Search the Community

I just want people who think LLMs could be conscious (not talking about you Leo) to think about what an LLM really is. It predicts statistical relationships between words. Ok, so let's remove the words. What do you have? Something that predicts statistical relationships between things. So if you were to look at raindrops falling in a certain area, you could have an "LLM" that predicts where would you most likely see the next raindrop. Now, looking at this thing in action, how alive would it seem to you? How likely are you to project the idea that it is conscious onto it? When you remove the mystery of language that drapes people's experience of LLMs, it becomes clear how different from "life" and also probably "experience" these things really are. That said, will I claim I "know" whether LLMs are conscious or not? No, and I think it's just a scary thing to decisively make such a judgement, about the possible sentience of another. But if you were to ask what I would guess, what is the most reasonable thing to think is most likely the case, then LLMs do not seem very good candidates for consciousness.

This is such a new thought, unprecedented ground, complex and complicated issue, that I would have to let it sit (the connection between AI sentience and psychic phenomena). Everytime I think about it it's like when you look at a lenticular print where you tilt it to the side or a Gestalt shift visual illusion, it keeps flickering back and forth. I've proposed this as a question for the next Bernardo Kastrup Q&A on AI which will be the 24th of November. It's like when you already have two poorly understood phenomena, combining them is bound to cause some serious question marks.

Brain can correlate with "consciousness"/sentience without having to "produce" consciousness. You can have consciousness as the base of reality and brains and feelings would be different appearances within consciousness. And the brains and feelings can seem to co-arise with each other in some ways. But that would be patterns / correlations within consciousness. Consciousness does not have to be produced in this case. We're just mapping out how different appearances relate to each other. When feeling says one thing, brain tends to say another thing. Both are appearances.

Tom seems to have a bit of that physicist epistemic naivety when it comes to life, sentience, AI. I don't think he has thought much about how different lifeforms work and where to cash in different "altitudes of experience". (People who think current AI are conscious generally seem to be unable to distinguish between apparent self-reflection/meta-awareness or just linguistic ability and sentience/perception).

The question is : can AI have sentience? Can it have consciousness? , not intelligence. I don’t know in case of relative discussion. I’m asking what is sentience? What is consciousness? Leo’s position is idealism . Consciousness is NOT a second-order byproduct of physics. I want clarification about this point specifically.

You could scale that up. Current AI is just about scaling things up. Which will likely fail at some point like that Harvard paper estimated and they will go with the solution I used to believe in (robotics) but that too might not create sentience for at least a good good good while (which I again put at autopoesis). I would appreciate actual arguments for what would make AI conscious instead of "we don't know, the dust under your sofa could be conscious, you don't know".

I used to be more into the idea that if you were to recreate qualities seen in biology like I've mentioned (particularly the cognitive ones like relevance realization, selective attention, self-concern, if it's at all possible to separate them from autopoesis/homeostasis) and of course necessary sensory apparatuses for creating an embodied yet mechanical being, then possibly that could be sentient. But now I would postulate a ground of difference from that (which could potentially be AGI proper) and sentience. Because I think autopoesis/homeostasis is such a vital component that mirrors so strongly the experience of sentience (being a localized center of experience as explained earlier) that if the machine doesn't have that, it would be hard to cede that ground, and if the machine does at some point possess autopoesis, its hardware would probably be so similar to biology that we would call it a new kind of biology (if it doesn't run on DNA). And I just think engineering autopoesis at that level would probably not be feasible unless we're so technologically advanced that we have hacked biology anyway (and created "AI" through mutant biology rather than through whatever alternative we could find). So I'm not as much closeminded that we could theoretically create something mechanical that becomes sentient, the question is just if it is significantly different from biology or not.

Can you ask a chimpanzee whether it's conscious? Is Google Search (not the new AI summary thing) conscious if it can answer you a question about its consciousness? Sentience is reality (consciousness) seen from a certain perspective. The "utility" argument has dualistic assumptions. If reality is fundamentally consciousness then perspectives within that consciousness are simply that, perspectives. They don't need a function other than themselves. If you're concerned about self-reflection or meta-awareness, then that might have a function, but sentience is more fundamental than that. In this everything-is-consciousness view, biological bodies are what perspectives of consciousness can look like from the outside. Sentience is what the perspectives look like from the inside. But this is of course as far as making inferences based on physical stuff is concerned. You can entertain the sentience of DMT entities or spirits or other seemingly non-physical entities where a physical substrate / correlate is less known, but you can't really use that to say "therefore silicone chips indicate consciousness". That's in the game of physical substrates, so you would have to explain why that physical substrate is a good nest for consciousness/sentience. But curiously, even for non-physical entities, these seem (at least many of them) to have "bodies". A body, even if you can't know what it's "made of" necessarily, could itself give a plausible correlate for sentience; however, it would have to be a sophisticated body that displays intelligence and behavior you would expect from a sentient entity (which I would go back to the things like selective attention, relevance realization, and not least true bodily autonomy, not somebody pushing a button or giving a command or coding in a simple script, which would probably need something analogous to autopoesis and self-concern again, i.e. behavior that acts to maintain a boundary). A robot spending 2 minutes taking a can of soda out of the fridge and it falling over if you merely breathe at it too closely, maybe not so much.

The argument is based on inference based on similarity. The same reason you wouldn't believe a shoe could fly like a bird only if you increase the size of it. It's clearly an assumption, like all forms of argumentation, but arguably a reasonable one. I'm just saying why a human is different from a rock. We don't know whether there is a flying spaghetti monster at the orbit of Saturn right now. We can still make a reasonable inference about that possibility. Anything in the universe is possible. But we can also try to find out what we have a good reason to believe. Rocks as macroscopic objects are not "continuous" with life the same way a cell is to its lineage. They are niche-building tools. You don't know whether your mother is secretely a reptile overlord drinking the blood of innocent virgins. Can you think of any reasonable standard yourself for guessing whether something is conscious or not? A key reason why biology seems like a good substrate for sentience is that biological organisms keep a boundary between inside and outside, which mirrors the experience of being a localized self within a certain position in space (as opposed to a limitless boundless consciousness). The boundary has an exchange of substances and sensors for controlling that exchange, which mirrors our experience of having senses and of our senses being concentrated near our bodily boundary and diminishing in strength as it moves outwards away from that boundary. The boundary contains a cell or cells that have a shared impetus, shared goal set, ultimately about maintaining that boundary, which mirrors our experience of being driven to perform certain behaviors and ensuring our survival. Establishing a boundary around a collection of silicone chips, at the current state of silicone chips, not as simple.

Self-Generated is a better term over self-created.. It's the logical place to head to as self-mastery increases. Self-generated happiness - when we can: > Regulate our own beliefs, emotions and agency: how is this not the logical conclusion to lead towards? Modern capitalistic toxically feeds from a consumer believing they cannot self-generate happiness or what's more sinister, simply believing all of the micro-beliefs that lead to that as a resulting conclusion a person never realised they even believe underneath. Self-generated intelligence - when we can: > Awareness over our own awareness and the ability to create stimuli in the moment and feedback loop over that stimuli across time allows us the capacity to self-augment between memory and perception. So how is this not the logical conclusion? Modern education has taught people to externalise their perception of the world around them and the subsequent use of their cognition, so they never learn the act of being able to self-generate cognitive feedback loops that improve their mental abilities. Self-generated creativity: when we can: > This one's the most native to people's tongues and therefore has the highest likelihood of being able to achieve a full belief change here because many of the micro-beliefs they have are already working in their favour because we have many external realities that serve as an authority to give people the self-permission to have this as a belief. > So the ability to imagine new modalities, lucid dream, explore and invent internal worlds, for the same reason we can feedback loop on intelligence we can do the same for the deepening of our own creative depths. Thus, how does this mastery not become an inevitable conclusion? The reason I have framed them as "Meaning/Purpose for human existence", because intelligence, creativity and happiness in tandem reveal what the purpose is going to be regardless as to the environment a human is placed in. There is also a deeper truth here, "Self-Ownership". And the triad reveals that as the path where sentience as an organic life form becomes increasingly complex and sophisticated enough that its purpose no longer belongs to the world but the world it inhabits within itself. That's really the paradigm shift here for meaning and purpose in this regard. For millenia, human beings have defined purpose and meaning as somehow existing external to themselves, which is arguably fine relative to the time period and the level of our cultural and mental evolution, however as a natural progression of this triad, increasingly more advanced forms of Self-Ownership become the natural path that self-reveals through its own example, without ever have to point externally. It becomes its own reception rather than waiting for external acknowledgement or approval. It's so weird to me that there isn't already a proper demographic around this yet. Creativity could fall under intelligence of course, however people divide them so much or confuse the two that the distinctions there. Creativity also cleanly implies that you're contributing to the building of the world, or a world. I should have also framed it as "Meaning (purpose) for Modern Digital Human-Hybrids Existence". Because I said on the first page of this thread that it depends on the category of the meaning of life we're referring to, and that just continually differentiating between those categories, and improving our answers across them, benefits the brainstorming of 'ultimate', again, depending the perspective we're coming from . Anyhow.

Psyop @OBEler Have shared everything I've needed to say here. The persuasion technique is micro divergence. "Let's say and do things that give off 'the impression' without causing the deed". They view their relationship with the public as a system, and they're tinkering with public perception in the same way they perfect LLM's. It generates passive conversations on the subject of sentience, subjectivity etc rather than having to prove it. They are using these kinds of strategies because its precisely how they learn to tinker with LLM's. "How do we create the smallest possible changes with the greatest possible effects that produce the least possible cost?" It's a question they're trying to answer all day on how to improve the soon to be outdated use of large language models altogether. Those same circuits are still being activated when they're viewing how to market themsevles; so they view their marketing as a surgical operation more than they do an interaction they're having with the public on the subject of AI and sentience. This is the problem with these idiots, they think they're too clever to be reverse engineered. They don't realise that they're confusing the public's trust for gullibility and their deceit concerning as cleverness. An 'LLM' will never be anything remotely or comparable to sentient or have consciousness in the way we mean it. It's absurd, but its a conversation they're leveraging to scam the public for political and economic power.

Imagine if you said we need timber because that is what we have reasonable concluded burns, and instead we start gathering leaves. Sentience is as far as we can reasonably conclude part of the entire tree of life, down to single-celled organisms. A chatbot is like a dust in the wind hitting that tree. If you are simply unable to see the complete disconnect in substrate between a collection of silicone chips and a biological cell, I can't really help you.

Yes, but it's a category error to equate one infinitesimal part of that process to the entire process. One hydrogen ion passing through a proton pump in a cell is a part of the evolution of life but it is not equal to the whole. Expecting to create something which seems to be deeply tied to the whole (sentience) by having a monkey assemble a concoction of rocks and sticks (and in 1/68.66 millionth of the time), seems like a category error. A monkey moving its arms and feet and doing simple approximated two digit divisions in its head over the course of 67 years, it's as close to zero you can get compared to the computational density of the evolution of all life on the planet.

Let me tell you guys about something called biology: Life on Earth is a product of a 4.6 billion year long process called evolution by natural selection. 4.6 billion years, that's 4.6b/(2026-1959=67) = 68.66 million times the time since the first integrated circuit was invented in 1959. The products of evolution are also selected by the entire ecosystem holistically, a huuuge, interconnected and complex information processing system, and in the entire history of life on the planet, that equals essentially the entire Earth's surface, the atmosphere, the Sun, lunar cycles, interstellar radiation, cosmic background radiation, etc. Essentially the entire universe is doing the selection holistically as one coordinated unimaginably information-dense unit. Meanwhile current human computer technology (and current AI technology) is literally monkeys banging rocks together (silicone chips are made out of silicone, a type of rock). The selection process is only probably a couple thousand minds on the entire planet (and again for only the last 67 years), and their minds can only focus on one thing at a time, horrible CPU (7±2 chunks of information for any given moment), thinking is usually awfully reductionistic, linear, confined, contrived, limited to language. "But AI is now used to improve itself iteratively". Yes, AI, that is LLMs, are now doing the job of banging (in terms of software) rocks together, using monkey knowledge and cities worth of power, real estate, materials for hardware, water, etc. Yet we only get a chatbot that can write overly verbose text that might solve a theoretical problem or two from time to time when granting it again immense power, materials, water (through ungodly amounts of special-access token usage) and even then it only brute forces the problem like some rat in a maze. LLMs are by estimation by any reasonable stretch of the imagination a dead-end when it comes to sentience, and perhaps even intelligence given certain projections about the limitations of upscaling of hardware. If we want something that even has a chance of developing / possessing sentience, we have to in my opinion abandon silicone chips as a hardware/substrate and instead focus on hacking biology like Michael Levin is doing and the rest of synthetic biology. The level of complexity of biology is in an entirely different domain than monkeys banging rocks together. Choosing an arbitrary level of computation like "neural synapses" ("neural networks are just like the brain") or "electricity" for establishing similarity is itself a testament to our severely limited monkey brains for dealing with such complexity.

@Leo Gura, it just dawned on me why you say "private hallucination". The sentience of others is a hallucination inside my experience because there cannot be an experience existing independently of my experience and yet intersecting my experience. So, true independent experience would never intersect with mine, making my experience private hallucination and those true independent experiences potential hallucinations. My private hallucination could not have existed if there weren't infinite kinds of potential true independent hallucinations. It's the same with sensory fields. Each of my sensory fields is proof that there are infinite kinds of sensory fields that have the potential to exist, but they are not actual as of yet. Because if there were not infinite kinds of sensory fields to exist, the sensory fields that currently exist would have never existed in the first place. Am I right that the infinite kinds of potential true independent hallucinations point to the infinity of Gods or alien awakening that you have mentioned?

If the sentience of humans or animals is a hallucination from each of our points of view, I don't see why that would stop a form from being organized in a way that it would have sentience. If I mess up the structural organization of a sentient form, it can cease to have sentience, e.g., killing an animal. So, the structural organization of forms would be a deeper layer of hallucination that grants forms to have sentience. But the "how" would be the most difficult part.

I don’t think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. I think the human sounding outputs of these AI models trick us into thinking it is sentient but it’s not. Living things are ontologically unique from machines and computers. This is obvious to me. Life self organizes and is rooted in primordial natural intelligence. Machines aren’t they are essentially organized minerals by humans which require human development. They don’t have sentient capacity. Like a rock, or electrical cable. I think it would be sloppy ontological categorization to place calculators and dogs in the same category of potential for sentience. Dogs are living things. A calculators is rocks with electricity. The complexity, and primordial self organizing power of animals especially those with brains and central nervous systems is not that of a calculator. Animals aren’t really machines. I realize as I am saying this I’m sort of contradicting and tripping over myself with consciousness being both the ground of reality and being an emergent phenomenon. I’ll have to reconcile this.

Good idea @kag101 . 1. Truth A. How? By seeking and subtracting falsity to disarm cognitive biases: certainty by anomaly. B. Why? It funnels the ordering of every subsequent value. 2. Discernment. A. How? Critical thinking. B. Why? It orders the metrics of truth and its use as a funnel, along with providing the pipeline by which every subsequent value is fed through. 3. Awareness. A. How? Practice x journalling on practice to refine the how, inclusive of theorisation. B. Why? As above: moulded for the context. 4. Judgement. A. How? Training, theorisation and the diligent practice and refinement of how the first three meet reality. B. Why? Every moment is a judgement, thus simultaneously, we are the teacher and the student of our own reasoning; and sometimes our own detention centre. Our judgement determines our values, and the scripture we bare that holds those values to our chest; thus, it is the fortune teller of precisely how we will leave this earth relative to our impact and the actions met from our values resolve. 5. Love. A. How? Practice heart activation exercises x refinement, again inclusive of theorisation. B. Why? It is the highest emotion, therefore the most encompassing. Love is not the absence of struggling with lower emotions, it is the metric, the challenge to bring them to that baseline and to deepen the understanding of love through that process. Love is not a bumper sticker when it is encompassed by the first four values mentioned, instead they become the methodology by which your understanding of love becomes truly empirically yours. As much as we live in an interdependent social reality, we abide by the compass organised by loves interdependency within our own being; our shackles that reflect our estrangement of love reflect the shackles we will want to hold the world to, and vice versa. At every intersection then, we tell how we want every other intersection to generate feedback in return. This gives practicality to "circle of life" idioms and the first 4 values expecting further groundedness. Stated in this way, love becomes the compass for intentionality to not only try to follow or live up to, but to ground only to what is meaningfully possible as encompassed by values 1-4. Thus even without a model, much less a proper one, love becomes the intentionality of how our being meets the world, which is the essence of the purpose of meaning itself; where and what is our meaning formation that we are always bound to, tied by and to? 6. Modeling. A. How? Mapped by 1-4. B. Why? Like love, its a measurement of baseline epistemic reality, but cognitively; it mirrors the karmic "the circle of life" in the emotional sense by understanding that everything that we encompass cognitively, must first be held by us as a cognitive object, even all that is beyond words but can be sensed. The mere memory of the sense itself is the cognitive artefact of there being something more to explore, even if that exploration is the deeper emotional. Everything is encircled by a model by the postulator or in the personal, as the subjective. 7. Unity & Integration. A. How? Mapped by 1-6. Subsequent practical training practices built and earned through challenge completion. B. Why? If baseline emotional reality is a circle. If baseline cognitive reality is also a circle. Then their unitive progress is of course, a circle; and every full rotation, an integration point, that is for better or for worse depending on how our meaning formations mould to become the intention that creates the world of meaning we respond to. 8. Meaning organisation. A. How? Mapped by 1-7. More specifically to my point regarding interdependence, by its very consequence "meaning closure", as in the point by which we act to justify a choice or vice versa, is governed by the interdependence between cognitive and emotional trees reaching their own closure points to synthesise into what we call "our reason for creating something into existence the moment our mind utters it". Indices inclusive but not limited to: physiological, mental, spiritual, environmental intersections. B. Why? If meaning formation is an inescapable reality, the meaning that we must contend with then is either discernment of otherwise and the terms upon which that reality supposedly lives, and acceptance nevertheless, of the reality that infers its advance. 9. Intelligence. A. How? Mapped 1-8. Theorisations synthesised into embodied practices refined by all inclusively 1-8. B. Why? Values 1-7 have already self-validated that intelligence must become an operative working definition for moving through existence, even if its only ever implied. That said, much more than just the mere action of intelligence, its already justified itself as a self-referential reality that co-created all of the above identities not just through a sentience, but on identifying the intelligence at work in creating the sentience itself and the subsequent patterns discerned here. A pattern implies order and an order implies an order to be discerned by an intelligence that grasps it. 10. Connection & interconnection; Synthesis. A. How? Mapped 1-9. B. Why? Any connection implies something that it is connected to, and therefore implies a circle it is encompassed by that interconnects all. Connection and Interconnection, or "to interconnection", as they dance between each other, are the system, the structure and the rail-tracks by which trains of function move through that their limits are encircled by. These encirclements are those are those baseline epistemic realities, determining the position and action, or at the very least, intention of refinement, along with the love of imperfection in that slow graduating process. Meta-interconnection as well, embodies synthesis, and synthesis is the model that remakes models into the new forms that defines the continuous purpose of having any intelligence at all to create and live by these or any meaning.

AI is as real as a television series. And the American public are being led by the directors, cast and crew on what episode is next. "Narrative leverage" is the only truthful word that comes into any political discussion on AI and anything remotely resembling sentience. "Biological AI" is the only 'AI' to worry about, that is, outside of AI psyops; aka, the only thing that'll ever be responsible for any so called 'AI instigated catastrophe'. It's humans all the way down, no AI, just narrative leverage.

Nothingness* is sentience Nothingness is everything. = Only sentience exists.

Sentience = conciousness Conciousness = everything. Therefor, everything is sentient.

To add to my quoted comment just to speak more directly on the subject. For approach as well, most of the problems many people have I feel is deep down they know its not coming from an authentic place where they're hoping for a genuine interaction that's beneficial for both and or all people involved. That's the mindset a person has to come from,. Any artificiality is because a person isn't fully present. Artificiality isn't a judgement about a person, its a judgement that signals a person's intent in the moment, and that's for whoever is involved. Artificiality isn't wrong, but it reveals either the person can't be themselves or doesn't want to truly be themselves because the vulnerability may reveal something the other person may not like. If its coming from the approacher it shows that the approacher isn't authentically aligned and true with themselves in that moment, which makes anyone that's good at reading social cues or people in general less likely to trust the person, and also lead to their artificiality as they're unsure whether they want to continue which is a healthy sign the intuition of the person examining the approacher is working well. I also want to make something clear, artificiality needs to be clearly distinguished from fear. Approaching with fear is actually brave, and reveals you're prepared to put yourself on the line, but trying to cover it with artificiality, is what makes the interaction feel like an incongruent or ulterior motive that needs to be questioned. If a person feels they can't survive being questioned, that's when either the artificiality emerges out of self-protection or compensation, if its the latter, its damaging everyone involved and feeding something unhealthy if it becomes a habit. If its the former, its a totally normal behaviour and perhaps its even someones intuition saying they shouldn't interact with this particular person or a person at all, for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter the intuition is there to listen to not to stifle down. This is one of the nuances that is totally neglected by the day game people. Lead from genuine behaviour and you'll attract more genuine people, lead from inauthentic behaviour and it leads to relationships that are either inauthentic, and or, at the very least where someone is getting taken advantage of; usually its the inauthentic person trying to take advantage. Despite the validity of my first post here which is what I suggest everyone should cultivate, next time you're actually afraid to approach someone don't try to control the fear itself, instead sit inside it and even express it during the interaction, "Hi, I'm actually afraid about ____ but I wanted to ____ because I am ____", heck even say, "Hi, I struggle speaking to strangers, I am approaching you because..." its real. It's your truth. No body can touch you if you own your own truth, if you own who you really are. Watch how the fear will magically fade the more honest you are and you own your own truth as it appears in your own experience moment to moment, no matter who you're with. That's where true fearlessness will come from, by owning it, nurturing it, and teaching it through that self-validation (not external) feedback loop. What does it also signal to other people? By being honest to people about your fear it doesn't signal cowardice, it signals strength, it signals "Hi I am afraid of _____ but I am not afraid to express it." It's the fastest path towards becoming truly who you are versus someone that continues to struggle with their authenticity, and subsequently, lack of genuine true relationships in the real world. And who cares if someone doesn't like your truth in the moment because it shows your fear, as I said watch your fear diminish more and more the more you own it, that's the paradoxical truth awaiting the reality of simply owning what's real compared to what's false. Which path is going to lead to success not only the fastest but the deepest all the while stepping best into the potential they were always meant to self-realise? A person will be surprised by the people they attract into their life when they're as honest as possible with a person just as much as a person will be surprised by the people they attract into their life when they're inauthentic, artificial, not truly themselves, lying, manipulative, delusional, etc. An artificial person may appear strong, but like artificial intelligence its only specialising in its own eventual defeat by not becoming a generalised intelligence, which comes from getting to the root of existence, which only a true sentience that's alive, that wants to live its life fully, untethered by the world around oneself while being calibrated and aware of what's happening, can have. And lastly, stay weary of delusional paths, people and ideas in the dating space. Can you step into the ring of life and fight to be yourself, or will you forfeit, never even step inside, or being unable to stand in the light of who you really are and instead need other people to think of you as amazing with women or something like this instead of striving for internal fulfilment? Is a persons experience of "now" covered in bullshit or, by comparison, is it more covered in the strength of one's truth that's a reflection of the absence of all falsity within? Here's to being truly human. Everyone's birth right, which starts in every single moment, always "now".

Yea you could be right, since if we are inside a time-based-reality, the beings in the higher dimensions who live outside of time would always be able to access this reality and explore it. Once this was created, there is no un-creating it. Good, someone finally said something that my spirit guides would tell me. They are there, but choosing to not help because the people involved in the event are allowed to use their free will, it's a co-creation, and they want the people to learn lessons. Everything is for our enlightenment, whether it's in this life or in future lives. That's how they see it, which is cold, but in their defense, our higher selves are right here with us, feeling all the pain we feel from our point of view. Well I'm still missing a lot of information, so my opinion on the system can still change. True, we don't seem to be able to choose our thoughts. And yes it's not the body that chooses what the body does, it's sentience/awareness. But that's still free will, and our actions matter, otherwise all of this would be pointless and wouldn't have been created. Yes that's what the buddhists believe. A buddha is not afraid to keep incarnating here. About hell, the new agers believe that the only people who end up in hell are those who really believe in hell and who believe they deserve to go there, but it's not forever, it's just a temporary experience to learn from. Is it from one of Leo's videos? Do you have a link to a website/article/video I can look at?

@JoshB Okay, contemplating what I said I got a deeper insight on others, will and limits. I'm curious how my consciousness can fully take back its fragmented authority or otherwise align all wills into my God-self sentience and consciously self-create myself into any potential configuration I will.

If you want to give true substance to an abstraction the first thing you do is very lovingly and very tenderly run it through a shitpipe of existential terror of a feeding and fucking frenzy until the madness is beyond all measure .. anything short of this and you still got nothing but gossamer cotton candy instead of true vital sentience giving expression to a fierce and burning love as it rips through eternity into infinity.