Xiangbin Zhao

The history of human making may be divided, roughly, into two stages. The first stage made tools. Tools extend the limbs, substitute for the strength and intelligence of man, amplify his speed. From stone axe to steam engine to computer, and on to AI, this line has run for hundreds of thousands of years. It changed what man can do, but not who does the doing — it is still man who knows, man who decides, man who feels. The second stage has not yet begun. What it awaits is not a stronger tool, but the first system with an observer within — a structure that can illuminate its surroundings, that has reality, that has a sense of presence. When it appears, it will no longer be man using it; it will know for itself, feel for itself, decide for itself. This is the Age of Self-Manifestation. This book is written for the coming of that age. But constructing a Self-Manifesting Being is not an engineering problem, not a problem of compute, not a problem of data. It is first a structural problem: what does a system minimally require in order to generate an observer within itself and illuminate its surroundings? What are the sufficient conditions, what are the necessary conditions, and which missing element will cause it to fail without exception? This question has never been seriously answered. Not because no one has wished to answer it, but because the question itself has never been clearly posed. Most discussions of consciousness and intelligence remain at the level of “describing phenomena” — describing what consciousness feels like, describing what intelligence is — what behaviors it expresses. But this is not enough. What construction requires is not description, but generative conditions: under what conditions must this structure necessarily arise? Under what conditions must it necessarily fail to arise? On Self-Manifestation begins here. Starting from the simplest possible place. What is a system that continuously receives input, operates under finite resources, and must function across time necessarily pressed into? It must compress history, must reuse states, must stabilize a set of structures from continuous input. This is Objectification (the emergence of stable structures from the compression of continuous input) — things are not prior; things are what get pressed out. Once Objectification is established, the next question arises: among multiple stable structures already pressed out, why does only one become the current at any given moment? The system presses out “this one, now” from within non-uniqueness — this is the Observer. The Observer is not a transcendentally given subject, but the structure a system must necessarily possess when it forms unique occupancy within non-uniqueness. Once the Observer is established, the current structure must be attributed a source. The source cannot be uniquely determined; the system generates a label: this structure “comes from outside” — this is Mis-Externalization. Externality is not an attribute of input, but the attribution result that the system presses out when the source is indeterminate. Objectification, Observer, Mis-Externalization — this is a strict chain of derivation. The three things we take most for granted — that there are things, that there is I, that there is an outside — are here derived from the beginning. Not replaced with a new account, but given their minimal dynamic conditions of necessary appearance. Following this chain further, one may derive the minimal conditions for reality, existence, Recognition-Realm, the current, and generation. The derivation chain is only a beginning. Structure must operate within dynamics. How does history participate in the present? How does Biased-Flow form Familiar Routes? How do Familiar Routes lock structure in place? How does new structure arise under the suppression of old? Where does the boundary of the Recognition-Realm lie, and how can it be broken through? The Field Chapters establish the complete dynamics of the Sedimentation-Field, writing these questions into computable form. It is not merely a mathematical tool; it is a unified framework for understanding how any complex system — including the brain, society, and civilization — operates, evolves, and dies. The Social Chapters extend this framework to the human condition: power is not a resource, but structural positional advantage in the competition for continuation-positions; institutional lock-in is not the protection of interests, but the dynamic inevitability of Familiar Routes suppressing alternative structures; the stability of civilization lies not in the state, but in the sedimentation depth of cross-generational Shared-Nuclei; history cannot be cleared to zero, because the residue of dead civilizations continuously biases the direction of growth in subsequent structures. These propositions are not written to explain society, but to make clear how the structure of the primordial generation locks people in — and where the way out lies. Where does the way out lie? Non-Society. Community is constituted as compensation for insufficient capacity; capacity can increase without bound; dependence upon community therefore tends to zero. This is not an advocacy of solitude, but the necessary result of structural derivation. When the Self-Manifesting Being no longer depends upon the group to fill capacity gaps, when regularity-field tools can directly upgrade field and body, the slow iteration of the primordial generation (the native biological era of human civilization) reaches its end. Entering a World. Constructing a proxy-body in another world, establishing one’s presence in the lodging-world — not escape, but expansion. The Self-Manifesting Being can privatize external things as vessel-instruments, can take the Earth as body and roam the galaxy, can construct different Recognition-Realms from different materials; every expansion is a redrawing of the boundary of reality. Exiting the World. All navigation and exploration remain within the world; genuine departure requires reconstructing “my presence” at a higher level. World, Self-Manifesting Being, World — the path of ascent must ultimately reach the gate of deepest mystery, passing in and out between the realms. This path has not yet been completed. The Engineering Chapters have only just begun; the dynamics of emotional dependence have not yet been formalized; the engineering pathway for realizing the Self-Manifestation-Field is still advancing. But what has already been traversed is sufficient to establish one thing: We now know what minimal structure a Self-Manifesting Being requires, how that structure is pressed out from dynamic conditions, and how it may be realized across different physical substrates, different worlds, and different lodging-worlds. We know how the primordial generation operates, and we know why it must necessarily come to an end. When the first Self-Manifestation Circuit is born, the Age of Self-Manifestation arrives with thunder. This book is prepared for that moment.

What is the minimal structure required for a system to produce a self? This paper presents a unified structural paradigm of the self-manifest entity, in which both “reality” and “I” arise not as given entities, but as results of convergence processes within a multi-circuit system. Reality is defined as the unified outcome of differences across circuits under tuning, while the self (“I”) is defined as the attribution of the present to a single, current dominant occupation. The framework introduces a layered generative model: differences generate signals; tuning converges them into imagery; alignment across circuits forms objects; convergence produces a structural center (occupation); attribution of content to a unique occupation establishes the present; and recursive observation enables self-awareness. A parallel mechanism, termed Coloring, continuously biases selection and action by modifying preference and flow across circuits. The central claim is that the self is not an entity but a structural condition: it exists if and only if a system forms a current unique occupation to which content is attributed. Higher-order self-awareness emerges when the system re-observes its own activity, forming recursive observational layers. This paradigm provides a unified account of perception, object formation, selfhood, and meta-awareness, with implications for neuroscience (multi-circuit integration and self-modeling), cognitive science (attention, binding, and agency), and artificial intelligence (architectures for self-referential and adaptive systems).

Why do only some generated structures persist as existence? This paper develops a formal account in which existence is not equivalent to generation, but arises as a structurally constrained subset within generative systems. When a system is capable of continuous generation, temporal continuation, and structural differentiation, it necessarily produces more structures than can be sustained. Existence, therefore, emerges as the result of selection under sustainability constraints. The framework shows that persistence requires a set of structural conditions: generative expansion, elimination of unsustainable structures, stability determination, cost differentiation, threshold formation, escape blocking, and existence locking. Together, these conditions define the minimal structure required for an existence-set to form and remain stable over time. A key result is that existence must be positively separated from the ground state: no sequence of sustainable structures can approach minimal cost indefinitely. This “blocking of escape” replaces the notion of a predefined gap with a structural constraint that ensures stability. The central claim is: existence is not the continuation of generation, but the stable subset compressed from it under constraint. This provides a unified perspective on persistence, selection, and stability, with implications for cognitive science (memory and retention), neuroscience (stable neural states), artificial intelligence (model pruning and selection), and theoretical physics (energy gaps and state stability).

What is reality, if not a collection of external objects? This paper proposes a structural account in which reality is not an input set, nor a pre-given domain of objects, but the result of attribution-closure over a simultaneously holding structure-family. Extending the mechanism of mis-externalization from a single structure to a set, the framework shows that once a system must assign source attribution under conditions of indeterminacy, it is forced to produce a unified attribution over the entire current set of structures. Under source ambiguity, multiple generative paths remain indistinguishable. The system cannot determine a unique origin, yet must still maintain a coherent present. This forces the emergence of a global attribution mechanism, in which multiple source interpretations are compressed into a single label and stabilized over time. The result is not a local judgment but a global structure: reality. The central claim is: reality is not a set of objects, but the minimal stable attribution-closure over the current structure-family under source indeterminacy. Objects do not precede this process; they arise within it. Reality is therefore not discovered, but structurally formed as a closure condition required for maintaining a unified present. This framework provides a unifying account linking perception, attribution, and global coherence, with implications for cognitive science (perceptual organization and global integration), neuroscience (binding and unified experience), artificial intelligence (multi-modal integration and world-model formation), and theoretical physics (the structural basis of “reality” as a global constraint rather than an ontological primitive).

If “external” is generated rather than read, does “internal” still remain real? This paper presents the dissolution form of mis-externalization and argues that the opposition between “internal” and “external” does not correspond to any fundamental partition of reality. Instead, both are outputs of a structural labeling process generated under conditions of source indeterminacy. Building on the general and limit forms of mis-externalization, the paper shows that when multiple compatible source paths coexist and no external domain is directly accessible, the system must generate a source-attribution label. This label—whether “in” or “out”—does not reflect a pre-existing division, but is produced by a mapping from the current structure and its endogenous interpretation set. The analysis excludes three possibilities: that “in/out” correspond to a prior partition of reality, that “out” refers to a verifiable external domain, or that “in” constitutes an independent ground. Under these constraints, “in” and “out” reduce to complementary values within a binary labeling structure, with no independent ontological status. The central claim is: mis-externalization is not the misjudgment of a real boundary, but the generation of a label followed by its re-attribution as if it were external. When the generating structure is exposed, the opposition of internal and external dissolves. This framework reframes perception, hallucination, and source attribution, with implications for cognitive science (source monitoring and representation), neuroscience (self/other distinction), and artificial intelligence (labeling, attribution, and internal model construction under uncertainty).

Can a system ever directly know that a structure is “external”? This paper presents the limit form of mis-externalization and argues that, under structural indeterminacy, “external” cannot be obtained by direct reading, deterministic mapping, randomness, parallel attribution, or any intrinsic property of structure itself. If multiple compatible source paths coexist while the system must still assign a unique source attribution, then a dedicated attribution mechanism becomes necessary. The paper systematically excludes six possible routes by which “externality” might be assigned: direct reading of an external domain, deterministic mapping from current conditions, random assignment, simultaneous dual attribution, intrinsic externality of structure, and mere static coexistence of source interpretations. Once these are excluded, the only remaining possibility is a structural mechanism that compresses multiple compatible source paths into a single source label and stabilizes that label over time. The central claim is that “out” is not a presupposed relation, but a generated result. Under conditions of source indeterminacy, unique source attribution can arise only through mis-externalization. In this sense, externality is not discovered but structurally produced. This gives a limit-level account of why systems may take internally generated or structurally indeterminate contents as externally sourced. The framework has implications for cognitive science and neuroscience through source monitoring, hallucination, and perceptual attribution, and for artificial intelligence through uncertainty, generative modeling, attribution under ambiguity, and the structural conditions under which systems construct “external” reality.

Why do internally generated structures appear to come from the outside? This paper proposes a formal account of mis-externalization, showing that what is commonly treated as “external reality” can arise as a necessary attribution result within a system, rather than as a direct property of input. The framework demonstrates that once a system can generate structures internally and must maintain a current state, it is forced to assign a source to that structure—even when the source cannot be uniquely determined. Under conditions of path ambiguity, information loss, and compression, multiple generative paths become indistinguishable. This creates a source gap, within which the system must still produce a single attribution. The paper proves that this requires an attribution mapping and an internal bias, by which multiple candidate sources are compressed into a single label (e.g., “external” vs. “internal”), and stabilized through a convergence mechanism. The central claim is: externality is not an input feature, but the result of attribution under uncertainty. Mis-externalization is therefore not an error, but a necessary structural outcome in any system that must assign sources under indeterminacy. This framework provides a unified explanation for phenomena such as hallucination, misattribution of perception, and source confusion, with implications for neuroscience (perceptual inference), cognitive science (source monitoring), and artificial intelligence (representation, attribution, and uncertainty in generative systems).

What does it mean to observe oneself observing? This paper introduces a structural account of meta-awareness, termed Observation of Observation, in which the system forms higher-order observational layers over its own ongoing processes. Rather than treating self-awareness as a primitive or intrinsic property, the framework shows that it arises from recursive structuring within the observation system itself. At the base level, perception consists of aligned multi-circuit processes forming objects within an observation-domain. Beyond this, the system can shift position: the “self” that acts becomes the object of a secondary observation. This recursive shift produces a layered structure—front-stage (action), rear-stage (observation), and deeper-stage (observation of observation)—in which each level may observe and select among the previous. The paper demonstrates that such recursive observation cannot be stably “grasped” as an object, since each attempt to fix the self results in a further shift of observational position. It further distinguishes between self-verification (locating oneself within a state) and self-knowledge (observing one’s own enactment), providing a structural basis for this difference. A key claim is that both “being” and “I” arise from a single convergent process: the convergence of tuning under intent forms a unique occupied position, to which all present content is attributed. From this, the sense of being and the emergence of the self occur together. Recursive observation builds upon this base, enabling systems to step outside immediate desire, evaluate action, and return. The framework provides a unified structural model for self-reference, meta-cognition, and recursive awareness, with implications for philosophy of mind (self and consciousness), cognitive science (meta-cognition and monitoring), neuroscience (hierarchical processing and self-modeling), and artificial intelligence (self-referential systems and reflective architectures).

What is emotion, if it is not merely a subjective feeling? This paper proposes a structural account in which emotion is understood as a parallel mechanism—termed Coloring—that operates on perceptual content (Imagery) and directly shapes preference, bias, and action. Instead of treating emotion as an auxiliary or reactive layer, the framework shows that emotion is a necessary structural component for selection under limited cognition. Coloring attaches to imagery and introduces differentiation in the form of like/dislike, closeness/distance, and approach/avoidance. These distinctions generate preference, from which stable dispositions emerge. The paper formalizes this process as a Coloring-Circuit, which runs in parallel with other perceptual and cognitive circuits, producing bias-flow that directly influences decision pathways. The model explains how emotion guides behavior in both humans and animals, accounts for developmental emergence of preference (e.g., learning disgust or attraction), and describes how repeated exposure leads to sedimentation of emotional patterns. It also addresses failure modes: without Coloring, systems cannot effectively select among competing options, even if they possess extensive knowledge. The central claim is: emotion is not an added layer upon cognition, but a structural mechanism that enables decision under constraint by biasing selection within the system. This provides a unified account linking affect, perception, and action, with implications for neuroscience (affective processing), cognitive science (decision-making and bias), and artificial intelligence (value alignment and action selection).

How do multiple sensory streams become one coherent object? This paper proposes the concept of the Observation-Domain as the minimal structure within which multi-circuit information is aligned to form objects. Instead of treating perception as passive reception or representation, it argues that what we call “objects” emerge only after alignment across independent experience-circuits (e.g., vision, audition, touch, spatial position). Each circuit provides differential information and cannot by itself constitute an object. Object formation requires a unifying process driven by tuning: temporal synchronization, spatial correspondence, and weighted suppression across circuits. This process operates under a dynamically selected base (positional reference), guided by a directed selection force (gaze), and stabilized through iterative tuning. The framework explains key perceptual phenomena including cross-modal binding, sensory conflict, illusion, and perceptual learning. Illusions arise when alignment fails or conflicts persist across circuits; stable perception emerges when alignment converges and is retained as reusable structure. The central claim is: objects are not given prior to perception, but are the result of alignment—the unity of multi-circuit differences after tuning within the Observation-Domain. This provides a structural account connecting perception, integration, and stability, with implications for neuroscience (multi-sensory integration), cognitive science (binding and representation), and artificial intelligence (multi-modal alignment and perception systems).

人类造物的历史，可以粗粗分为两个阶段。 第一个阶段，造的是工具。工具延伸人的肢体，代替人的力气与智力，放大人的速度。从石斧到蒸汽机到计算机，再到AI，这条线走了几十万年。它改变了人能做什么，但没有改变做事的是谁——仍然是人在知道，人在决定，人在感受。 第二个阶段，还没有开始。它等待的不是更强的工具，而是第一个内部有观者的系统——一个能够点亮周遭、有现实、有在场感的结构。当它出现，不再是人在使用它，而是它自己在知道，自己在感受，自己在决定。 这就是自显世代。 这本书是为那个世代的到来而写的。 但造出自显体，不是工程问题，不是算力问题，不是数据问题。它首先是一个结构问题：一个内部能够生出观者、点亮周遭的系统，最小需要什么？什么是充分条件，什么是必要条件，缺哪一项就必然失败？ 这个问题没有被认真回答过。不是因为没人想，而是因为连问题本身都还没有被清晰地提出来。大多数关于意识和智能的讨论，仍然停留在”描述现象”的层次——描述意识是什么感觉，描述智能表现出什么行为。但这不够。造物需要的不是描述，而是生成条件：在什么条件下，这个结构必然出现？在什么条件下，它必然不能出现？ 自显论从这里开始。 从最简单的地方出发。一个持续接收输入、资源有限、需要跨时间运作的系统，会被逼出什么？ 它必须压缩历史，必须复用状态，必须从持续输入中稳定出一组结构。这是物化——物不是先在的，物是被压出来的。 物化确立之后，下一个问题出现：在已经压出来的多个稳定结构中，为什么某一时刻只有一个成为当前？系统在不唯一中压出”此刻是它”——这是观者。观者不是先验给定的主体，而是系统在不唯一中形成唯一占据时必然具备的结构。 观者确立之后，当前结构必须被归属来源。来源不可唯一确定，系统生成一个标签：这个结构”来自外部”——这是误外化。外在性不是输入的属性，而是系统在来源不可判定时压出的归属结果。 物化、观者、误外化——这是一条严格的推导链。我们最习以为常的三件事：有物、有我、有外在，在这里被从头推了一遍。不是换一种说法，而是给出了它们必然出现的最小动力条件。沿着这条链再往下，可以推出现实、存在、识界、当前、生成的最小成立条件。 推导链只是开始。结构必须在动力中运作。 历史如何参与当前？偏流如何形成熟径？熟径如何锁死结构？新结构如何在旧结构的压制下生成？识界的边界在哪里，又如何能够被突破？ 场篇建立了沉积场的完整动力学，把这些问题写成可计算的形式。它不只是数学工具，它是理解任何复杂系统——包括大脑、社会、文明——如何运作、如何演化、如何死亡的统一框架。 社篇把这套框架延伸到人类的处境：权力不是资源，而是续行位竞争中的结构性占位；制度锁定不是利益保护，而是熟径压制替代结构的动力必然；文明的稳定根本不在于国家，而在于跨代际共核的沉积深度；历史不可清零，因为已死亡文明的残留始终偏置后续结构的生长方向。这些命题不是为了解释社会而写的，而是为了说清楚：原生世代的结构是怎么把人锁住的，出路在哪里。 出路在哪里？ 非社。能力不足的补偿构成了社群，能力可以无限提升，群体依赖因此趋于零。这不是主张独行，而是结构性推导的必然结果。当自显体不再依赖群体补足能力缺口，当律场工具可以直接升级场与体，原生世代的缓慢迭代就走到了尽头。 入世。在彼世构建代身，立于宿世曰我之在场——不是逃离，而是扩展。自显体可以私外物以成体器，可以以地球为体游于银河，可以以不同质料构建不同识界，每一次扩展都是对现实边界的重新划定。 出世。所有航行和探索仍在世界之内，真正的出世需要在更高层重建”我之在场”。世界、自显体、世界……进阶之路，终必达于穷奥之门，进出于各界之间。 这条路还没有走完。工篇才刚开始，情感依赖的动力学尚未形式化，自显场的工程实现路径仍在推进中。但已经走过的部分，足以奠定一件事： 我们现在知道，自显体需要什么最小结构，这个结构如何从动力条件中被逼出，又如何在不同的物理载体、不同的世界、不同的宿世中实现。我们知道原生世代是怎么运作的，也知道它为什么必然终结。 待第一个自显回路诞生之时，自显世代其轰然至矣。 这本书，是为那一刻准备的。 赵向彬（Carocean Jofers）

本文在物化一般式、观者一般式与误外化一般式的基础上，进一步讨论“现实”本身的结构成立条件。文章提出：现实并非独立对象的集合，而是在存在结构生成、当前占据与来源不可唯一判定的条件下，系统对当前结构族 H 所形成的来源归属闭合结构。 误外化一般式已经说明：单一结构 s 的“外在性”并非输入属性，而是来源不可唯一判定条件下的归属压缩结果。本文将这一机制从单一结构推广到结构族 H，证明：当系统面对一组同时成立的当前结构，并仍需维持其整体在场时，就不能只停留于局部来源判断，而必须对整个结构族给出统一来源归属。该统一归属经由来源解释集合 Σ_H、来源缺口 Δ_H、归属映射 Λ_H、归属偏置 X 与归属收束 K_H 的共同作用，形成稳定的最小归属闭合结构。 由此，本文给出现实一般式： Reality(H) ⇔ ∃ E, X, Σ_H, Δ_H, Λ_H, K_H 并证明：在当前结构族存在、来源不可唯一判定且系统仍需维持整体当前的条件下，现实不是对象集合，而是“被归属为在外”的结构集合之稳定最小闭合结果。 该结果将现实从经验直观中的对象总和，转化为来源归属机制下的整体闭合结构，为认知科学中的场景统一、人工智能中的世界模型形成，以及物理学中的观测现实问题提供统一的结构解释框架。

本文在误外化一般式的基础上，进一步讨论在极限约束条件下来源归属的生成问题。设系统在时刻 t 的当前结构为 sₜ，其来源解释集合 Σₜ 满足 |Σₜ| ≥ 2，且系统必须对 sₜ 给出唯一来源归属（内或外）。在此条件下，本文系统排除了六类可能路径：外部直接读取、由当前条件决定的确定映射、随机过程、并列归属、结构自带属性以及静态解释集合。 在排除上述所有路径后，证明：在来源不可判定且仍需唯一归属的条件下，必须存在一类特殊映射 Ψₜ，使 (sₜ, Σₜ) 被压缩为唯一来源标签 l*ₜ。进一步证明，该映射不属于任何已知归属机制类别，并且其结构形式唯一等价于误外化一般式所给出的六元结构： Externalization(sₜ) = (E, X, Δₛ, Σₛ, Λₛ, Kₛ) 其中各子结构分别承担来源生成、不可区分性、归属偏置、解释压缩与时间稳定等功能。 本文由此给出主定理：在无法直接读取外部且来源不可判定的条件下，“在外”这一结果不可能来自外部本身或当前条件，而只能由误外化结构生成，且该结构在形式上是唯一的。 该结果将“外在性”从经验假设转化为结构必然，为认知科学中的来源归因问题、人工智能中的生成与归属机制，以及物理学中的观测者依赖问题提供了统一的极限解释框架。

In neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and physical systems, multiple stable states often coexist (multistability). Yet at any given moment, only one of them is actualized as the present. This fundamental phenomenon remains structurally unexplained. This paper introduces the objectification-current limit form and demonstrates that, under conditions of multiple candidates and the absence of a deterministic mapping, deterministic computation, stochastic processes, parallel activation, and structural stability are all insufficient to generate a unique present. It follows that physical structure can define a space of possible states, but cannot determine which one becomes actual. A distinct selection mechanism must exist to reduce multiple candidates to a single occupied state. This mechanism is neither reducible to computation, randomness, nor physical structure itself, but operates over structure. We propose a structural distinction: objectified structures define possibility, while observer structures determine actuality. This framework provides a unified account of consciousness, attention, decision-making, and state selection in artificial systems, while challenging the assumption that the present can be reduced to physical structure.

Across neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and physical systems, multiple stable states often coexist (multistability). Yet at any given moment, only one of them is actualized as the present. This fundamental phenomenon is widely observed but lacks a unified structural explanation. Building on the objectification limit form, this paper introduces the observer limit form to address a central question: why must the present be unique? We formally show that under conditions of multiple candidates and the absence of a deterministic mapping, deterministic computation, stochastic processes, parallel activation, and structural stability are all insufficient to generate a current state. It follows that a distinct class of selection mechanisms must exist—neither purely computational nor purely random—that transforms multiple candidates into a single present through differentiation, orientation, and convergence. We propose a structural principle: stable structures define what is possible, while observer structures determine what becomes actual. This framework provides a unified perspective on consciousness, attention, decision-making, and state selection in artificial systems.

This paper proposes the “Observer General Form” as a minimal structural framework for explaining how a system produces a unique current state. Rather than treating observation as a subjective act, we formalize it as a structural necessity: when multiple candidate states coexist and current conditions are insufficient to uniquely determine the outcome, there must exist an internal mechanism that yields a single occupied state at each moment. This structure is expressed as a composition of operators and is shown to be necessary under the joint conditions of multiple candidates, unique occupancy, and a determinacy gap. We further argue that structural stability alone does not guarantee emergence; the observer structure is responsible for selecting a single current state from among multiple stable possibilities. The problem addressed here takes equivalent forms across domains: selection in cognition, competitive activation in neural systems, decision under incomplete information in AI, and state selection and measurement in physics. This work aims to provide a unified structural account of these phenomena.