A
Am I the observer or the observed ?
A
You never actually “know” the world directly — you know your experience of it. You mean you know the world through your lense of awareness ? Is it even a lense then? If everyone shares the same I then shouldnt it be a direct experience of the world ?
A
A
This is the very crux of the search, trading places with the belief that we are the content of experience, identifying with a particular object, to realizing that we are the one who is aware of the content of experience. And, once that transition is made, we must pursue the nature of that awareness.
A
I have a question – how do you make this transition? I have separated awareness and its content. But out of habit I continue identifying with the content. How do I ‘trade places’?
A
My guru gave me some valuable advice many years ago. He said, “Don’t be involved in your thinking process.” So, practice every time you find yourself swept into the stream of thought and conversing with it, to pull yourself out, again and again.
A
That is where being and consiousness reveal themselves to be of the same single essence...aka God
A
SUSHUPTI
"It never disappears" But when you go to sleep it does..
A
When your life is crap, the last thing you can love is being aware of it.
A
Experience in the world we live is mind numbing chaotic bs
A
I’m aware of how bored I am
A
Where was this knowing before birth ??
A
A
It's the sum of all there is. All you are is the knowing. Not the knower, or the known. Knowing is ALL there is. What then.. knows this. Consciousness knowing itself. What am I? Consciousness. = I Am. Or.. Amness
A
A
The knowing" is part of a thought-phylum, purely instinctive; in which, is not an attribution of awareness.
A
Beautiful reference 🙏 — the phrase “सूत्रे मणिगणाः इव” (sutre maṇigaṇā iva) appears in the Bhagavad Gītā 7.7, and it carries profound metaphysical meaning. Let’s unpack it carefully:
मत्तः परतरं नान्यत्किञ्चिदस्ति धनञ्जय ।
मयि सर्वमिदं प्रोतं सूत्रे मणिगणाः इव ॥
Transliteration:
mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya
mayi sarvam idaṁ protaṁ sūtre maṇigaṇā iva
“O Dhanañjaya (Arjuna), there is nothing whatsoever higher than Me.
All this (the entire universe) is strung on Me, like pearls on a thread.”
Sūtra = thread or string
Maṇigaṇāḥ = many jewels or pearls
Iva = like/as
So the world is like a necklace of pearls, all held together by an invisible thread — the Divine (Krishna) — which itself is unseen but essential.
Unity underlying diversity:
Just as many pearls form a single necklace through one thread, all beings and objects are united through the Divine essence.
The multiplicity we see (people, objects, universes) are appearances strung upon one unifying Consciousness.
Invisible support:
The thread is not seen directly, but without it, the necklace would fall apart.
Similarly, the Divine Consciousness (Brahman) pervades and supports everything, even though it’s not directly visible.
Consciousness as the substratum:
This idea beautifully parallels the modern or mystical notion of “Sciousness” — the silent, foundational awareness holding all experiences, forms, and minds together.
The “pearls” are individual experiences or worlds; the “thread” is pure awareness or Paramātman (Supreme Self).
Śaṅkara (Advaita): The verse teaches non-duality — Brahman alone is real; all else depends on it.
Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita): The universe and souls are attributes of God, existing in Him as pearls in a string.
Bhakti traditions: Emphasize the loving connection — all beings are bound together through Krishna’s presence.
You might say:
“The universe is like a holographic necklace — countless pearls of perception held by the unseen thread of consciousness.”
Would you like me to connect this “sutre maniganaa iva” imagery to quantum consciousness or sciousness — showing how ancient Indian thought anticipated similar ideas?
A
The knowing that 'runs constant through all experience' is what William James called 'sciousness,' consciousness without consciousness of self, or 'pure experience,' a simple 'that' before it is doubled into a state of mind and a reality intended thereby
A
It sounds like you meant “sciousness” — a term related to “consciousness”, but subtly different in meaning. Here’s a clear breakdown 👇
Sciousness (without the con- prefix) is an old or philosophical term meaning awareness without self-reflection — raw, immediate experience before the mind turns it into “I am aware of…”.
The word was used by philosopher F.H. Bradley (in Appearance and Reality, 1893) to describe pure experience — perception without the sense of a separate self observing it.
| Aspect | Sciousness | Consciousness |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Direct awareness or experience itself | Awareness plus the sense of “I” being aware |
| Self-reference | None (pre-reflective) | Self-reflective (“I am conscious of…”) |
| Example | Seeing a color without labeling or thinking about it | Thinking “I see blue” |
| Philosophical link | Nondual experience, pure perception | Dualistic (subject–object) awareness |
In discussions like Quantum Immortality or Consciousness as a Field, “sciousness” might refer to:
A substrate of awareness — experience before it divides into “observer” and “observed.”
A possible universal consciousness that individual minds emerge from (e.g., panpsychism or nondual theories).
Some thinkers link this to quantum reality, where observation and measurement co-create outcomes — suggesting sciousness is the core observer function itself.
The idea invites us to ask: Is “I” necessary for experience?
It also challenges standard neuroscience and physics, which usually assume a subject/object split.
In mystical traditions (Advaita Vedānta, Zen, etc.), “pure awareness” aligns with sciousness — unbroken, impersonal witnessing.
When a baby first opens its eyes, before it knows “me” or “world,” what’s happening is sciousness — pure, undivided experience.
Later, as the mind develops, it becomes consciousness — “I am seeing.”
Would you like me to connect sciousness specifically to the Quantum Immortality idea from the video — i.e., how this kind of awareness might relate to surviving branches of reality?
A
Knowing the feeling of this bankruptcy and helpless thought.
Knowing the struggling and fighting poor identity.
Knowing hopeless of changing identity.
Knowing useless of waiting miracles.
Knowing these and keep staring skies everyday with bitter smiles
A
It's right there. Looking out of my eyes. Hearing Touching... The knowing of the seeing. The knowing of the thinking. The knowing of every single bit of experience.. The silent stillness witnessing the 'person' (the 'person' I mistook myself to be) living 'my life'.. and believing ONLY that illusion exists.
A
A
Being is knowing. It is the experience of awareness familiarizing self with self and concluding no-thing.....(know thing)
A
A
Here’s a detailed breakdown of the video titled “Scientists Are Stunned | Sleepy Physicist” (addressing the concept of Quantum Immortality).
Scientists Are Stunned | Sleepy Physicist
The host explores the idea that consciousness might never terminate, drawing on quantum-mechanical ideas that suggest “you” might always find a branch of reality in which you survive.
It frames this as a radical re thinking of death, identity and reality.
The video uses the many-worlds/branching interpretation of quantum mechanics as its starting point.
It raises philosophical and scientific implications: if quantum branching allows for a version of you to continue when you die in one branch, then perhaps consciousness persists in another.
Here’s how the argument unfolds:
Quantum mechanics and branching: The video introduces the idea that quantum events may cause reality to split into multiple branches (as in the Many‑Worlds Interpretation).
Observer continuity: It argues that if you’re an observer, you will always find yourself in a branch where you continue to exist (because you can’t observe your non-existence).
Quantum immortality hypothesis: From there it leaps to the hypothesis that your consciousness might never “die” because you’ll always branch into surviving versions.
Challenges & objections: The video explores objections (e.g., what counts as “you”, whether quantum mechanics actually allows this interpretation, whether consciousness is preserved, etc.).
Philosophical consequences: It discusses what this implies for fear of death, meaning of life, ethics, risk behaviour.
Scientific credibility: The video acknowledges that whilst the ideas are intriguing they are speculative rather than established scientific fact.
The video uses thought experiments e.g., versions of you dying in one branch versus surviving in another.
It may reference classic quantum thought experiments (e.g., related to superposition) to illustrate branching of outcomes.
The narrator questions whether what we call “death” in our branch might be irrelevant for the totality of your conscious perspective, since you’d only ever experience the surviving branch.
It’s provocative: challenges conventional assumptions about death and identity.
It brings together physics + philosophy, making the viewer rethink what “I am” might mean in a quantum-universe picture.
Raises useful questions about observer-bias: You only ever observe surviving branches — this ties into anthropic reasoning.
Encourages introspection: what does it mean to “exist”, to “die”, when seen from a multiverse lens.
The hypothesis is highly speculative: no empirical evidence currently supports the idea that consciousness persists by branching, or that you “experience” only the surviving branch in the sense implied.
Ambiguous definition of “you”: If there are many copies/branches, which is the “real” you? What about subjective continuity?
The quantum mechanics interpretation discussed (many-worlds / branching observer continuity) is itself not universally accepted and remains contested in physics.
Even if branching happens, it doesn’t automatically follow that your experiential “self” transfers — the video recognises this.
Risk of misinterpretation: Viewers might over-interpret the hypothesis as meaning death is meaningless or impossible, which could induce false reassurance.
If the hypothesis were true (still big “if”), then death in our branch might be offset by survival in another — though that doesn’t eliminate the subjective experience of dying in the branch we inhabit.
For personal life: The video suggests we might rethink our fear of death, risk tolerance, how we value life, though it cautions us not to assume guarantees.
For science/philosophy: Raises important questions about consciousness, identity, the ontology of the observer in quantum mechanics.
The overall message: This is a possible way of thinking about existence rather than a proved fact — but it expands our conceptual horizon.
The video explores the radical idea that you might never truly die because in a branching quantum universe there may always be a version of you that survives — a thought-provoking notion that challenges how we think about consciousness, death and identity, yet remains firmly speculative.
A
The Practice of Bhakti Yoga
Neem Karoli Baba's teachings on love were intricately connected to
the path of Bhakti Yoga—the yoga of devotion. Bhakti, for Maharaj-ji,
was not a mere ritual or external worship but a state of being, an
inner attunement to the divine. Devotion, in the form of surrender
and love, became the cornerstone of his spiritual philosophy.
Devotees engaged in devotional practices such as kirtan (chanting),
prayer, and the recitation of sacred texts, experiencing the
transformative power of Bhakti Yoga. Maharaj-ji often emphasized
that the sincerity of one's heart and the depth of one's love were
more significant than external rituals. Bhakti Yoga, in his teachings,
became a vehicle for direct communion with the divine—an avenue
for the lover to unite with the beloved.
A
A
What was the main objective of the Feed 1 Trial published in The Lancet?
Which population of infants was included in the Feed 1 Trial?
What type of study design was used (e.g., randomized controlled trial)?
How many participants were enrolled in the Feed 1 Trial?
What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for infants in this study?
What was the intervention tested in the Feed 1 Trial?
What was the control or comparison group given?
How was “early feeding” defined in the trial protocol?
What type of feeds (breast milk, formula, donor milk) were used in the intervention?
How was feeding tolerance measured in the study?
What was the primary outcome measure of the trial?
What were the secondary outcomes evaluated?
Did early enteral feeding increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC)?
What were the findings regarding time to reach full feeds?
How did early feeding affect hospital stay or growth outcomes?
What statistical methods were used to analyze the data?
Was the study adequately powered to detect significant differences?
Were there any ethical concerns raised during the trial?
How do the results of the Feed 1 Trial impact current neonatal feeding guidelines?
What future research did the authors recommend following the Feed 1 findings?
Would you like me to include the actual answers to these 20 questions from the Feed 1 Trial (as reported in The Lancet, 2023)?
Here are the 20 questions again with as many actual answers from the FEED1 trial (published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health) as available from publicly-reported sources:
What was the main objective of the FEED1 Trial?
Answer: To determine whether, in infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 weeks gestation, giving full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth (i.e., exclusively enteral fluids from day 1) reduces the length of infant hospital stay compared with gradual milk feeds plus intravenous fluids. The Lancet+3BioMed Central+3PMC+3
Which population of infants was included in the trial?
Answer: Infants born between 30+0 and 32+6 weeks gestation (inclusive) and eligible to be randomised within about 3 hours of birth. BioMed Central+2The Lancet+2
What type of study design was used?
Answer: A multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial. The Lancet+1
How many participants were enrolled?
Answer: 2,088 infants were recruited from 46 UK neonatal units over ~4.75 years. The Lancet+1
What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for infants?
Answer:
Inclusion: Infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 weeks gestation; eligible for randomisation within ~3 h of birth. BioMed Central
Exclusion: Infants with known congenital gastrointestinal anomalies making enteral feeding unsafe; small-for-gestational-age (<10th centile) with reversed end-diastolic flow on umbilical artery Doppler; mothers who had participated in previous pregnancy in trial. BioMed Central
What was the intervention tested?
Answer: The intervention arm received “full milk feeds” starting from day 1 (60 mL/kg/day of milk), with all fluid requirement enteral from birth (no intravenous fluids) wherever feasible. BioMed Central+1
What was the control or comparison group given?
Answer: The control group received gradual milk feeding according to usual local practice, which typically included slower increments of enteral feeds along with intravenous fluids or parenteral nutrition. BioMed Central+1
How was “early feeding” defined in the trial protocol?
Answer: Early feeding in this context meant initiating full milk feeds in the first 24 h after birth (day 1) with exclusively enteral fluids. BioMed Central+1
What type of feeds (breast milk, formula, donor milk) were used in the intervention?
Answer: The trial preferred mother’s expressed breast milk. If insufficient, supplementation with donor breast milk or formula milk was allowed (especially in the early days) as per local policy. BioMed Central+1
How was feeding tolerance measured in the study?
Answer: The protocol specified daily feeding logs until the infant receives at least 140 mL/kg/day of feeds sustained for 3 consecutive days. BioMed Central
What was the primary outcome measure of the trial?
Answer: The primary outcome was length of infant hospital stay (time until discharge) among eligible infants. BioMed Central+1
What were the secondary outcomes evaluated?
Answer: Secondary outcomes included time until objective discharge criteria met (e.g., weight ≥1700 g, full suck feed, off temperature support ≥24 h), rates of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), late-onset sepsis, hypoglycaemia, growth metrics, and six-week follow up, among others. BioMed Central+1
Did early enteral feeding increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)?
Answer: No increase in the risk of NEC was reported in the full-milk (day 1 feeding) arm compared with the gradual group. EurekAlert!+2The Lancet+2
What were the findings regarding time to reach full feeds?
Answer: While the protocol expected the early group might reach full enteral feeds sooner, publicly available press-releases state that babies fully milk-fed from day 1 required fewer medical interventions and less intensive-care time, though I could not locate the exact numeric difference in time to full feeds in the public summary. EurekAlert!
How did early feeding affect hospital stay or growth outcomes?
Answer: According to press releases: Babies in the full milk arm had a hospital stay similar to the control group (around 30–35 days) but appeared to require fewer medical interventions and less intensive-care time, without compromising safety. University of Nottingham+1
What statistical methods were used to analyze the data?
Answer: The statistical plan (from the protocol) indicated use of linear mixed models to compare mean length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for correlation within multiple births. Analyses will follow intention-to-treat, with sensitivity analyses for deaths prior to discharge. BioMed Central
Was the study adequately powered to detect significant differences?
Answer: Yes — the sample size was calculated as 2,088 infants to detect a difference of 2 days in mean length of stay with 90% power, assuming a standard deviation of 13 days and accounting for clustering from multiple births. BioMed Central
Were there any ethical concerns raised during the trial?
Answer: The protocol described use of a two-stage consent pathway (antenatal consent when possible; otherwise oral assent postnatally then full written consent later) because infants had to be randomised within ~3 hours of birth. Ethical approval was granted by the East Midlands – Derby Research Ethics Committee. BioMed Central
How do the results of the FEED1 Trial impact current neonatal feeding guidelines?
Answer: The results suggest that in infants born at ~30–33 weeks’ gestation, starting full enteral milk feeds from day 1 (rather than prolonged use of IV fluids with gradual feeding) appears safe (no increased NEC/other complications) and may reduce invasive interventions and intensive-care time. This may influence neonatal feeding practice and guideline recommendations toward earlier full enteral feeding in this population. EurekAlert!+1
What future research did the authors recommend following the FEED1 findings?
Answer: The protocol and press releases mention longer-term follow-up (at 2-years corrected gestational age) planned for neurodevelopmental outcomes, and suggestion of parallel studies in other countries/settings to assess generalisability, as the trial wasn’t powered for rarer outcomes like NEC or death. BioMed Central
A
Here are the 20 questions again with as many actual answers from the FEED1 trial (published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health) as available from publicly-reported sources:
What was the main objective of the FEED1 Trial?
Answer: To determine whether, in infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 weeks gestation, giving full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth (i.e., exclusively enteral fluids from day 1) reduces the length of infant hospital stay compared with gradual milk feeds plus intravenous fluids. (BioMed Central)
Which population of infants was included in the trial?
Answer: Infants born between 30+0 and 32+6 weeks gestation (inclusive) and eligible to be randomised within about 3 hours of birth. (BioMed Central)
What type of study design was used?
Answer: A multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial. (The Lancet)
How many participants were enrolled?
Answer: 2,088 infants were recruited from 46 UK neonatal units over ~4.75 years. (The Lancet)
What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for infants?
Answer:
Inclusion: Infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 weeks gestation; eligible for randomisation within ~3 h of birth. (BioMed Central)
Exclusion: Infants with known congenital gastrointestinal anomalies making enteral feeding unsafe; small-for-gestational-age (<10th centile) with reversed end-diastolic flow on umbilical artery Doppler; mothers who had participated in previous pregnancy in trial. (BioMed Central)
What was the intervention tested?
Answer: The intervention arm received “full milk feeds” starting from day 1 (60 mL/kg/day of milk), with all fluid requirement enteral from birth (no intravenous fluids) wherever feasible. (BioMed Central)
What was the control or comparison group given?
Answer: The control group received gradual milk feeding according to usual local practice, which typically included slower increments of enteral feeds along with intravenous fluids or parenteral nutrition. (BioMed Central)
How was “early feeding” defined in the trial protocol?
Answer: Early feeding in this context meant initiating full milk feeds in the first 24 h after birth (day 1) with exclusively enteral fluids. (BioMed Central)
What type of feeds (breast milk, formula, donor milk) were used in the intervention?
Answer: The trial preferred mother’s expressed breast milk. If insufficient, supplementation with donor breast milk or formula milk was allowed (especially in the early days) as per local policy. (BioMed Central)
How was feeding tolerance measured in the study?
Answer: The protocol specified daily feeding logs until the infant receives at least 140 mL/kg/day of feeds sustained for 3 consecutive days. (BioMed Central)
What was the primary outcome measure of the trial?
Answer: The primary outcome was length of infant hospital stay (time until discharge) among eligible infants. (BioMed Central)
What were the secondary outcomes evaluated?
Answer: Secondary outcomes included time until objective discharge criteria met (e.g., weight ≥1700 g, full suck feed, off temperature support ≥24 h), rates of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), late-onset sepsis, hypoglycaemia, growth metrics, and six-week follow up, among others. (BioMed Central)
Did early enteral feeding increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC)?
Answer: No increase in the risk of NEC was reported in the full-milk (day 1 feeding) arm compared with the gradual group. (EurekAlert!)
What were the findings regarding time to reach full feeds?
Answer: While the protocol expected the early group might reach full enteral feeds sooner, publicly available press-releases state that babies fully milk-fed from day 1 required fewer medical interventions and less intensive-care time, though I could not locate the exact numeric difference in time to full feeds in the public summary. (EurekAlert!)
How did early feeding affect hospital stay or growth outcomes?
Answer: According to press releases: Babies in the full milk arm had a hospital stay similar to the control group (around 30–35 days) but appeared to require fewer medical interventions and less intensive-care time, without compromising safety. (University of Nottingham)
What statistical methods were used to analyze the data?
Answer: The statistical plan (from the protocol) indicated use of linear mixed models to compare mean length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for correlation within multiple births. Analyses will follow intention-to-treat, with sensitivity analyses for deaths prior to discharge. (BioMed Central)
Was the study adequately powered to detect significant differences?
Answer: Yes — the sample size was calculated as 2,088 infants to detect a difference of 2 days in mean length of stay with 90% power, assuming a standard deviation of 13 days and accounting for clustering from multiple births. (BioMed Central)
Were there any ethical concerns raised during the trial?
Answer: The protocol described use of a two-stage consent pathway (antenatal consent when possible; otherwise oral assent postnatally then full written consent later) because infants had to be randomised within ~3 hours of birth. Ethical approval was granted by the East Midlands – Derby Research Ethics Committee. (BioMed Central)
How do the results of the FEED1 Trial impact current neonatal feeding guidelines?
Answer: The results suggest that in infants born at ~30–33 weeks’ gestation, starting full enteral milk feeds from day 1 (rather than prolonged use of IV fluids with gradual feeding) appears safe (no increased NEC/other complications) and may reduce invasive interventions and intensive-care time. This may influence neonatal feeding practice and guideline recommendations toward earlier full enteral feeding in this population. (EurekAlert!)
What future research did the authors recommend following the FEED1 findings?
Answer: The protocol and press releases mention longer-term follow-up (at 2-years corrected gestational age) planned for neurodevelopmental outcomes, and suggestion of parallel studies in other countries/settings to assess generalisability, as the trial wasn’t powered for rarer outcomes like NEC or death. (BioMed Central)
If you like, I can pull up more detailed numeric data — e.g., exact hospital stay days, subgroup analyses, growth outcomes, and full paper data tables — from the published article of FEED1. Would you like that?
A
Here’s a bullet-point gist of the article “Importance Of Goddess Lakshmi Worship On Thursday In Bengal” by Abhilash Rajendran:
In Bengal, Lakshmi is revered not only during Kojagari Lakshmi Puja but also every Thursday as the two-armed (Dvi-bhuja) Lakshmi.
This form represents simplicity, nourishment, and domestic well-being, rather than grandeur.
She is seen as Dhanya Lakshmi, the goddess of grain, food, and sustenance, more than of gold and riches.
Bengalis believe that where Lakshmi is worshipped on Thursdays, hunger, scarcity, and discord never exist.
Bhagavad Gita (10.41) – all beauty and prosperity are sparks of divine splendor, interpreted as Lakshmi’s grace.
Vishnu Purana (1.9) – narrates Lakshmi’s birth from the Samudra Manthan, symbolizing abundance after divine effort.
The Thursday Lakshmi of Bengal embodies a tender, nurturing domestic spirit, not the celestial queen of Vaikuntha.
The Lakshmi Panchali, a folk hymn, tells of Lakshmi blessing homes and granaries.
Offerings are simple: coins, sesame sweets, bananas, and taaler bora (palm cakes).
The simplicity shows that devotion, not luxury, pleases the goddess.
Atharva Veda (7.155): where Lakshmi abides, there is purity and fortune; where she departs, there is want.
Lakshmi symbolizes the golden rice fields, granaries, and kitchen hearth — the heart of agrarian Bengal.
Despite urbanization, the Thursday Lakshmi Puja continues in Bengal homes.
Women light lamps, recite the Panchali, and prepare sesame sweets.
The ritual reinforces gratitude, humility, and the sanctity of food and family life.
Bhagavad Gita (3.13) underscores this spirit: food becomes sacred when shared and offered in gratitude.
Lakshmi is affectionately seen as a daughter returning home weekly, welcomed with warmth and love.
Her gentle departure each week is marked with prayers for her return.
This emotional and spiritual connection reflects Bengal’s fusion of devotion and affection.
Thursday Lakshmi worship is more than ritual — it’s a way of life.
It teaches reverence for nourishment, gratitude for nature, and faith in the ever-giving Mother.
Lakshmi reminds devotees that true abundance lies in virtue, humility, and thankfulness, not in material wealth.
Would you like me to make a shorter one-paragraph summary or a visual infographic-style summary next?
A
Quantum Theory is Baffling but Correct: Quantum physics, despite being described as "silly" by critics like Michio Kaku and Albert Einstein, is experimentally proven to be unquestionably correct.
Proof: Nonlocality and Entanglement: The theory is supported by experimental proofs of phenomena like nonlocality and entanglement (where particles are linked regardless of distance).
The Double-Slit Experiment: This experiment, which Richard Feynman called the "heart of quantum mechanics," illustrates the confounding nature of the quantum realm.
Particle-Wave Duality: When single particles (like photons or electrons) are fired at a screen with two slits, the detector records an interference pattern, meaning each single particle acted like a wave and seemingly went through both slits at once.
The Role of the Observer: The particle only "decides" to act like a particle (going through only one slit) when an observer (a detector) is introduced to monitor which slit it passes through, thereby "limiting the possibilities."
Consciousness as the Observer/Limiter: The text draws an analogy between the quantum observer and consciousness in the brain, suggesting that consciousness is the "hand that closes one of the slits," making either/or decisions within the brain's gray matter.
Consciousness as Fundamental: This role implies that consciousness is not merely a product of the brain but is fundamental and complementary to matter, a view supported by physicist Henry Stapp, who argues that free will cannot be explained by known physical laws.
Ultimate Entanglement (Speculation): The text closes by questioning whether this same consciousness could allow humans to transcend "individual separateness" and become "blissfully entangled with the source of our existence."
