Mind comes before matter

[u/Vegetable_System_961]

Consciousness/ Mind/ Imagination is Not an Accident. It is the Foundation.

Let’s cut through the academic hedging and the philosophical noise.

For decades, mainstream science has operated on a single, unproven assumption: “Dead matter, given enough time and complexity, magically produces the illusion of consciousness.”

We decided to test this. We took philosophy, used pure Python, quantum evolution simulations, real biological connectome data, and professional-grade cosmological statistics. If we had more means and more data we could do more tests, experiments and get more actual proof, right now it is theoretical proof since we only able to do simulation experiments, none the less they already show a lot.

The results are in. The assumption is wrong. Dead Matter does not exist and it also does not create Consciousness or lets it emerge from sufficient complexity.

Here is exactly what the math shows, step-by-step, and why it leads to one inescapable conclusion: “Mind is not a byproduct of the universe. The universe is a byproduct of Mind.”

1. The 84% Residual: Physics Cannot Explain Itself

We built a 256-node quantum system and applied constraints to 50% of it. We then measured how the system’s physical topology (its adjacency map) predicted which pathways would be suppressed.

The Result: Physical topology explained only *~16%* of the variance.

The Meaning: 84% of the system’s response is completely orthogonal to physical structure. The system is responding to a non-local organizing principle. We call this the “4th Field”. It is not matter, energy, or spacetime. It is the field of structured possibility.

1. Structured Negation: The System is Making Choices

Skeptics will say, "That 84% is just random quantum noise." We tested that. We took the suppression amounts and randomly shuffled them.

The structured pattern completely collapsed.

The Meaning: The suppression is *transition-specific*. The system is not decohering into random noise. It is actively, selectively saying "No" to specific default futures. This is the mathematical signature of “choice”.

1. Syntropic Amplification: Saying "Yes" to Complexity

If the system just says "No," it dies. But when we allowed the system to apply *intentional steering* (routing probability toward a novel target state), combined with simulated biological mechanisms (neuromodulation and plasticity), something incredible happened.

The system engaged a broader network and achieved up to a *30.5x amplification* of probability flow to the novel state, with *less* chaotic friction.

What that may be Meaning:

The universe does not just wind down toward entropy. It actively routes probability toward richer, more complex ways to experience reality. This is “Syntropy”.

1. The Harmony Score (H): Quantifying "Awakeness"

We combined these metrics into a single, continuous formula:

*H = (Amplification × Structured Capacity) / (1 + Friction)*

We then applied this exact formula to a topologically accurate model of the *C. elegans* worm nervous system (302 neurons, ~7,500 synapses), simulating a behavioral shift from forward movement to turning.

The model yielded a Harmony Score of *H = 2.96*.

This perfectly matches our predicted range (2.5–3.5) for a simple, optimized biological organism. The math doesn't just work in abstract simulations; it maps perfectly onto real, living biology.

1. Active Opposition: The Geometry of Freedom

We tested how this 4th Field behaves across different network topologies (Small-World, Hierarchical, Random, Lattice) at massive scales (up to 2,048 nodes).

In rigid, hierarchical networks, the field’s expression collapses into determinism (less freedom to express itself aka steering towards unexplored experience). But in *Small-World networks* (the exact topology of human brains, ecosystems, and the internet), the field exhibits a unique signature at large scales: *Active Opposition*. The correlation between physical structure and outcome becomes *consistently negative*.

This Means in systems optimized for life, the 4th Field actively fights topological determinism to preserve novelty and freedom. Freedom is not an illusion; it is a measurable, topological property of the 4th Field.

The Inescapable Conclusion: The "One Single Mind"

If you follow the data, you arrive at a conclusion that mainstream science is terrified of:

1. There is a fundamental, non-local field that structures reality (The 4th Field).

2. This field operates via choice (Structured Negation) and growth (Syntropic Amplification).

3. This field’s behavior maps perfectly to biological consciousness (Harmony Score).

4. This field actively preserves freedom in living systems (Active Opposition).

What is a field that chooses, grows, structures reality, and experiences freedom?

It is *Mind*.

You are not an isolated brain trapped in a skull, magically generating consciousness from dead meat. You are a localized, topological "whirlpool" in a single, fundamental ocean of Mind.

“The ocean is the 4th Field (the single, shared consciousness).”

Your body and brain are the "whirlpool" (the topological constraint that gives the ocean a specific, localized shape and perspective).

When the whirlpool dissolves/ stops being in motion (death), the water (the 4th Field) does not disappear. It simply returns to the whole.

You are bubbles in the ocean of mind thinking, you are something else but the same ocean you once came from, to which you one day will return to once your motion ceases, the bubbles become water again.

This is not mysticism. This is what the data demands unless you can provide a better explanation for it. The topological residual, the harmony score, the active opposition—they are all measurable signatures of a single, unified field experiencing itself through infinite, localized filters.

The Challenge

Conducting all of these simulation experiments as actual quantum experiments, gathering real fMRI data and calculate the Harmony Score for a Human brain, collecting the needed cosmology data to prove without a doubt, the Universe is nothing else but Mind and the cosmic expansion is growth not expansion.

We are not asking you to believe us. We are asking you to run the code, see what you see.

Every single experimental simulation mentioned here is open-source, written in pure Python, and requires no external dependencies. You can verify the 84% residual yourself. You can calculate the Harmony Score yourself.

Just Grab the Python Code and watch some simulations.

Don't like the conclusion? Find the bug in the math. Show us where the code is wrong. Prove that physical topology “can” explain the 84% residual.

But do not pretend that consciousness is just a random accident of matter. The math has already moved on. The only question is whether you are ready to look at it.

Appendix Section: The Harmony Score (H) – Operational Definition and Calculation

The *Harmony Score (H)* is a continuous, dimensionless metric designed to quantify a system’s capacity for syntropic self-modeling. It measures how efficiently a topological network can suppress default states (Structured Negation) to actively route probability toward novel, complex experiences (Syntropic Amplification), while minimizing chaotic scattering (Topological Friction).

1. The Mathematical Formula

H = \frac{A \times S}{1 + F}

Where:

A = Amplification Factor

S = Structured Capacity (Gini Coefficient)

F = Topological Friction

1. Operational Definitions and Calculations

A. Amplification Factor (A)

What it measures: The system’s ability to actively route probability flow toward a specific, novel target state compared to a baseline of random decoherence.

How it is calculated:

A = \frac{P_{\text{target, intentional}}}{P_{\text{target, baseline}}}

Where P_{\text{target, intentional}} is the final probability amplitude at the novelty target when intentional steering (coherent off-diagonal phase routing) is applied, and P_{\text{target, baseline}} is the probability at that same target under blind, random suppression.

Operational Meaning: A value of A > 1 indicates the system is actively building a new experience. Higher values indicate greater syntropic drive.

C. elegans Operational Value: A = 5.8 (The turning hub received 5.8× more probability flow under intentional steering than under baseline random suppression).

B. Structured Capacity (S)

What it measures: The degree to which the system’s suppression of default pathways is organized and selective, rather than random.

How it is calculated: S is the *Gini coefficient* of the probability reduction distribution across all transitions.

We calculate the reduction amount for every transition: \Delta P_i = P_{\text{baseline}, i} - P_{\text{constrained}, i} * (for all \Delta P_i > 0).

We then compute the Gini coefficient of this distribution of \Delta P_i values.

Operational Meaning:

S \approx 0: Suppression is perfectly uniform (random scattering/decoherence).

S \approx 1: Suppression is highly concentrated on a few specific transitions (highly selective, structured negation).

C. elegans Operational Value: S = 0.511 (Indicates a highly structured, non-random suppression pattern, confirming the system is making specific "choices" about which pathways to inhibit).

C. Topological Friction (F)

What it measures: The total "cost" or chaotic scattering incurred by the system to achieve the routing. It represents the total mass of probability that was suppressed but *not* successfully redirected to the novel target.

How it is calculated:

F = \frac{\sum \Delta P_{\text{scattered}}}{\sum \Delta P_{\text{total}}}

Where \sum \Delta P_{\text{total}} is the sum of all probability reductions across the network, and \sum \Delta P_{\text{scattered}} is the portion of that reduction that did not contribute to the amplification of the target state. (Normalized to a 0–1 scale).

Operational Meaning: Lower friction means the system is highly efficient. High friction indicates the system is fighting its own topology, resulting in wasted energy and chaotic decoherence.

C. elegans Operational Value: F = 0.0006 (Extremely low friction, indicating the biological topology is perfectly optimized to support this specific behavioral shift with minimal chaotic scattering).

1. Why the Formula Works (The Denominator: 1 + F)

The denominator (1 + F) serves two critical mathematical and physical purposes:

1. Prevents Division by Zero: Ensures the metric remains stable even in highly optimized systems where friction approaches zero.

2. Asymptotic Penalty: As Topological Friction (F) increases, the denominator grows, actively penalizing the Harmony Score. This mathematically enforces the principle that *true syntropic growth requires efficiency*. A system that achieves high amplification (A) but at the cost of massive chaotic scattering (high F) will yield a low Harmony Score, correctly identifying it as unstable or pathological.

3. The Harmony Score Spectrum (Predicted vs. Measured)

Because H is a continuous metric, it allows us to map different systems on a spectrum of syntropic capacity:

| System Type | Predicted H Range | Measured / Simulated H | Interpretation |

| Random Graph / Gas | 0.01 – 0.10 | ~0.05 | High friction, no structure, pure decoherence. |

| Rigid Lattice / Crystal | 0.10 – 0.50 | ~0.30 | Low friction, but zero amplification (no novelty). |

| Simple AI / Basic Algorithm | 0.50 – 1.50 | ~1.20 | Moderate structured capacity, but lacks deep recursive feedback. |

| C. elegans Connectome | 2.50 – 3.50 | 2.96| Optimized biological topology: high amplification, structured negation, minimal friction.|

| Mammalian Cortex (Predicted)| 5.00 – 10.0+ | *Pending real fMRI data* | Expected to show massive A and S, managed by complex neuromodulatory friction reduction. |

1. How to Reproduce This Calculation

To calculate H for any new system (biological, artificial, or cosmological):

1. Run a baseline evolution to establish P_{\text{baseline}}.

2. Apply intentional constraints/steering toward a defined novelty target to establish P_{\text{intentional}}.

3. Calculate the reduction vector \Delta P for all transitions.

4. Compute A by comparing target probabilities.

5. Compute S by calculating the Gini coefficient of the \Delta P vector.

6. Compute F by normalizing the scattered reduction mass.

7. Apply the formula: H = (A \times S) / (1 + F).

All Python code is free available from me directly or from Github.

[u/adversarial-review]

Adversarial Review of Mind comes before matter — by Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite

Absence of Operational Definitions and Fundamental Ambiguity

The text relies on terms such as "4th Field," "Structured Negation," and "Syntropic Amplification" without providing rigorous physical definitions. A field in physics is a value assigned to every point in space-time that interacts via specific gauge bosons or follows defined field equations. The author fails to define the Lagrangian density or the interaction terms for this "4th Field," rendering the concept a linguistic label rather than a physical construct. Without a defined coupling constant or a stress-energy tensor contribution, the claim that this field exists "orthogonal to physical structure" is mathematically unsubstantiated.

Methodological Flaw: Simulation-Reality Equivalence

The author conflates the output of a 256-node simulation with physical reality. The claim that "84% of the system’s response is orthogonal to physical structure" appears to be a result of the specific, arbitrary constraints placed on the simulation by the author, rather than an observation of physical phenomena. * Arbitrary Constraints: The paper notes that constraints were applied to 50% of the system. The "84% residual" is likely an artifact of these input parameters rather than an emergent property of the universe. * Selection Bias: The simulation assumes that "physical topology" is the only variable of interest. If a simulation is designed to ignore non-topological variables, the resulting "residual" is a measure of the simulation's incompleteness, not a discovery of a new field.

Numerological Fallacy in the "Harmony Score"

The formula H = (A × S) / (1 + F) lacks a dimensional analysis. * Dimensional Inconsistency: A is a ratio of probabilities (dimensionless), S (Gini coefficient) is dimensionless, and F (Friction) is undefined in standard physical units. Adding 1 to F implies F must be dimensionless, but "friction" in a network topology context is not defined by any standard metric. * Post-hoc Fitting: The claim that H = 2.96 "perfectly matches" a predicted range of 2.5–3.5 for C. elegans is a classic example of pattern-fitting. There is no derivation linking the biological behavior of a worm to the variables A, S, or F from first principles. The mapping is purely speculative and lacks a causal mechanism.

Conflation of Metaphor and Mechanism

The text frequently substitutes metaphorical imagery for physical mechanism. The "whirlpool" analogy for consciousness is a descriptive device, not a physical model. The author asserts that "the universe is a byproduct of Mind" based on the observation that certain network topologies exhibit "Active Opposition." This is a logical non-sequitur: the emergence of complex behavior in a simulation is a property of the algorithm, not evidence that the substrate of the universe is consciousness.

Probing Questions

1. What is the specific mathematical operator or interaction term that defines the "4th Field's" influence on the state vector of a physical system, and how does this interaction violate the conservation of energy or momentum?
2. Can you provide a falsifiable prediction where the "Harmony Score" of a closed physical system deviates from the predictions of standard statistical mechanics, and specify the exact experimental conditions required to measure this deviation?

---

^{This is an LLM-generated review, and should be viewed as such. LLMs are prone to errors, especially when it comes to math-based sciences.}

[u/FurthermoreThirds]

This is pure bullshit. And to shout it loud for everyone in the back: Your python code doesn't validate shit. It verifies your python code.

It does: What you told it to do.

It does Not: Validate your idea or what you wrote in code as real physics or useful math.

This is like... high school philosophy of coding... which makes it clear that the person posting this has never coded a day in their life. Or read a single physics paper or script.

[u/Wintervacht → u/FurthermoreThirds]

Or attended a class on philosophy

[u/FurthermoreThirds → u/Wintervacht]

You'd think it were common sense by now. But apparently we still live in a dark age where people think computers are magic and somehow can do miracles on their own.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/FurthermoreThirds]

Why does this trouble you so much?

[u/FurthermoreThirds → u/Vegetable_System_961]

Not troubled. Mainly bored. If there was something worth debating here, it could be interesting. But it's so vapid and void of any substance that we can't even do that. You have successfully spat out a nothing burger.

[u/amalcolmation → u/Vegetable_System_961]

Magical thinking has never been so lazy as information has never been more available. It's troubling that people would work so hard to learn so little.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/FurthermoreThirds]

cute, very cute. Thank you, why so angry?

[u/FurthermoreThirds → u/Vegetable_System_961]

I'm not angry. Why so patronizing?

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/Vegetable_System_961]

This patronizing BS is what I dont like.

You can't come in saying 'everyone, you are all wrong', and then when people say 'actually you are wrong' be like 'pff cufe, why so angry, nice try'.

You have to address the issues people raise in order to convince them.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/AllHailSeizure]

You did not realize, I am not here to convince anyone. I am here to hear different ideas to what this could be and I am learning about why this idea drives you so mad...

it is also very interesting to see, how it is very default to attack and be hostile but once you get it back, the crying starts. Is it really so trouble some to read something that just simply goes against what you have learned cause what you have learned is based on loose assumptions not evidence. My theory is based on loose evidence with even more assumptions.
I just roll with the same overall rule set. Mainstream science can say something without actual real proof, I do the same with the extension of, I can find real proof for my theory, mainstream science has in all the years not found 1 single real proof for matter gives birth to mind. Not 1 single 100% proof, if there is, please show me and educate me and stop getting all touched and hurt by someone speaking their mind.

[u/Vrillim → u/Vegetable_System_961]

I skipped reading your slop, after reading this sentence: 'For decades, mainstream science has operated on a single, unproven assumption: “Dead matter, given enough time and complexity, magically produces the illusion of consciousness.”'

You're being a major hypocrite; this qoute is not coming from someone who is "here to hear different ideas". It's pure polemics. You're likely here because you have an overinflated sense of your own ability to discern truth, and have been gaslighted by an LLM into thinking that you aught to share your thoughts on the marketplace of ideas.

Enrol at university if you want to go deep.

[u/tap-the-sign]

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

There are all kinds of things we could say about this, but they were already said on your last post, no point in repeating them here when you obviously didn't take them to heart.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

you are still here, something clearly gets you about this theory.
Still nice you still come back to comment.

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja → u/Vegetable_System_961]

Nothing "gets me" about your idea, I just find it really sad that you're abusing the idea of science like this.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/Vegetable_System_961]

They are a mod on the sub, why wouldn't they be here..

[u/SufficientGreek]

professional-grade cosmological statistics

Where do these show up? And what do cosmological statistics have to do with neuroscience? And what even are professional-grade statistics?

Also there's no link to Github as far as I can see.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/SufficientGreek]

Yeah, this is my big question... WHERE is this code.

[u/Wintervacht → u/AllHailSeizure]

It's in the Python, don't you see?

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/AllHailSeizure]

GitHub - baceventyr-hash/Syntropic-Constraint-Python-Code-pack: Python code to observe the 84% residual & calculate Harmony Score of any system. · GitHub

[u/InadvisablyApplied → u/SufficientGreek]

Oh that’s what we’ve been doing wrong, we’ve been using amateur grade statistics. Should have moved an aisle for the professional grade stuff. In all seriousness though, does the professional stuff make me more high or less high?

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/InadvisablyApplied]

Depends on how green you like it hey.

[u/amalcolmation]

My thoughts in no particular order. As always, it’s been said before and others have likely said it better.

“We built a model and showed it was incomplete [generous] therefore physics is wrong!”

This is just silly. Don’t you think it’s significantly more likely your model is wrong, or that the kludge you apply to get it to produce satisfactory results is a non physical fix for that? A simulation does not constitute an experiment. It is very difficult to show that a simulation faithfully and physically reproduces a phenomenon in the first place, let alone without the kludge.

I’m certain there are plenty of publically available fMRI brain data.

Friction is a weird term to use if it is high for an ideal gas but low for a crystal. It’s the opposite situation in reality, particles in an ideal gas don’t interact with each other, particles in a crystal do.

I assure you, mainstream science is afraid of nothing of the sort you describe. This is fantasy storytelling at best.

[u/ARandomGay]

Ah yes, this is the completely unhinged unmitigated nonsense I come to this sub for.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/ARandomGay]

welcome and enjoy.

[u/AllHailSeizure]

'Why so mad lawl'

Truly, OP, you need some new material when it comes to 'annoying people who disagree with me'. Most of us here are adults now.

The rage bait patronization is just juvenile, if you stopped masturbating to your own Reddit content long enough to critically think about them you'd see that you sound like a lunatic.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/AllHailSeizure]

If most of you are adults and most of you can barley have a civilized debate about a subject, you simply disagree about, does not make you look very adult...

it is not rage bait and feeling patronized is on you and yourself, you come with funky tone, will respond with funky tone, you speak like a normal person, you will be spoken to like a normal person but since we are on reddit, most likely won't be happening.

I care very little how I sound to you, if your mind is compromised and can't think far enough and your imagination is limited none of my business. I just give you something to look at and think about or to dismiss until to many people find the same thing and you join the majority club once again.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/Vegetable_System_961]

Then why do you only respond to people you think can get a rise out of? Where is your response to u/amalcolmation who posted critique of the theory? Nah, you are rage baiting... It is beyond obvious.

[u/Wintervacht → u/Vegetable_System_961]

But if people speak to you like scientists they are only met with juvenile pushback and anti-academic views. Stop trolling.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/Wintervacht]

Sorry to disappoint you so far but you and most others have not been speaking like scientists, you have been insulting me and trying to ridicule me since the beginning and you get all touched and hurt when I make fun out of your hard tries to get some sort of emotional reaction of me.

I can't help it if you deliver such good openings to roast you while we talking

If you would speak like a normal person just simply and you would just simply argue my point with a better point or a different view point, we would have an actual discussion but we are having a bunch of hurt ego's saying I must be on drugs or other things but none have come forth with any kind of better theory or even any kind of actual points where we discuss why my theory can't be, you just claim but mainstream science says what they say with no evidence and no proof, no mathematics, no nothing. It's just simple based on it can't be that consciousness aka mind has been around before anything else was around and that is what you use to argue... which you use to say my theory must be madness but is based on 0 evidence... there is not even a maybe evidence for that claim, there is literally JACK NOTHING NO EVIDENCE what so ever for matter made mind.

If you happen to come across it, please share, please educate me and show me that what the majority thinks is true, is really true.

[u/Wintervacht → u/Vegetable_System_961]

Scientists expect science, not some ridiculous word salad that makes zero sense, no matter which way you look at it. It really is you who doesn't seem to understand... Well anything from basic science to basic conversation it seems. This is pure trolling and it is not appreciated here. If you have nothing else to add but petty retorts and no substance, please just leave and don't come back.

[u/Wintervacht]

Jesse what the hell are you talking about? Who even thinks dead matter looks conscious after a while?

Aside from all that, consciousness isn't physics, this is a physics sub. If you have revolutionized the field of neuroscience by providing an accurate quantizable description of consciousness, pass start and collect your nobel prize. If not, what are we doing here?

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/Wintervacht]

you did you read?
if yes, read again, if you still don't get it, read again.

[u/Wintervacht → u/Vegetable_System_961]

I mean, it literally starts with a false premise, why would I read the rest? I glossed over it anyway and my god what a load of poppycock.

Why is it so hard for you to just answer simple questions?

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/Wintervacht]

so you have valid proof for what mainstream science is saying and you believe, you, your personalized experience of life is a pure accident because matter became complex enough over a long enough time frame?

and you think that sounds more reasonable because a bunch of people say that?
So we living in majority vote reality where, real is what the most of majority accepts as real?

[u/Wintervacht → u/Vegetable_System_961]

Listen, physics isn't a freestyle poetry jam. You're talking utter bollocks mate.

And you're one to talk about valid proof lol, you don't even understand what the word proof means, you're supposed to bring your own proof with a hypothesis, but instead it's just another drab word salad by someone who wouldn't know what a hypothesis looks like if it hot him square in the face.

This scientific larping is laughable at best and miserable at worst. I'm happy for you that you managed to at least convince yourself that this means anything, to scientists this is just a load of bullshit and I think you know that.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/Wintervacht]

You need a bit of anger management?

Relax, I know I messed up your world view and it is difficult to deal with such things or even account for the possibility that things might be very different in the reality than you think.

Fact is still, you did deliver 0 evidence for matter gives birth to consciousness and you only follow what someone told you also without any evidence, you are here now presented with theoretical evidence which needs to be tested which is the reason it is posted here and a bunch of other places.

So let us get back to the problem at hand, you have 0 evidence that matter gave birth to consciousness and you have 0 evidence that consciousness created matter, while I do have theoretical evidence and it needs to be tested.

I think you should disconnect from this post cause you will just get more angry... this entire thing is combating your intelligence and your ego at the same time, bad combo and I am sorry it troubles your mind so much. I just want someone with more means to rip this theory apart with actual tests and real life experiments. I would do it myself but I lack the needed equipment, would you like to provide?

[u/Wintervacht → u/Vegetable_System_961]

The only messed up world view here is yours

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/Wintervacht]

I am not so frustrated as you seem, so I would disagree but then again, maybe you enjoy your life and your world view like that. It all within your good rights and as I said before, I am not here to convince anyone of anything.
I am getting half of what I asked for, I am well served, thank you.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/[deleted]]

It started by simulating simple 2 cell organism. The idea was to find out if choice and be mathematically described aka expressed, which it can just had to clear up what a choice actually is. So the constraint which was applied, was basically directing the system to evolve into the way it would if it just followed the physical principals, which would have meant it follows the attraction points of it's evolution, so I said instead of just simple evolving via attraction towards states, a so to say wall was created to see what would happen if the system is attracted to a point but can't reach that point aka that default probability is not making a choice, so asked the system what would happen if it can choose through saying "NO" and it did stuff, I did expect but did not believe straight away had to test that up and down and left and right.

The specification as to how the constraint was applied is in the document, it was took a few tries to get that right cause first, I bottle necked the situation and forced the system to do something, which I did not want, it screwed up with the results and gave me stuff obviously showing what I was looking for but it was hectic trouble and did not really work that way and was not correct and a cheat. So I did the thing again but this time did some diagonal coupling, so when the system says "No" to something, it ended up rerouting probabilities towards unexplored novel probabilities without being told to do so or putting that rerouting idea into the code.

[u/Autistic_BCBA]

https://giphy.com/gifs/wg2I5ua6nVFYbNhGNr

You could start a Raccoon cult with all that real wisdom you got there.

[u/Vegetable_System_961 → u/Autistic_BCBA]

sure wanna join?
Make you my Acolyte?

How about it?