˗ˏˋ ℱ𝕣ꫀꫀ ᭙ⅈꪶꪶ.

Manifesting is struggling, life is effortless

You may or may not get what you want by "manifesting", and I'll explain to you why.

If you've been practicing for a while, you already know sometimes you get the things you want and sometimes you do not. Each time you do, though, it happens effortlessly. Almost aggravatingly so, since the times you do succeed with — you barely even try.

Your ego, depending on a lot of circumstances, conditions, thought patterns - may or may not believe it can manifest. Because, basically, before the concept was introduced to you - you never did it before. It is like studying for a test, you know this is the material you have to learn, you do so thoroughly, you settle it into your memory perfectly, and yet you can never be sure what the test may present you with. You may even have a lot of confidence in your knowledge and think you've got this under your thumb, but what's put on the test you still can't control. Likewise, you've learned how to manifest perfectly, you know all the methods/possibilities/techniques which you can use and you use them - however, the results are always shaky. So who decides what materializes and what not?

The one that's materializing the ego thinking and doing stuff right now.

The one thing you already have a lot of experience in, the one you do effortlessly and inescapably by existing is being. You've been something all your life, you can't say you don't know how to do that, because—you're being someone reading this post now.

Imagine if you knew yourself as who you really are, the way you materialize this body and this world live and instantly, the same way you'd be able to materialize a different one whenever. The test, the event, would now be put there by you. The confidence you thought yourself into before would now be replaced by a sureness, almost laughable inevitability, one you didn't attain but have. Circumstances you now leave to a "3D conforming" (the ego-body-mind, are circumstances too, btw) exist when you want to.

You don't want to "manifest", all you want is to be your self.

But to have it, you have to go beyond the mind, and to do that - you let go of all the things you think yourself to be, not add more labels on top of it like "God", "Master Manifestor", etc.

Those might satisfy your mind for a bit, but they won't stop you from being what you know yourself to be. To know yourself as the source of all that is you have to first remove the veil of what's stopping you from seeing it in the first place. The labels you may add, but do 'you' know how to operate as any? The only thing you know from experience how to operate is "I AM".

The process is one of letting go more and more until you find yourself having nothing, being nothing. The thing about nothing though is that it's the only thing that can take the shape of everything.

𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐨-𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 ✮⋆˙

moonbakeries (⭐️)

moonbakeries anon

fawnseyed (prev. halokisses)

halokisses anon

blushydior | alt

sexydreamgirl anon

ai-am-living anon | anon (2) | anon (3)

angelsinluv anon

itsravenbitch (1) | (2)

itsravenbitch anon

stateswscarlet anon

charmedreincarnation

charmedreincarnation anon | anon (2)

eamour anon

diorbabe66 anon

cinefairy

cinefairy anon | anon (2) | anon (3)

lotusmi anon

virgosimagination

amethyst8809

444lotus

now i think about Milchick’s weird gift, it makes so much sense that they choose his body to transfer one of the kier boardroom’s member’s consciousness. I saw a very interesting thread saying that they are testing if they could transfer one’s consciousness into another’s body. They are trying to transfer Gemma’s consciousness to Helena’s body or it can be opposite. Which makes sense again because when Helena met Mark’s outtie, when she mentions his wife she said “Hanna”. ( Helly\Helena+Gemma).

Now if you read the threads they said the boardroom’s members aren’t real person, their consciousness is stored somewhere. Which makes me question what did exactly happen to Natelia. She seems like she can hear them but also maybe they connected boardroom members’ consciousness into her? Because they can only listen through a radio then only answer through Natalie.

When Milchick asked Natalie about the gift her face looked as if she was gonna cry. So his gift is quite strange, it’s like his face and body was cropped into Kier’s paintings. As if their body was replaced with his body.

other interesting threads to check out 1 2

Hi Starliet! I love your new theme. I figured out what the key to manifesting for ME is and I’d love to share what worked wonders for me! I literally woke up in my desired reality today. Before sharing, I’d like to thank @cinefairy @nevillebeyonce @starliet/@starglri @sexydreamgirl @arabella111 @isobel777 @diorbabe66 @pl6netgirl and many others for answering countless of my desperate asks. I appreciate it and I love everyones contributions to this community.

Starting with my successes, here’s what I have manifested:

• I lived in the same apartment in Alabama (terrible, I’m aware) since I was born. Now? I moved to NYC and live in a fabulous, luxurious penthouse.

• I had Muslim parents who tried to force religion on me, took away my freedom (wouldn’t let me marry whoever, didn’t let me wear whatever and other annoying rules). Now? They’re supportive of absolutely anything I do, even if it goes against their religion.

• My dad had no job. My mom worked at a factory. It makes sense why we lived in the same rusty, old apartment for decades (20+ years). Now? My mom quit her job and is now running a successful fashion online business. My dad is now in college getting his master degree for engineering.

• I used to get bullied relentlessly because I was Middle Eastern living in a town full of white fucks. They would call me monkey because of my excess hair, they would call me a terrorist because I wore a hijab and so on. Now? I manifested ALL of those who were racist bitches to me to apologize and ask for another chance to be my friend. I got the joy of rejecting them.

• I had no luck with love. When I say no luck, I mean it. Men would ask me out as a joke. Once, a guy recorded asking me out as a joke to post on Facebook humiliating me. Now? I scripted down my desired man and now he’s real. The way I scripted we’d meet, the way I scripted literally everything became true. Those guys who humiliated me by asking me out as a joke texted me begging for me lmao. Here and there, I get asked out. Also, that Facebook video has been taken down and no one has it saved. Safe to say my luck with love is incredibly high now.

• I had many insecurities. I didn’t like how I had a hairy face. I didn’t like how greasy my hair would get. I didn’t like the spots on my skin. I didn’t like my hyperpigmentation. I didn’t like my thick brows or my unibrow. I didn’t like my huge nose. Now? I love how I look. I manifested hairless face and body (besides eyelashes, eyebrows, and my scalp of course), I manifested silky, healthy hair that never gets greasy or tangled even if I don’t shower for days, I manifested clear, flawless, radiant skin, I manifested my unibrow to disappear without threading it and my eyebrows became naturally shaped. I kept my nose bump because it represented my ethnicity, but I made my nose size overall a bit smaller. I look like a goddess now.

• I had no luck in school or jobs either. My dream was to be a makeup artist or just an artist in general. I failed so many classes, I got declined many jobs and my hope for success was low. Now? I’m in a NYC art school. I made it and I’m currently on the way for an art exhibit that has MY art shown!

• As you probably know, my family and I were broke. Now? We have MILLIONS and we’re continuing to get more money every passing second.

• I have manifested countless things but this ask has already gotten too long. I hope everything I listed shows how I went from rags and riches!

So, how did I do it?

I did absolutely nothing but focus on my desires/the 4D. I was delusional, I was detached from whatever bullshit was happening in my 3D and I was basically in love with my 4D.

I didn’t work on my self concept, I didn’t do methods (however I tried SATs and it did work for me once but I stopped since I got lazy) I didn’t focus on time or logic, I didn’t do anything but focus on what was happening in my imagination.

I lived in my daydreams and I paid no reaction to my shit 3D.

Reading your 4D and 3D post made me realize what the key for manifesting for ME was. I don’t know why lmao it just explains what the 4D and 3D is and how to change both, but it just changed my perspective and gave me instant overnight results. I wish I saw that post years ago when I started consciously manifesting. Maybe it would have clicked for me and I would have manifested my desires back then when I was struggling. Welp, doesn’t matter lmao I’ve moved on from the past.

💝 Thanks again to every LOA blogger here, I appreciate you all so much and if I could, I’d tip you all hundreds of dollars 💝

If anyone has any question, I’d love to answer :)

me reading this while listening to studio ghibli osts:

this … I don’t even have words. the way you made manifesting simple for yourself is so lovely? all you did was fall in love with your 4D and persisted in focusing on the 4D … you really said “fuck self concept, fuck these methods, fuck everything, I’m just gonna solely focus on my imagination cause imagination creates reality” 🪄

you are indeed correct, my 3D and 4D explanation post was not made to make ‘simple manifesting’ click for others (?) nor was it made to help others shift overnight hahaha — it was made to explain the main type of realities within manifesting (I got many, MANY asks of people wondering what the 4D / 3D was, how to change it, etc.) but damn, I’m glad my post somehow made ‘simple manifesting’ click for you!

I’m so happy reading this ໒꒰ྀི ˘͈ᵕ˘͈ ꒱ྀིა

thank you sm for sharing this amazing success and insight, beautiful anon. you should be proud of yourself! and thank you for offering to answer questions :’) you’re super duper sweet, love! I hope you had an amazing day/night so far, get some rest ^^ oh and thank you for the compliment!

i think what we mostly stuggle with is perceiving 3D as too real. As if it’s something we stuck with.

i reached sabbath state! whatever goes on 3D feels like not happening to me. i already feel like it’s reflected in 3D!! I’ll update ya i’m so sure tho (also feels normal like i wouldn’t be surprised to see 3D change 😭)

read this if you're confused about persistence, if you've been affirming for months and nothing's shown up, if you're wondering whether you're doing something wrong but can't figure out what. not a method post. not a technique post. just what’s actually going on when it's not working yet.

ok. so. hi. this is going to be messy and probably upsetting. not because it's dramatic. don't flatter it. but because it's honest. and honesty gets weird when you're dealing with a field that's still so underexamined. we're all just poking the edge of the simulation with a biro. and maybe i should leave it alone. maybe i'm overcomplicating again. maybe this is one of those moments where i should just shut up and script and go to bed. but. no. i can't. i don't know how to shut up about this. and maybe this isn't even the truth. maybe this is just one lens. but fine. whatever. here it is.

context: someone asked me today. "how do i force myself to shift in a short amount of time?" (@srcerers this is your fault....affectionately) and i was writing the usual. the "correct" answer. if you decide it, it's done. if you say you shift instantly, you do. period. PERIOD. done and done, tried and true. the golden assumption + confidence = success formula.

and then i spiralled. because i've been saying that for months. and yes, i've shifted. yes, i've seen results. but before that???????? i spent ages deciding. persisting. affirming. knowing. and still. nothing. and no, this isn't about pedestals. this isn't about wanting it too much. this isn't a fucking disney villain song about obsession. this isn't "just let go babe." no one here is pacing the astral gates with mascara running. this isn't longing. this is clarity. this is when you know it's yours and reality still has the audacity to play pretend.

you're not begging. you're not desperate. you're just wondering why the algorithm is lagging. and you're allowed to. you're god, and the lights are flickering. you're allowed to knock on the wall and ask why.

and sure. someone might read this and say "you were overthinking." or "you were still checking the 3d." but it's not that. this isn't panic. it's not frantic. it's the calm after the calibration. this is what happens after you stop checking. after you stabilise. after you fully assume. when you don't need results to believe. but they still don't come. and so you ask. not because you're doubting. because you're refining. it's not sabotage. it's devotion. it's wanting to understand the edge of your own dominion.

and the thing is. in the past, i wasn't hoping. i wasn't tiptoeing. i was in. all in. clearly, absolutely. no checking. no waiting. i wasn't treating the assumption like a wish. i was living like it was already law. so i continued in this spiral. because if you're god. if your thoughts create. if you say "i am in my dr" now and you mean it, like actually mean it, shouldn't that be enough?? i say this confidently, because after shifting so much, yes, that is indeed what happens. but. for people who haven't experienced that privilege. like. confidence plus assumption equals done. right??? so then why not. where does the decision go. does it just evaporate. does it fall behind the couch cushions of the multiverse. in what fucking universe do you decide something every day with conviction and it still doesn't root. how does that not calcify into fact.

so let me give you a scenario. maybe it's you. it was definitely me.

you're affirming day and night. not hoping. not wishing. knowing. you've decided you are in your dr. period. you walk like it. talk like it. feel it. you're not checking for results. not looking over your shoulder. not waiting for it to kick in. because it already did. your inner world is loud. it's screaming this is it. i'm there. not even zeus could knock me off the road because as god is my witness, i am in my goddamn dr.

and, nothing. no hogwarts. no mansion. no parisian cigarette moment with my boo in the rain. just your room. your walls. your body. again. again. again.

and it doesn't make sense. because the law is the law. you're god. your thoughts create. shifting is instant. so what the fuck is happening.

and look, i used to think there were only two ways to persist. either you're in power mode, clean, cold certainty. emotionally detached, i've already shifted, i'm just reinforcing it. or you're in panic mode, still affirming, still assuming, but there's this silent grip underneath. if i stop deciding this, it'll fall apart. and yeah, on the surface those feel like two different planets. one feels sovereign. the other feels shaky.

but if you strip the tone out of it, if you stop obsessing over how it sounds and just look at the architecture, both are assumptions. both are decisions. both count. because the law doesn't care if you're cool about it or crying about it. it only cares that you're doing it. that it's declared. that it's held. so if both modes are valid, then why do they sometimes fail????????

and this is where it started to come apart for me. because both 'i've already shifted' and 'i need to keep deciding' are still assumptions. one just feels better. it's smoother. but structurally, they're the same. and if the panic one isn't checking, if it's clean panic, if it's quiet panic, it should still land. it should still work. but sometimes it doesn't. and that's what broke the seal. because if it's not about hope, not about doubt, not about waiting, not about checking, and you're affirming like a master shifter, what the fuck is it? and i'll be using me as a poster child of examples and say that, hey, although shifting is now easy for me - i still struggle with manifestations. so. why???

and that question is the reason i'm even writing this at all.

so now maybe you're thinking (if i hopefully have not fully gutted your brain as i have with mine while writing this):

maybe it's because i'm doing it from panic, not power. maybe i'm secretly doubting. maybe i haven't let go. maybe i'm still in the waiting room. maybe that's because i keep looking at the 3d.

no. stop. cut it out. that's noise.

you can be in panic. you can be in power. it doesn't matter. if you are persisting. assuming. deciding. then it should work. that's the rule. that's the contract. it's not a myth. it's not a loophole. it's not some cult-coded trick line you chant and hope it lands. it's the structure. it's the law.

i kept trying to find a reason. maybe it's density. maybe it's linear cause and effect, like flipping a light switch and expecting the bulb. but loa doesn't work like that. and shifting definitely doesn't. it's not circuitry. it's not push-button response.

if you are the light, then the switch shouldn't matter. you're not triggering something, you are the trigger. you're the source. the mechanism. the whole #&*!$%@ circuit board. so what's jamming the signal. if it's not doubt. not timing. not belief. then what.

and here's the closest thing to an answer i've got (half consolation, half theory, fully an attempt to keep myself from throwing my laptop across the room):

you've already shifted. you just haven't caught up to yourself yet.

i know. i hate how that sounds too. it's vague. it's annoying. it feels like spiritual scaffolding. but it's not. or i at least hope it's not.

when we say shifting is instant, we don't mean the wallpaper peels itself off and your mom turns into dumbledore. we mean the moment you decide, the reality activates. the coordinates reroute. the entire grid adjusts.

it's as if you are rerouting a train track mid-motion. you're still moving. but you're not on the same line anymore.

the problem is, we expect the scenery to change with the switch. and sometimes it does. but sometimes it doesn't. and that's because the 3d isn't a flatscreen. it's not theatre. it's not performance. it's a mirror. and mirrors don't update because you want them to. they update because you've changed so deeply that they literally can't reflect the old you anymore.

so when you say "i am in my dr" and it doesn't look like your dr, that's not proof it failed. it's just a delay. you're already in the new field, but the particles haven't aligned. and yeah, that's maddening. because your body feels the shift. your head knows it. but your eyes won't show it. and then you start to doubt. not openly. but subtly. in the quiet. in the repetition.

so. what can i sum up. persistence is not about time. it's about saturation.

it's not about hours logged or how many affirmations you can fire off in a spiral notebook. it's about how deep it goes. how thick it sticks. and no, that doesn't mean screaming it louder. doesn't mean performing it. it means not needing to say it at all. not because you gave up. not because you're done trying. but because it's default now. baseline. unconscious. it is. not a spell. not a statement. just identity.

shifting isn't something you win. it's not a trophy for spiritual discipline. it's a symptom. a side effect of self-recognition so total, so absolute, that there's no room left for contradiction.

so yeah. both "i've already shifted" and "i need to keep deciding" can work. panic or power doesn't matter if the persistence is clean. if you're not checking. not looping. not measuring the silence. but if you're still waiting, even subtly, even spiritually, it's not saturation. it's performance.

and that doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. it just means you're still becoming. still burning off the part of you that thinks shifting is something to win, not something you already are.

and yes, some people shift instantly. some people shift after six months of saying "i'm already there." and they're not better than you. they're not more "aligned."

they just hit saturation faster. their idea of "this is true" had less gunk to burn off.

you say: but i'm god. i decide. why hasn't it happened yet?

and i say: it has. if it feels like it hasn't, you're still relating to it like something outside you. you're still watching for it.

reality isn’t late. reality isn't anything. it just reflects. it doesn't show up when you're ready, it has to show up when you're being. not when you want. not when you wait. when you are.

if it's not visible yet, it's not because it's in transit. it's because you're still checking. you're still measuring. you’re not failing. you're not early. you're just still treating truth like a method.

and truth isn’t a process. it’s a position. a posture. you don't need to persist for six months. you don't need to reach peak saturation like it’s a score. you just need to stop making realness conditional.

stop affirming like you're earning it. start assuming like it's breath. like it’s done and there’s nothing to explain.

because shifting isn't slow. it's not cumulative. it’s not linear. it’s identity. the second you say: i am - it's done.

not "on its way." not "almost here." and certainly not "it's glitching."

done. and if you're still asking when, then you haven't decided. not really. so stop trying to time it. just be it.

and look. i still believe shifting is easy. because it is. i've done it. i know it's not in charge. but sometimes it's not about method. it's about the silence in between. and that doesn't make the law wrong. it just makes the process actual. i'm not saying shifting or manifesting is hard. i'm saying that staying loyal to the truth when it hasn't shown its face yet takes a different kind of strength.

you don't have to overanalyse it.

but you're allowed to want to understand it.

that doesn't undo the truth.

it just lets you live inside it better.

Some logical things about the void state, brainwaves, etc

This isn't going to be formatted as well. I'm just throwing out information I keep getting asked about.

First of all, the void state is not a deep meditative state. You can use meditation to enter the void but it's not a meditative state because you're not aware of the 3d at all.

The void created your reality whether you like it or not but everything that happens to YOU was created by the pure consciousness. The reason your life was horrible is because you didn't know you could control it.

When you manifest with the void or in general, you have a few options. You can manifest literally anything and everything in THIS REALITY THAT IS YOUR CURRENT ORIGINAL REALITY, or you can shift. You get everything you want in this reality if that's what you want. If you wanna shift, you shift. You can script that nobody finds you weird but be careful and make sure you don't run into any trouble (you could just erase it even if you do so don't worry). You don't have to go anywhere. Nothing is impossible. Kind of the whole point of the void.

Alpha state is a state where you are still conscious but relaxed and not stressed out (unlike the beta state where you are stressed). Your thoughts flow freely in the alpha state and there is no restrictions caused by stress. You should always begin your meditation by getting into alpha state first because it makes going deeper in your mind even easier. It's also when you are focused on something for an extended period of time.

Theta state is a level deeper and it consists of reduced consciousness, lucid dreaming, REM sleep, etc. This is when we are about to go to sleep or wake up in our minds during dreams (lucid dreaming).

Now DELTA state is what babies and infants stay in when they're in the womb. It's a state where you lose bodily awareness and have access to your conscious mind. This is why so many get into the void with delta waves.

Alpha: So to induce each of these states, you have to meditate. But the levels of meditation are different. For Alpha State, you can use the distraction technique by @luckykiwiii101, follow the Nordic Witch meditation on youtube, or do the Silva method.

The silva Method is basically lying down and taking 3 deep breaths. On the first deep breath, imagine the number 3 and say it in your mind three times. Do the same for 2 and 1, breathing deeply each time. Afterwards, you count from 100 to 0. If you're not used to meditation, 100 to 0 should do it. But if you meditate constantly, you might need to do 100 to 0, then 50 to 0, then 25 to 0 to reach deeper levels of consciousness.

Theta: Theta waves is fairly easy. You need to stay still and allow your body to fall asleep. Take deep breaths and visualize a candle or an object in your mind (anything works great). Keep your focus on either your breathing or the object.

Delta: Delta waves can be induced by yoga nidra or transcendental meditation

Transcendental Meditation: Transcendental meditation is a type of meditation that involves repeating a mantra. This type of meditation is effective in reducing stress and anxiety levels.

Does that sound familiar? Yep, SATS requires a mantra or a looped visualization as well. Yoga Nidra also gets you into delta state. That's why it works. You visualize and hold this visualization as the last thing in your mind before you lose consciousness (waking consciousness that is).

So the point of all of this is that if you have not been able to induce pure consciousness despite trying the methods, it means your mind is overactive. I don't care if you fell asleep during a method. That just means your mind went from active (beta) or overactive (gamma) to Delta directly (because delta is induced when you sleep naturally).

Let's come back to the void. Like we discussed earlier, the void is not a meditative state. So why do meditative states lead you to the void? It's because meditation allows you to disconnect from your physical body and go deeper within your mind. The void is the purest state of consciousness. Each brainwave is a state of consciousness.

So the way to actually induce the void (a foolproof technique) is to not expect when you're doing the methods. Let me explain:

When you do any method, during it and after you're done and if you have not fallen asleep, you look for symptoms or signs. This brings your mind back to beta because you're questioning, searching etc.

When you stop expecting, you're letting your ego be put to rest. So the next time you do a method, if you feel that you're not stressed, move forward with any method and don't look for symptoms. But if you've been stressing out all day, do an alpha meditation first and then do anything else. The distraction technique is still technically SATS. You use the alpha state meditation to relax and then you visualize which puts you into theta, and eventually delta, then finally pure consciousness.

That's all I have right now.

so happy to see you back <3 your success story has always been my favorite

did you ever deal with overthinking on your journey? i know the law is real but i keep thinking that i'm always doing something wrong. i know the law works but i can't seem to trust that i'm doing it right:(

there was a lot of overthinking at the most random times. I would be so fulfilled for a few days, no negative thoughts or doubts and then one day I'm overthinking like it's the end of the world. I became the most anxious person and there would be doubt after doubt.

I just learned to let it be. it will pass and as soon as I'm feeling better I can just Guide myself back to my desired state.

what was I stressing for when my desires are mine?

youre not doing anything wrong, I promise you that and when you do feel like it, just go back to the state

Connecting Consciousness and Matter

Connecting Consciousness and Matter: seeing them together in a non-reductive way, paying respect to simple acknowledged scientific facts about matter and the human brain

Author: Stein Henning Braten Reusch Available at author's own tumblr.com/philosophy-of-science and at yoga6d.org/library/sciencefolder

Article information: [This is consc_spellco.pdf, which is a lightly spell- corrected version of the consciousness.pdf also available there, and made some days earlier. It also adds some sentences to make some points more clear. In addition, an appendix is added to explain how this is compatible with free will in decision-making despite the time-factors in Benjamin Libet’s brain research and similar research after that.] This article, "Connecting Consciousness and Matter: seeing them together in a non-reductive way, paying respect to simple acknowledged scientific facts about matter and the human brain", by Stein Henning Braten Reusch, is available at yoga6d.org/library/sciencefolder and original work first published there, April 20, 2025. Copyright Stein Henning Braten Reusch, alias Aristo Tacoma; you are free to further distribute this text in all respectable contexts on condition that you do not remove this article information nor any part of the text, and do not edit nor insert new texts into it in any way. The author can be contacted at berlinib@aol.com and has made a programming language which is available at g15pmn.com, a place where also a number of references to physics studies can be found; as well as a long list of acknowledgments highly relevant also for this article. Please use this email to get permission to embed an edited version of this article in a publishing context. Yoga6d.org is a website owned by Yoga4d:VRGM, Norway. Yoga4d:VRGM is a registered publisher with the Norwegian National Library.

Preface In this little text I seek to create a thought-image which makes sense both for those who come from a more scientific viewpoint, and for those who come from a more spiritual viewpoint (in some vague sense). The scientific concepts in this text are widely known and depicted in a large number of easily available books and articles over the past century, including in articles and books by the physicists Richard Feynman, David Bohm and Roger Penrose. The easy availability of the few scientific facts that I refer to in this text is the reason why there is no 'reading list' in the sense of footnotes at the completion. [Some of the formulations in this text were helped by conversations with my late father, Stein Braten, in connection to his last book, see stein-braten.com. Also thanks for conversation with Dr Helene Amundsen Nissen-Lie about the response of the humanities to the notion of 'Artificial Intelligence'. After the conversation, and after listening to an interview at YouTube with Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose where he said that 'AI is a misnomer', it appeared to me that 'AI research' should be rather called 'HIE research', or 'Human Imitation Engine research'.]

I'm going to attempt to construct a thought-image which will, or at least can, satisfy both those who come from a spiritual outlook and wish to understand brain/mind/body, and those who come from what we loosely can call a more 'scientific' outlook. The spiritual outlook may be vague or, for some, more precise, but it is found in all those who are fascinated by such as what philosophers call e.g., 'the stream of consciousness', while at the same time being uneasy about assuming that this is merely the result of machine-like activity e.g. of the brain. In other words, those who do not wish to reduce the immediacy of human consciousness, feeling, mind and intelligence to a mechanical description, have what I here call a more 'spiritual outlook'. Many have both a spiritual outlook and a scientific outlook. The task of the following little article is to suggest a way in which these two outlooks can be at peace with each other. Simultaneously, we are describing a way, or some would say, a 'theory', of how consciousness relates to matter.

For centuries, before the advent of computers in mid 20th century, there were machines around with interesting features, including clocks and damp engines. The idea of trying to see the human as a machine was to some gripping, but even for Newton it didn't deeply challenge the more spiritual view that whatever the human body is, it also has something else--soul, consciousness, the light of the mind,--something which is present with the living aware human being and absent in the case of a dead human body. With computers mimicking and replaying many features of human behaviour, the machine image is a far more potent competitor in the mind of people--as regards how we view the human being. And this more potent image is tougher to fight--it becomes more and more easy to view the human being as a machine, and the spiritual outlook does not seem to have had a similar nurturing. So in some schools of thought in brain science, for instance, the view is held that the brain is a machine, and that the neurons interact by cause-and-effect principles although there are also more or less random fluctuations going on. These same people might regard consciousness as merely a fancy way of describing the activity, and might not object to applying such concepts to any machine, such as a robot with a vast computer program mimicking human mindful actions including talking, if it's convenient. These people regard consciousness as what we can call an 'emergent' phenomenon: in their view, when a human being says, "I am conscious and I have consciousness and I use this consciousness in making decisions", they do not interpret this as there being in fact something separate from the machine, called 'consciousness', which interacts with the machine, and changes the cause-effect actions of the machine. Rather, they regard it as a way that the machinery of the brain--the human brain, in this case-- describes to itself some features of its mechanical activity. They can be said to take a 'reductionistic' attitude to consciousness: whether it is an emergent phenomenon or not, it is, as they see it, merely the activity of a vastly complex machine.

In such a strict 'atheistic' view of the human being, some forms of science--such as computer science, and the analysis of how chemicals interact, including those with electric charges, such as in nerves--are often taken to be the scientific attitude; and those who have a more spiritual outlook, regarding consciousness in some sense as existing separately from matter, may appear to these reductionists as wishful thinkers, employing concepts which at best is unnecessary and at worst contradict clear logical thinking about the reality of human beings.

I think, for those not coming from a scientific outlook, it is important to appreciate that there is no official 'dogma' in science on the view of the brain versus consciousness. In fact, some of the most brilliant thinkers have diverged, and this is true to this day. Some of them were even friends or close collaborators in science. For instance, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell were together in shaping brilliant expositions in logic. But while Bertrand Russell viewed the human mind and brain much along the lines of a machine, Whitehead eventually, especially after contact with quantum physics, regarded the human mind as something going beyond the machine. Similarly, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking worked closely together in shaping cosmological theories, but while Hawking preferred a more machine-like view of the human being and mind, Penrose decided that by his understanding of quantum physics, there are reasons to regard consciousness as not mechanical.

In the following text in this article, I will sometimes refer to words which make most sense to those who are acquainted with the fundamentals of modern physics. But if your starting-point is more humanistic, so to speak, you can skim more lightly over just those parts of the text initially and focus, at first, on that which makes most sense. Eventually, like a jigsaw where everything gradually comes into place as the whole image emerges, you may want to re-read the more physics-oriented parts to make still more sense of the entire thought-image of consciousness relative to the human brain as here presented. And while the comments on the human body focus on the brain, they are meant to be applicable, in many ways, to the whole of the human body.

Those who skim through the developments of the physics worldview since around the 1920s find that, in what is called quantum physics, we hear of light particles, or photons, as something which interact with matter particles, such as electrons. The photons seem to be able to be 'many in one place', in contrast to matter particles which are also called 'fermions', where 'only one in one place' seems to be the principle.

It has been said by many that quantum fluctuations have the appearance of random at some time, but that these fluctuations also may involve not only wave patterns, but intense orderings challenging even the time-space continuum as conceived in the theories of Albert Einstein. We speak of nonlocality--that there are some sort of non-transferring--perhaps in a sense instantaneous-- connection or interconnectedness. What we call 'quantum fluctuations' may mask a spectrum from the more random through more wave-like pattern all the way to something highly coherent and light-transcending.

Those whom, as I said, come from a more 'scientific' outlook are probably more or less nodding to all the latter formulations; while those who come from a more spiritual approach perhaps do not easily see a clear line from their thought to such thoughts. Indeed, it's rather complex, and the image of the computer, which is ever- present in every affluent society, is far more easy to conjure up; and so we are seeing a situation in which the computer image can, if we don't watch it, be the main image that we have of brains, minds, and human beings and our hearts and lives in general--in other words, that the computer and its activities provide the main metaphor for the sort of thinking we do about ourselves, about humanity.

And so my task here is to try and construct a thought- image that learns from the spiritual outlook, and which learns from that which we vaguely can call the scientific outlook, and which is not subjecting the human being to the reductionism of being viewed as yet another machine. It goes without saying that I regard the view of the human being as a machine as wrong in all important aspects.

In the following paragraphs, I will use the word 'consciousness' much, but I don't mean it to the exclusion of feeling, nor do I mean to put it in contrast to such as attention and awareness, but I use it in an inclusive sense, so that it includes also leaps of imagination, intelligent understanding, intuition, creativity, love, compassion, a relationship to pain, etc. Nor do I wish to exclude such as ‘the unconscious’. Those who come from the spiritual outlook should therefore feel free to include such as soul and spirit in this rather encompassing concept of 'consciousness'. And, as said, when I refer to the human brain, I don’t mean to exclude reference to the whole human body; I merely regard it as convenient to focus on brain as that which most obviously, for all, associated with human thinking and consciousness, and so representative of the relevant type of 'matter' when we seek a view of consciousness. And for those who wish to apply it to relationships, see e.g. my father’s book on sociological aspects of M. Buber's 'Ich und Du'.

Since the early days of quantum physics, with some rather 'dogmatic' schools of thought around it connected to such as (the otherwise very intelligent) Niels Bohr, a lot of opening up of interpretations have taken place. For those who are knowledgeable about the historical discussions in this field, I'm not merely speaking of the pilot wave theory by Louis de Broglie, the hidden variable theory of David Bohm, but of the many re-definitions by an array of physicists esp. of the notion of 'probability density' and where the original assumption by Einstein that 'no signal can transfer faster than light' has been hammered on, successfully, from many angles. Only rather insignificant features of this re-interpretation has gone into the notion of the proposed 'qubit' for a so-called 'quantum computer'. All computers rely, as is known, on semi- conductors, whose theories are grounded in some properties of quantum physics. So all computers are in that sense 'quantum computers'. A suggested 'qubit quantum computer' is merely an attempt to make gains on speed on an otherwise entirely mechanical product and is in no way reflecting more than a superficial aspect of the whole quantum theory. (Same with 'tribit' etc.)

While I have my takes on interpretations of quantum physics, I'm going to use here a concept that can be seen as compatible with most versions of quantum theory that has learned some lessons from the early days of discussion and at least picked up a tiny bit of ideas from the counter-perspectives presented by Louis de Broglie (including their nonlocal later forms).

In other words, what I will here talk of as a quantum feature is something that is compatible with many or most modern takes on quantum physics--in some cases after some discussion, in other cases more obviously so.

This quantum feature is this: extra information inside the probability cloud. Let us make this long phrase easy to refer to: Extra Information inside the Probability cloud = EIP.

I will endavour to make EIP a lively concept for those who have not, prior to this point, thought much about quantum theory or physics in its various shapes and forms.

A fundamental idea in quantum theory is that there is a certain minimum 'quantum of action', and this in many cases appear as a particle, and often a particle of very tiny energy. Thus for instance, while light--which can be described as particles, photo-particles, or photons, are reaching, eg. from distant stars, the human retina, so that an activation of neurons in the retina arises, the light doesn't arrive as a wave that gradually builds up. Rather the flash of a star--and indeed the human retina has nerves sensitive enough to pick up light from just a dozen or so photons--suddenly emerges at some spots. But when more and more of these photos arrives, a wave-like pattern is seen to arise which correspond to the wave-like understanding of light. [A process which has a degree of analogy to this is found when a telescope shines its starlight to a photographic plate of very weakly shining stars: at first, apparently random spots arise; then, particle by particle, the expected wave-like light pattern builds up on the plate.] So while wave features are intact, the actual interaction between light and matter are particle-like. When and where a particle of light, or photon, interacts with a particle of matter, is in each particular concrete case unknown before it arises. We're speaking here of probabilities associate with energies as 'densities', or 'clouds', and these probabilities are ingrained in the core of the quantum physics apparatus.

In other words, when light--which is a wave or a sort of field--we can, informally, say, a 'photonic field', spreads, as it meets matter, there is the probability cloud and features of within this probability cloud is connected to when and where of photons manifest. The word 'probability' refers to the fact that there is something or other, with a pattern, about to arise, but its more concrete manifestations are unknown before they do in fact arise. As the early quantum explorers found, the way we measure photonic fields affect the shape of the probability cloud. We may focus, for instance, on the movement or momentum aspects of the photonic fields, and that makes the probability cloud get other properties than if we focus on the position aspects of the field.

Without splitting hairs about probability clouds, when we speak of EIP, or extra information inside the probability cloud, we refer to the simple fact that inside probability lies the notion of the unknown--in the sense of room for more structure, more information if you like. Instead of dogmatically ruling this out, with a hundred years of discussion and further research in the quantum physics and related domains such as gravitation physics, behind us, there's a lot of general nodding amongst physicists that the probability clouds do have room for more structure than that which is confined to the typical measurements of position and momentum, and other such classical measuring situations. It is also generally assumed that the reality of the probability clouds is not merely a mathematical abstract idea, but something which, though somewhat immaterial and elusive and 'beyond-energy' in nature, is a fundamental part of the way the universe unfolds. The probability clouds, though in their original formulation tied up to what we humans know and do not know of a physical situation, are now considered somehow subtle structures of events themselves (and indeed active in making such as super-conductivity and super-magnetism possible; and there are countless other examples of this).

Whenever there is a finer study of material processes of any kind, then, there is the notion of probability clouds of some kind--whatever exact term is used--and due to the unpredictability here, we speak of 'quantum fluctuations' as also an intrinsic part of all matter, all energy.

Moreover, the quantum fluctuations are sometimes, in cases where there is more coherence and less noise, more orchestrated in some ways. This is related to how the probability clouds are different in some cases with more coherence and less noise. The exploration of what it means to reduce noise in situations where quantum fluctuations take place is often an essential part of the work.

By analogy, if you gently pad your eyelids when you have your eyes closed, you'll see some light-like effects and, when you open your eyes in an open space without artificial lights around to more clearly see dim stars, your eyes need all the quietude they can get to pick up stars. As in the center of the focus the more color- oriented neural rods are, --these color-oriented rods not being quite as sensitive to individual photon groups as the more black'n'white oriented rods: it can help, to pick up a dim star, to look very slightly away from it--just some degrees lets say to the left or right of it. In doing these things, you are directly experiencing two things: the energy interactions at the quantum level, and the interaction between the photonic field--also called the electromagnetic field--and the electrons (and more) in the matter of your neurons in the retina, --which in a certain sense of it are more or less part of your brain.

The conditions for interaction between electromagnetic fields, or photonic fields, and neurons, in this case, is tied up to the frequencies and wavelengths of the light. But it is well known that associated with the general motion of electrons in the brain, and other activity, there is electromagnetism surrounding and penetrating the brain--in other words, a photonic field--but of entirely different frequencies and wavelength. This is not merely a question of emanation of a field, such as picked up by the well-known EEG measurements, where we speak of alpha, beta, theta and delta waves and such, but also a question of receptiveness on the parts of electrons in the brain to this field. The photonic field as studied in the field of EEG has frequencies such as around 10 to 13 Hertz for alpha waves, and the wavelengths of the photonic field in this case is in the range of tens of thousands of kilometers--this you can work out by using the equation that relates the speed of light to the frequency, with 10 Hertz meaning ten cycles pr second.

Now let us be very clear that a photonic field has a probability cloud associated with it. The photonic field-- the electromagnetism--may have, if it comes from such as a radio transmitter, the shape of pop music; which, when converted into air waves, becomes audible pop music. But this photonic field, when it arrives and is picked up by the antenna and this is studied on the quantum level, comes across as individual energetic particles, namely photons, and while their patterns add up to reproduce the pop music, the individual energetic particles pop forth in ways and in places that is in each case determined by the probability cloud--ie., by the extra information in the probability cloud, the EIP. So the radio wave with the pop music goes along with an EIP that has additional structure.

So also in the case of the brain's photonic field. The shape of this field is one thing; the EIP is another thing --but associated with it. The shape of the field can be measured and when it is measured, the EIP is called on to give some results to our measuring apparatus. But the EIP is never directly measured. In a certain key sense, the EIP is immeasurable.

But while the EIP is immeasurable--and most thinkers in quantum physics over the past hundred years would agree to this, I think it is fair to say--it is also the case that some of the features of the EIP come forth in the quantum fluctuations. The photonic field of the brain affects, and is affected by, (in particular) electrons in the neurons. [Research has shown that EEG-like photonic fields can be applied rather than just measured so as to induce the expected mood-changes in the living human brains; besides, electromagnetic fields are always two-way in interaction with the structures that makes them.] Electrons are matter; the photonic field is a wave energy. The wave energy is spread out; the matter of the electrons is vast compared to the energy of each photon. The electrons are example of such 'fermions' as we referred to earlier--two electrons cannot exist on top of each other. When electrons interact with anything, quantum fluctuations are involved. When electrons interact with each other--indeed, when any matter in the brain interact with any other in the brain—this sort of energy is more condensed to areas in between the matter particles: this can easily be a case of 'local' interaction--one thing influencing the things that are next to it. This is what a machine typically is about--the things that are (locally) near each other influence the other things; and if we spell out the rules of this interaction and the fluctuations are relatively limited, the behaviour as a whole mimics a bit of that of a computer program--ie, it is rule-based. [And even if speed of a machine is enhanced by a nonlocal ‘spread-out’ probability cloud between some particles, it is still a machine when its rules can be spelled out as if it were local interactions.]

Now most of those who wish to see how the concepts of the quantum can affect the understanding of the biology of the brain have been looking for e.g. quantum coherence in the brain--and there are various candidates for this; and, as historically often has been the case with biology, when there are competing theories, the answer is 'both-and' rather than either-or. There is, for instance, interesting research into something which has a degree of analogy to coherent light, or laser light, in the concept of coherent water, and there is water in some of the strands of the neurons and speculation of an active form of quantum coherence in these. The neurons are surrounded by glia cells and these have features of interest also. And so on and on. And this is what I have heard about, and read about, --and while I've found this interesting and fascinating, it appears to me that the most obvious way in which the quantum has a say relative to the brain has not earlier on been spelled out (as far as I know).

For common to all the structures of the brain is that they are bathed in a photonic field. This is known. This field is not concentrated in pockets but to some extent spread out, because photonic fields are by nature spread out. The photonic fields are not composed of fermions, but are composed of whatever-it-is, perhaps photons, which can 'stack-up' on top of one another with apparent effortless- ness, having zero (or, as Louis de Broglie wanted it, near-zero) rest mass. Their energy is chiefly their energy of movement. The photonic fields are everywhere in the human body and in the brain, and they interact two-way with the electrons, the electrons having a charge that are especially susceptible to interaction and resonance with an electromagnetic, or photonic, field.

Wherever there is a photonic field, there is also a probability cloud--it is real but it is ephemeral, or subtle--it is an energy that is not quite an energy; a structure that makes itself revealed only partially, each time the field interacts with something so that energy is manifested. The probability cloud has, by the fact that we speak of it through the concept of probability, room for extra information. The EIP, or extra information of the probability cloud, goes together with the photonic field but cannot be reduced to the photonic field. But whenever the photonic field interacts with the brain, ie, with the electrons in the brain, something of it reveals itself by the exact manifestation of energy--just how an electron changes direction, or just when it gets its extra energy--and that fact that it is was this electron rather than the neighbouring electron that got its photonic interaction--all this is due to EIP.

Those who have studied how the brain is active during such as alpha relative to such as beta, using now the EEG terminology, have noticed that during the alpha states, the activity of the brain tends to be more symphonic. The alpha waves often go together with some more wholeness in the brain, while beta is more typically associated with 'light frustration'. If you dig into EEG archives, you'll find that people have been measuring on masters of a field while they perform actions in which they are masters, relative to how people's EEG waves are when they are about to learn a field. The masters have more of the deep, slow and well-orchestrated fields, while the beginners stumble into lightly frustrated 'beta' bursts of 30-40 Hz activity. Similarly, one has found that under some forms of light hypnosis learning can take place more deeply and this is again typically associated with alpha, or even slower waves, such as theta.

In the more quiet states of the mind, it follows, logically, that more quiet thoughts can be listened to by the rest of the mind. Again, the concept of star-gazing is apt: to pick up the dim light from stars that might be fascinatingly far away--so far away they may even be whole galaxies onto themselves--we must have a situation in which there are fewer 'distracting lights'. Now in the same way, if you have a good knowledge of a complex situation, and look for a solution of how to handle it, while you have may competing thoughts of how to handle it, the challenge may be that, in this state of mind of competing thoughts, the most genius thought is but a too- dim 'light', not readily appearing. But after rest and sleep and music and motion and focus on other things, when one against turn attention to the subject, these distractions may no longer be present. Instead, a solution may present itself. Its "light", as it were, shines forth, and--unless we're stretching the analogy too far--perhaps better by not staring straight at it, but slightly to the side of it.

It's pretty clear that there is some machine-like aspects of the brain and that the brain, like a computer program, can come into states which resemble a bit that which we in programming call a 'loop'. A loop can, indeed, prevent other activity of the computer; in some cases, a loop may prevent even keyboard interaction to the extent that a reboot of the computer is necessary before other work can take place on it. So when there is a state of the brain in which the electrons interact rather feverishly, and 'locally'--one 'pushes' into the other--that is a state of the brain different from one in which there is a sense of overall listening so that an individual manifestation of a particular good thought concept can be readily attended to by all the mind.

While brain science is still a young science, it is clear that there is often an activity in some neurons and some synapses when there is an activation or presence of some thoughts in the mind. This correlation doesn't mean that anybody has ever proved causation, or that a thought can be reduced to this neuronal activity. But that there is a correlation, and that this correlation is indeed part of what enables the brain to both store, and retrieve memories of past thought thoughts, has been fairly much established. So for living human being the health of the brain is a necessity for the health of consciousness. And the particular synaptic and neural activity at some spots are, as it seems, typically correlated with events, such as a thought attended to, in consciousness.

And, as we've amply justified, there's a photonic field associated with all the human brain. In the states of brain activity--perhaps vaguely associated with the alpha or near-alpha states--where individual thoughts, even if initially dim, can be 'amplified' in strength by attention to them, rather than get lost in an ocean of distracting thoughts, it is not too much to assume that neural activity inside the brain, just as neural activity inside the retina when watching stars, are sensitive all the way to the quantum level, in which photonic fields are having their effects. And we said, alongside a photonic field, there is EIP. And let's be clear that for a photonic field --which can be further analyzed into many simultaneously existing photonic fields of different frequencies existing on top of each other, all in and around a human being with the living human brain--the EIP has room for a gigantic amount of subtle structure. There is no rule that says that the EIP is just this size or that size. It being subtle and not-quite-manifest as far as energy goes, being there rather to guide each energy interaction, also means that it can carry a wealth of structure or information which goes entirely beyond the waveform of the photonic wave.

It is also clear that the EIP constantly changes, in a two-way manner, because of the two-way interactions that constantly takes place between electrons and photons. With every interaction that probability cloud is completely, and in a nonlocal way changed, in a manner that is not merely a change in the photonic field. In the cases where the brain is suitably picking up and amplifying events as small as those that take place on the quantum level, or in which the quantum level events are suitably coherent so that they in an accumulated sense add up to a significant energy event in the brain, the EIP is directly affecting how the consciousness unfolds. It is a vehicle that unfolds information by each of its interaction events with the electrons, and which constantly is informed by the presence of the electrons, and other matter features in the brain--and the body more generally.

So while, in this thought-image, we have not said that the electromagnetic field, or photonic field, has a shape that is equal to consciousness, we have now built up an argument that permits this thought image: the EIP associated with the photonic field, in interaction with the brain in suitably sensitive states, may have structure going far beyond the structure of the brain and its photonic field, and may be fairly near to a level of that which we personally experience as "consciousness". [There are other takes on consciousness, see for instance R. Penrose's way, in which he connects it to gravitation; and, in general, of course, ever since eg Erwin Scroedingers essays on Life and Matter there has been a sense in which people have wished to connect something of probability cloud to something of consciousness somehow; but as far as I know, this direct way of connecting a whole level of consciousness to the probability cloud of the ca 5-50 Hertz well-known photonic field of the brain --and not to the EEG field itself and without requiring particular quantum coherent structures in the brain to be found--is something new with this article; as said, I do regard 'both-and' as a healthy attitude to biological theories and regard it as likely that other vehicles for probability clouds to interact with neurons also exist; very exciting research has been done e.g. on human olfactory organs in this regard, connected to quantum geometry, suggesting that we are all 'born with' a quantum laboratory in our noses. I also would regard both neural water and glia cells as being interesting candidates for probability density activity in the brain, though laboratory research on the extent to which there is quantum coherence in living human brains in these structures has science fiction like complexities.]

There is an ancient understanding, or view, of consciousness that equates it, to some extent, to "light". While in a mechanical interpretation of light, light is something that enters the eyes as the eyes are opened, in this old and venerable view, light 'comes' from the eyes as consciousness of the person unfolds and meets the whole scene. If we allow for the Newton/Einstein conception of light as a field of energy and which, as Einstein proposed, emerges as energetic particles or photons, then we can by the 'latter-day understanding' of quantum theory say that the feature of probability cloud associated with these photons allow for the living type of information- oriented structure that we associate with consciousness. The extra information in the probability cloud, or EIP, may match the old understanding of light as consciousness and as something which exists in parallel to matter and which is not reducible to matter.

APPENDIX [2025:4:25] ABOUT THE REALITY AND NON-ILLUSIONARY FORM OF FREE WILL AND DECISION-MAKING IN THE WAKE OF BENJAMIN LIBET'S BRAIN STUDIES AND LATER VERSIONS OF THE SAME

For those who have appreciated the article as quoted in full form above and to which this is an added appendix some days later (article by myself from April 2025), they will no doubt have in mind the importance of distinguishing between aspects of mental functioning which is more machine-like and that which properly connect to the EIP through a suspension of the dominance of the machine-like aspect coupled with proper attentiveness. In this context, free will comes forth in that the wholeness of one's being is expressed, rather than just a mechanical aspect of it. To make decisions through one's whole being and exercise this freedom is obviously an art and not something that can just be assumed. When one applies these concepts properly one will see that the attempt by some in brain science to summarize certain findings as indication of 'illusion of free will' is rather an instance of disconfirmation for their idea of what the brain is all about.

The way I see free will is that free will is an expression of one's entire being--I will not say that free will is the expression of my whole being if it is made just after a succession of more or less logical thoughts and such. I do believe that I can make decisions according to my free will, in the sense that I can let my entire being express itself in deciding questions that I have pondered on for some time. Does this take 0.2s or 0.5s or 10 seconds? While in an artistic or generally creative process with proper preparation I submit that it can happen rather inststaneously--on condition that one knows what one is doing and is engaged with the whole of one's being and that one is particularly harmonious--I would normally say that making a decision by free will is something that takes, at the very least, days. It begins by the questions being asked. As long as I experience the brain coming forth with one thought after another about it, I do not regard it possible for the expression to come from my essence or higher self or whatever one wishes to call it--so the expression from my entire being is something I must call on, and it takes time. The brain can put the question, but it must then consciously let go and become quiet and attentive and receptive. To become properly receptive after a lot of thoughts and emotions have been attended to, and where facts have been sorted and not-too-factual thoughts have been corrected, takes time. It is absurd to assume that this can be a question of mere seconds in the normal case.

If somebody has the idea that free will and decisions from free will is simply the result of permutations of thoughts and emotions in a typical slightly frustrated day-state of mind, which in EEG terms normally is associated with such as beta, they have a rather mechanical conception of will and freedom and decision-making. In such a case, they have not distinguished between the more (local) interactions between thoughts of the more manifest kind, which obviously has a lot of correlations with neural activity and where the more clear thoughts obviously may be preceded by more subtle thoughts which can show up in sensitive neural measurements--and something entirely different, which is this: the receptiveness of the fullness of the thought-structure to something which can come by means of attention to the subtlest of idea-impulses in the wake of earlier enquiry into a subject. It is this cycle between the more superficial aspects of mental being and the wholeness of mental being over time that allows, as it were, for decision-making to come about as dialogue between conscious ego and the wholeness of oneself.

Freedom of will in this conception is the manifestation of harmonious dialogue between conscious ego and the wholeness of oneself if need be over days, weeks, months. It can take seconds, or work in split seconds, but only for the highly experienced, creative master of a field who with proper pre- meditation and full engagement is in tune with what is done and in full resonance with oneself.

In this context, studies such as by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s--such as here--

Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK, Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness- potential): the unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. 1983, Brain 106:623–642

and extended, also for time duration, with a number of other studies and summarized in such as

Consciousness, decision making, and volition: freedom beyond chance and necessity, Hans Liljenstrom, Theory in Biosciences (2022) 141:125–140

cannot do any other than suggest to those who have the rather unfounded assumption that consequtive thought-making in a unengaged state of mind has anything particularly 'free' about it.

To conclude this appendix on a positive note, the value of the research initiated by Benjamin Libet and other brain scientists is that it suggests that attention to our mental states and understanding of what it means to act from the non-mechanical aspects of oneself must be part of every schoolchild's upbringing in order for them to foster genuine free will and true decision-making from the fullness of this free will of their entire being.