research is that it often takes a long time to produce any valuable results, and (unfortunately) most of the time nobody gives a flying fuck about it. So, some fucktards who probably call themselves journalists make an article in which they exaggerate everything, draw false conclusions and make up some bullshit story that grabs the attention of the average idiot stumbling upon the clickbait title whilst having absolutely no idea about the actual topic.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> You can't blame them, as long as they have an impressionable naive audience like OP, they will keep doing it.


You must be a Hillary supporter, she said the same thing about the American voters and had her ass handed to her. You're gonna be one conceited and bitter granny one day, looking down on and talking down to everyone. 



sprinkles said:


> There's a big difference between information and consciousness. Assuming that information does persist, that doesn't prove that consciousness also persists.
> 
> You could launch a hard drive into space to drift for eternity and the information on it will exist for a long time but that's not helpful if nothing can access that information.


There is a considering amount of data on Hindu and eastern religions that testify to past lives, along with testimonies on memories transferring with organ transplantations. 

If past data float about, enlightenment could entail an access to this information. To eternity.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Majority said:


> You must be a Hillary supporter, she said the same thing about the American voters and had her ass handed to her. You're gonna be one conceited and bitter granny one day, looking down on and talking down to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stories are not science.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

sprinkles said:


> Stories are not science.


That's up to you. It is evidence. When different accounts tell stories that meet up and match that means the information could well be true.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Majority said:


> That's up to you. It is evidence. When different accounts tell stories that meet up and match that means the information could well be true.


Yeah well on the other hand Buddhists don't believe in an eternal soul, so that presents a conflict with your supposed evidence.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

sprinkles said:


> Yeah well on the other hand Buddhists don't believe in an eternal soul, so that presents a conflict with your supposed evidence.


It is irrelevant what people believe. 

People believe in god, others believe there is no god, god is or god is not whatever people believe. 
http://personalitycafe.com/critical...making-arguments-against-god-s-silly-why.html

This time science is on the same page as certain spiritual accounts.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

I didn't know we had tiny scientists working on stuff


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Majority said:


> It is irrelevant what people believe.


Exactly my point.



Majority said:


> This time science is on the same page as certain spiritual accounts.


This is a contradiction with your first sentence. The spiritual accounts are irrelevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

We don't know if the information stored on the quantam level in microtubules after we die simulates what we experience now as life.

Just because a part of ourselves still exists after death, like our body or other material information, doesn't mean we continue living.


I'm not banking on us finding an answer anytime soon. I think before we can answer the question of life after death, we need to discover what exactly causes our state of consciousness in the first place.

Though, I do believe in a life after death. Because it sounds nice.



sprinkles said:


> There's a big difference between information and consciousness. Assuming that information does persist, that doesn't prove that consciousness also persists.
> 
> You could launch a hard drive into space to drift for eternity and the information on it will exist for a long time but that's not helpful if nothing can access that information.


Someone beat me to the punch.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> We don't know if the information stored on the quantam level in microtubules after we die simulates what we experience now as life.
> 
> Just because a part of ourselves still exists after death, like our body or other material information, doesn't mean we continue living.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure it's the interaction between neurons that produces consciousness. Even if we don't know exactly how, that's a reasonable starting assumption. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to lose consciousness, we'd just be stuck conscious lol. 

And of course I doubt that energy/information expelled from the body would continue acting as though there's a neural network in place.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

sprinkles said:


> Exactly my point.
> 
> 
> This is a contradiction with your first sentence. The spiritual accounts are irrelevant.
> ...


I am saying that you're wise to consider new information. It may not be belief, but knowledge.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

dizzycactus said:


> I'm pretty sure it's the interaction between neurons that produces consciousness. Even if we don't know exactly how, that's a reasonable starting assumption. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to lose consciousness, we'd just be stuck conscious lol.


This is an interesting argument. Before life - unconsciousness, in life - losing consciousness, after death - unconsciousness. 

To me consciousness is all around, but insects possess more of it compared to stones, and humans more than animals do, and between humans the difference is also very great. 

At least our brains shut off, to some extent, as we lose consciousness. Sleep also warps consciousness.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Majority said:


> This time science is on the same page as certain spiritual accounts.


No it really is not. Spiritualism is absolute quackery nonsense; a stain on the intellect of humanity that belongs in the same childish categorisation as the tooth fairy and santa claus and celestial horoscopes.

People can believe it all they like but it's nothing other than fantasy, like lord of the rings, harry potter or planet of the fucking apes.

It's for idiots who know nothing - _nothing_ - about the scientific method.

Sorry but this all really annoys me. Pseudo science is dangerous. ALL of it is in the same bullshit category of "well it might be true so let's promote the idea!"

Do you know what that leads to?

Homeopathy, for a start.

100% fuck pseudo science. Pick up a text book, take the rigorous, several year long educational route, or NOT AT ALL.

Christ it annoys me every time I properly think about how much of an absolutely batshit crazy culture it all is. It is religion and childish fancy, nothing more.



Majority said:


> To me consciousness is all around, but insects possess more of it compared to stones, and humans more than animals do, and between humans the difference is also very great.


Nope, we just have a more complex central nervous system.

Stones do not have a conscience.

This is high school biology. - MRS GREN


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

HAL said:


> No it really is not. Spiritualism is absolute quackery nonsense; a stain on the intellect of humanity that belongs in the same childish categorisation as the tooth fairy and santa claus and celestial horoscopes.
> 
> People can believe it all they like but it's nothing other than fantasy, like lord of the rings, harry potter or planet of the fucking apes.
> 
> ...


Science is independent of spiritualism, unless it isn't. Perhaps you mean to say that quantum science is a pseudo science?

You do not know whether stones are conscious or not. Others might know. 

Probably, all of existence is conscious. Some would call that divine.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

"Stones do not have a conscience." HAL. 

That is probably true. Heartless bastards .


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Majority said:


> Science is independent of spiritualism, unless it isn't. Perhaps you mean to say that quantum science is a pseudo science?
> 
> You do not know whether stones are conscious or not. Others might know.
> 
> Probably, all of existence is conscious. Some would call that divine.


All pseudoscience is pseudoscience...

Please do not spend any more time believing stones have sentience.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

HAL said:


> All pseudoscience is pseudoscience...
> 
> Please do not spend any more time believing stones have sentience.


I didn't say that, they are not sentient. I'm saying all matter is conscious, but only life forms have their carbons arranged in a way that form cells and grant sentience.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

HAL said:


> All pseudoscience is pseudoscience...
> 
> Please do not spend any more time believing stones have sentience.


Meh, let stupid people be stupid. Even if we didn't have pseudoscience, they'd find another way to believe in something that isn't real just because it sounds nicer than reality. And they'll doom themselves for that.




Majority said:


> I'm saying all matter is conscious, but only life forms have their carbons arranged in a way that form cells and grant sentience.


Wake up America.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Nabbit said:


> Meh, let stupid people be stupid. Even if we didn't have pseudoscience, they'd find another way to believe in something that isn't real just because it sounds nicer than reality. And they'll doom themselves for that.
> 
> Wake up America.


Unfortunately I don't understand what you're saying. You must speak some unintelligible popular slang that skip the bulk of conversation. 

Try again. Set your thoughts free, form sentences, and end it with good punctuation. So that we may at least know what to acknowledge or, more likely, to dismiss.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Majority said:


> Unfortunately I don't understand what you're saying. You must speak some unintelligible popular slang that skip the bulk of conversation.
> 
> Try again. Set your thoughts free, form sentences, and end it with good punctuation. So that we may at least know what to acknowledge or, more likely, to dismiss.


You're just not deep enough to understand my reply. It's a work of art riddled with hidden meanings and symbolism. My lack of grammar is just the utilization of my artistic license.

Try again. Let the creative juices of His Holiness flow through you, and grant you the divine interpretation to understand my craft.


----------



## Majority (Oct 3, 2016)

Nabbit said:


> You're just not deep enough to understand my reply. It's a work of art riddled with hidden meanings and symbolism. My lack of grammar is just the utilization of my artistic license.
> 
> Try again. Let the creative juices of His Holiness flow through you, and grant you the divine interpretation to understand my craft.


Not deep enough? That's awful. 

It did seem that you were being rude and arrogant, and accusing others of the things that would apply to yourself; projection. 

But that could have been a misunderstanding. Intuition doesn't fill in the details that wasn't there. 

The ball is in your corner.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Majority said:


> I didn't say that, they are not sentient. I'm saying all matter is conscious, but only life forms have their carbons arranged in a way that form cells and grant sentience.


You realise sentience is the same as consciousness? Or rather, sentience is the capacity for consciousness.


----------

