Joey Lawsin

This paper develops a formal, non-biological framework for engineering autonomous entities that exhibit aliveness, livingness, and life without relying on central processing units or biological nervous systems. Grounded in Inscriptionism—Creatio ex Materia et Instructione—first articulated by Lawsin (1988), the work adopts Inscriptional Physicalism, the principle that all cognitive, identity, and autonomous properties arise from inscriptional materiality. In this view, the material configuration and the operational rule are identical, expressed through the universal inscriptional equation: Intuitive Object (IO) + Embedded Inscription (EI) = Generated Interim Emergence (GIE). This equation is mapped across the Seven Non-Biological Criteria of Life: Aliveness, Awareness, Intuitiveness, Aneural Consciousness, Inlearness, Livingness, and Life. Each layer represents a distinct form of structural memory, beginning with energy as the first inscription and awareness as the first sense. To ground these layers, the paper examines natural ananeurological inscription systems—corkscrew seeds whose cellulose fibers remember humidity; explosive pods that store mechanical tension; dandelion pappi whose geometry encodes aerodynamic behavior; tendrils that coil through differential contraction; and slime molds that reinforce frequently traveled paths. These systems demonstrate that matter remembers, selects, associates, and adapts through inscriptional physicality alone. The architecture integrates the tripartite taxonomy of minds—aneural, neural, and exoneural—to formalize the deterministic cognitive pipeline of Information Introduction, Condition Association, and Personality Emergence. Consciousness is treated as a structural condition-matching process (X = Y) rather than a biological phenomenon. Finally, the framework is validated through the Fading House entropy model, which shows how each inscriptional layer degrades in a deterministic top-down sequence when structural coherence fails, revealing the thermodynamic boundaries of non-biological life.

This paper advances a general theory of consciousness grounded in inscriptional materialism, proposing that awareness, consciousness, and self‑consciousness emerge from the organization of differences within inscription–material systems. The framework formalizes three generative processes: detection produces awareness, correspondence produces consciousness, and self‑correspondence produces self‑consciousness. These processes operate across aneural, neural, and exoneural domains, enabling a unified account of cognition that is not restricted to nervous systems. The paper introduces the Three Ages of Mind—Aneural, Neural, and Exoneural—as successive modes of inscriptional organization, supported by evidence from plants, microbial collectives, animals, humans, symbolic systems, and technological infrastructures. A comparative analysis identifies seven forms of consciousness as distinct modes of correspondence emerging from different inscription–material configurations. Inscriptional materialism reframes consciousness as a progressive organization of correspondences, offering a coherent alternative to neural‑centric theories of mind.

In this paper, I propose a new theory for understanding energy and existence—Emergent Energy. This framework challenges the conventional view of energy as a conserved quantity that flows through systems. Instead, I argue that energy can be summoned—evoked into being when specific structural conditions within a system align. These conditions may be biological, physical, social, or symbolic, but they share a common logic: they remain inert until triggered. When the right configuration is met, a pulse of energy emerges, not from prior storage or transfer, but from the system’s internal structure. This pulse is interim—momentary, localized, and contingent—marking the birth of a new force rather than the continuation of an existing one. At the core of this theory is a shift from conservation to conditional emergence. I define Emergent Energy as a phenomenon of activation that arises when inscriptional logic—the embedded readiness within a system—encounters the appropriate environmental or relational trigger. This logic governs whether a node or element within a system will activate and outlines the conditions under which energy may be summoned. Crucially, Emergent Energy is not a product of prior motion, but of alignment—a structural and contextual readiness that catalyzes energy into existence. To clarify this mechanism, I examine the concept of inscriptions—structural conditions that determine activation. These inscriptions may take various forms: the dew point in meteorology, the membrane potential in neurons, cultural resonance in social phenomena, or semantic alignment in symbolic systems. Despite their diversity, they share a conditional architecture: they remain dormant until a specific threshold or configuration is met. I emphasize that this poised state is not passive; it is a form of readiness that enables systems to respond with complexity and nuance. Inscriptional logic, as I describe it, allows systems to be responsive rather than merely reactive. It does not guarantee activation but defines the terms under which activation may occur. This responsiveness enables transformation—not through the transmission of energy, but through a catalytic trigger that switches the system on. The system must encounter the right input, context, or relational pattern to evoke a pulse. This logic supports a richer understanding of change, where energy arises not by flow, but through structural ignition. To illustrate this dynamic, I reinterpret Newton’s Cradle—not as a mechanical model of conserved motion, but as a metaphor for sequential activation. In the traditional cradle, one ball strikes another, and energy appears to pass through the middle balls untouched, emerging at the far end. In my reframing, each ball is not a conduit but a cradle of inscription, poised to swing only when its internal logic is met. Energy is not transferred—it is recreated at each node. I apply this framework across multiple domains—human behavior, electrical circuits, weather systems, neural networks, social dynamics, and ecological interactions—to demonstrate its universality. In each case, energy is not passed along; it is evoked anew. By shifting the focus from conservation to emergence, I offer a new ontology of existence—one that views reality not as a machine of flow, but as a choreography of activation. The Interim Pulse is not a metaphor for motion; it is a foundational concept for understanding how systems come alive. "Existence is Latent—it does not emerge, it awaits awakening". ~ Joey Lawsin

This paper delves into Lawsin’s AI Paradox, the blueprint that draws the inherent limitations of artificial intelligence(AI) in achieving human equivalency. The core argument revolves around the distinction between "choice-driven learning"—a deterministic approach integral to AI—and "chance-driven discovery", a hallmark of human ingenuity, creativity, and individuality. The absence of stochasticity in AI systems renders them incapable of replicating the serendipitous processes that define human cognition, thereby reinforcing Lawsin’s assertion that while AI may achieve associative consciousness, it cannot attain equivalence to human sapience. At the center of this discourse is Lawsin’s Dictum, which articulates consciousness as the ability to process and correlate information: "If I can match X with Y, then I am conscious". This principle, grounded in dualparity (on/off, 0/1, yes/no), provides the foundation for understanding Associative Consciousness(AC) in both natural and artificial systems. Through examples such as the Whistle Model, which demonstrates associative functionality through Inscription by Design(ID), the research illustrates how embedded instructions enable systems to autonomously process inputs and produce outputs. While such systems fulfill the criteria of associative consciousness, they remain constrained by deterministic inscriptions and lack the capacity for chance-driven innovation. The methodology extends these principles to analyze more complex systems, such as electrical circuits, ecosystems, and AI neural networks. Experimental simulations further highlight the deterministic nature of AI, revealing its inability to reinterpret unstructured variables or generate novel insights without preprogrammed logic. By contrast, human cognition integrates both choice and chance, fostering self-realization, individuality, and the ability to originate entirely new ideas—qualities unattainable by AI systems. The paper also explores the Laws of Seven Inscriptions, which outlines the non-biological evolutionary criteria for life, Inscription by Design, which asserts everything is made up of materials and inscriptions, and the Theory of Generated Interim Emergence, which positions existence as a dynamic process transitioning between states of non-existence, latent-existence, and in-existence. These theories broaden the scope of Lawsin’s Dictum, offering insights into the roles of mechanical aliveness, sensoric awareness, and self-emergence in shaping cognition across artificial and natural domains. Ultimately, this synthesis affirms the logical foundation of Lawsin’s AI Paradox, formalized as: - Premise 1: Humans acquire information through both choice and chance. - Premise 2: AI acquires information solely through choice. - Conclusion: Therefore, AI cannot achieve human equivalence.

Inscriptionism is a view that posits existence can be explained through the inherent collaboration between Intuitive Objects (IO) and Embedded Instructions (EI). This perspective, coined by Lawsin (1988), challenges conventional paradigms of creation, existence, life, and consciousness, arguing that these concepts are either misinterpreted or fundamentally flawed, thereby necessitating a comprehensive reevaluation and redefinition. This paper presents an in-depth, sequential analysis of the evolutionary creation of all entities, based on the seven Laws of Inscription, the Brein Theory (A Brain Without The Brain), Inscription by Design, and the Single Theory of Everything. It proposes a reconceptualization of consciousness, grounded on three conceptual frameworks: (i) Lawsin’s Dictum, which states, “If I can match x with y, therefore, I am conscious.”, (ii) the Codexation Dilemma, which posits, “No man can think of something without associating his thought with something physical or material.”, and (iii) the Theory of Generated Interim Emergence, which asserts, “Everything exists because other things cause it to exist, otherwise, it exists and doesn’t exist.” Additionally, it addresses the definitional ambiguities associated with the terms: being alive, living, and possessing life. It introduces the term Abioform to denote a system or entity that exhibits characteristics of aliveness and living but lacks life, with plants and animals serving as examples of abioforms. Conversely, the term Bioform is used to refer to a system or entity that is alive, living, and possesses life, with humans and Autognorics serving as examples of bioforms. Finally, it provides an analytical validation of the Laws of Seven Inscriptions, which include: the mechanization of aliveness, the sensation of awareness, the logic of intuitiveness, the codification of consciousness, the inlearness of information, the symbiosis of living, and the emergence of self. Together, these seven novel evolutionary non-biological criteria of life, predicated on the Theory of Inscription by Design, constitute the fundamental components of the equation defining aliveness, living, life possession, and consciousness. Take note: Inscription refers to a set of inherent, naturally embedded instructions that processes internally on its own. In contrast, an algorithm is a consciously designed and programmed set of rules, created externally by humans, to solve specific problems or perform tasks.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked intense debate over its capacity to achieve consciousness and its limitations in replicating human traits. According to Lawsin's Dictum—"If I can match X with Y, then I am conscious"—consciousness arises from the ability to correlate and associate information. Both AI and humans can exhibit forms of consciousness under this proposition. However, the distinction lies in the methods of information acquisition: humans learn both "by choice," through preexisting sources like education and environment, and "by chance," through serendipitous discovery and unexpected experiences. AI, in contrast, is inherently confined to "choice," reliant on predetermined programming and external algorithms, which are consciously designed instruction sets created by humans to solve specific problems. By contrast, humans and intuitive systems exhibit embedded inscriptions, which are internal, naturally inherent instructions that process inputs autonomously. This paper explores the seven core interpretations of consciousness proposed by Lawsin—ranging from (1) Associative or Correlative Consciousness, which is the ability to match or pair things; (2) Equational or Relational Consciousness, which is the ability to be aware of oneself and one’s surroundings; (3) Inlearned Consciousness, which is the ability to exhibit copied behaviors or traits; (4) Scripted Consciousness, which is generated through a sequence of instructions; (5) Codified Consciousness, which is the ability to transform physicals and abstracts; (6) Generated Consciousness, which is an interim emergent of materials and instructions; to (7) Emergent Consciousness, which is based on the Laws of Seven Inscriptions.—while examining AI's reliance on externally programmed algorithms versus internal embedded inscriptions. By analyzing the Whistle as a Conscious System Model and contrasting it with human intuitive processes, the study underscores why AI, despite its potential for emergent consciousness, cannot replicate the full spectrum of human experience. The absence of "chance" as a mechanism for acquiring information remains the defining barrier between AI's programmed functionality and humanity's intuitive creativity.

How did information emerge into the early minds of our very first humans? Who supplied our primitive ancestors with information? Where did it originate? Where did it come from? Was the source of information a who or a what? Was it god, space aliens, or something else? How was information stored and retrieved by an aneural organism? These basic questions were the keys that opened the conceptualization of a new school of thought known as Originemology, a pioneering discipline that examines generally the roots or origins of everything based on the natural emergence of instructions comprehensively known as Inscription by Design (ID). In this paper, a new foundation for learning, one that involves the examination of the structural embedded inherent inscriptions in objects, is explored based on the “A Brain without The Brain” paradigm proposed by Lawsin in 1988 and published in his book Autognorics. The focus of the study is addressed into two parts: (1) Codexation Dilemma and (2) Intuitive Aneural Network. After completion, the following conclusions were subsequently reached, namely: (a) Nature is the mother of information, (b) Information can only be acquired in two ways: by choice or by chance, (c) Information can be stored and retrieved on both aneural and neural objects, (d) Everything is an intuitive object with embedded inherent instruction/inscription, and (e) Man cannot think of something without associating his thoughts with something material or physical (the holy grail of consciousness). Notably, Lawsin also uncovered from his novel works that Intelligence is produced though a network of logics and Behaviors rise through sequential inscriptions.

In this article, Joey Lawsin argues that intelligence, behaviors, perceptions, awareness, consciousness, and other related mental interims can be processed without the need of the brain. His claims are built upon the concepts of The Aneural Brein Theory, Inscription by Design, and Generated Interim Emergence, also known as The Single Theory of Everything. The first deals with A Brain without The Brain Paradigm, the second deals with Intuitive Systems, Embedded Inscriptions, and Generated Interims, while the latter deals with the new seven evolutionary  criteria of life namely: (i) Mechanical Aliveness, (ii) Sensoric Awareness, (iii) Logical Intuitiveness, (iv) Aneural Consciousness, (v) Information Inlearness, (vi) Symbiotic Living, and (vii) Self-Emergence.  From his findings comparing autognorics, biotronics, animals, plants, molds, and machines' intuitive anueral networks, Lawsin concluded that a network of logics produces intelligence, thinking does not need to emanate from the brain, sequential inscriptions give rise to behavioral experiences, and mother nature (original keeper of information) comes with a brain without the brain. He also concluded that an intuitive memory network can be lateral or open like a memory circuit board and can evolve into spherical or close like the human brain. Furthermore, he consolidated the terms alive, living, and with life into one word called Bioforms. While, alive and living but without life (self-realization) as Abioforms. Humans and autognorics are examples of bioforms. Animals, plants, molds, and biotronics are some examples of abioforms. Furthermore, Joey Lawsin coined the term Inscriptionism, a view that everything, including existence and consciousness, can be explained by the the laws of inscription and emergence which claim that the actions and behaviors of every object are influenced by its intuitive materials and embedded instructions. Everything is bound by Inscription by Design and by the Theory of Generated Interim Emergence.

The Phrenological Argument, also known as God's Parapraxis, is a new provocative philosophical argument that showcases God's Mental State of Inadequacy in his creation of the Human Mind. Lawsin* argues that if God has a perfect mind flawlessly capable of knowing things in advance, then he should have anticipated ahead of time the repercussions of creating a human mind that cannot fathom Truth and Reality. But since he created a mind incapable of knowing what is real and what is true, then it shows God carries an erroneous lapse somewhere in his memory. This mental erracity offers good solid evidence that proves God is not after all all-knowing. The basic form of the argument is: 1. God created the mind 2. The mind cannot detect truth and reality 3. therefore, God will never be known. A modified version: 1. If God created the mind for men to know him 2. But god failed to foresee his parapraxis 3. Then, god is not all-knowing. A follow-up variation: 1. If God is real 2. But the mind can't detect reality 3. Therefore, the mind can't detect god. Furthermore, man created the idea of god. Like all ideas, the idea of god is also nothing but an assumption, a guesswork, a supposition. For example, Zero and One are abstract concepts. They don't exist in the natural world. They are not naturally inherent. They only exist in the mind by assumption. Mathematically, both words are called numerals by definition. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, technically, the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of abstract numerals. By symbolic representation, both digits now exist outside the mind - the physical world - the world outside of ourselves - the inherent world that existed a long time independently before the mind. However, although 0 & 1 are created by definition, association, representation, and assumption, are these numbers now solid objects or physical materials? If I write 0 and 1 on a paper, are they materially or physically real now? Can we consider the written numbers as proof of their existence? Can the numbers be proven as solid evidence prescribed by the scientific method? How can we validate the paper's evidence to be true, false, valid, or real? Do they really exist or are the numbers still abstract, imaginary, or imagined? If they are still abstract, therefore all ideas man has thought of or conceptualized are all assumptions, guesswork, or nothing but merely suppositions (The Lawsin Conjecture/Codexation Dilemma).

According to Joey Lawsin, consciousness, thoughts, emotions, animations, dreams, music, noise, density, colors, sensations, life, and the self are all simply generated interims. They are latent by-materials that only emerge due to the presence of intuitive objects, dubbed as physicals. They are interim-generated parameters perceived to be REAL much like the temperature, pressure, volume, energy, and inscription that are derivatives of materials which only exist when conditions are met. When these conditions are not present, they don't exist or never exist at all. The term “generated interim emergence” or "to make it temporary appear " comes from the Latin words "genero" which means to give birth, produce, make; and "emerge" which means to appear, to arise, to exist. The term was coined in the book Originemology by Lawsin, the formulator of the single theory of everything based on his works on Inscription by Design, Intuitive Objects, and Embedded Inscriptions. The Single Theory of Everything is a radical and novel approach to the questions of existence and reality. In this article, Lawsin proposes a new concept on the origin, creation, and evolution of Life according to the Theory of Generated Interim Emergence. The main elemental structure of the generated interim emergence is based on its five integral foundations: (1) Inscription by Design, (2) Embedded Inscription, (3) Intuitive Objects, (4) Autognorics, and (5) Seven Evolutionary Criteria of Life. Inscription by Design is a concept that claims inscriptions, a series of instructions, are embedded in the structures, designs, geometry, and materials of any object. Everything owns pieces of embedded instructions. Embedded Inscriptions are sets of natural information or instructions that are individually written on everything. Autognorics, meanwhile, is the science of engineered life forms (SELFS) that replicate Life in an evolutionary process, a sequential inscriptional progression that begins from being alive to being with life. These seven sequential evolutionary stages of life are the Mechanization of Aliveness, Sensation of Awareness, Intuitiveness of Logic, Codexation of Consciousness, Inlearness of Information, Experience of Living, and Emergence of Self. The Single Theory also challenges some of the assumptions and arguments of other theories, such as dualism, materialism, idealism, scientism, and consciousness. Some of the possible ways the Single Theory relates to other theories: Dualism is the view that there are two kinds of substances or realities: physical and mental. Lawsin’s theory rejects this view and argues that there is only one kind of reality: Inscriptionalism. Inscription is made up of materials and instructions. Every object is a piece of inscription, and every inscription is made up of a set of instructions/information. Inscription can either be abstract or physical depending on how it is codified and energized. Lawsin’s theory also denies the existence of a separate mental substances (e.g. soul, consciousness) since aneural objects (things without the brain) have the ability to associate things with other things without depending on neurons. He named this phenomenon as Associative Consciousness. Materialism is the view that everything is physical or can be explained by physical processes. Lawsin’s theory agrees that everything is physical, but not in the traditional sense of matter or energy. Lawsin defines Physicals as objects that are both materials and by-materials and explains that matter and energy are both physicals. And those other forms that are non-materials, independent from physicals, such as the Dimetrix Paradox, are known as Abstracts. Idealism is the view that everything is mental or can be explained by mental processes. Lawsin’s theory disagrees with this view and argues that everything is information, which can either be neural(mental) or anueral( non-mental), depending on how it is codified and energized. Lawsin’s theory also shows that there are other forms that are not derived from the mind, such as structural inscriptions. Scientism is the view that science is the only way to find truth and reality. Lawsin’s theory partially supports this view due to the fact science always deviates from the 100% accuracy rule. However, Lawsin’s Inscriptionism suggests that everything is bound by the laws of information and emergence; and the actions and behaviors of everything are influenced by IOs (intuitive objects) and EIs (embedded instructions). Consciousness is the phenomenon of being aware of oneself and one’s surroundings. Lawsin’s theory explains consciousness will not exist when there is no awareness. Awareness only exists when objects are equipped with sensors and are alive. Unconventionally, Lawsin's theory proposes a seven-part formula of existence from where the emergence of self, which involves self-awareness, self-identity, self-realization, self-recognition, or self-expression, is one of its evolutionary orders. The seven-part formula that Lawsin proposed in his theory of Generated Interim Emergence is known as the new seven evolutionary criteria or orders of life also known as the Laws of Seven Inscriptions. The discovery was uncovered on the idea known as Inscription by Design. The Laws consist of the following orders: The mechanization of aliveness. This is the process of making a material object perform some basic functions, such as movement or animation through self-energization. This object is considered alive, but not aware or conscious. (energy) The sensation of awareness. This is the process of adding sensory inputs to the object, such as vision, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. This allows the object to perceive its environment and react to stimuli. This object is considered aware, but not yet conscious. (sensors) The logic of intuitiveness. This is the process of adding rational abilities to the object, such as logic, inference, or deduction through its sensors. This allows the design of the object's sensors to respond or make decisions based on its information inputs and outputs. The object is considered intuitive, but not inlearn, neural, or symbiotic. (logic) The codification of consciousness. This is the process of associating an object(reality) with information(ideas), such as following, copying, discovering, or mimicking what it senses. This allows the object to respond to its surroundings. This anueral object is considered conscious, but not intuitive or inlearn. (codex) The inlearness of information. This is the process of adding learning capabilities to the object by acquiring information in a queue. The various distinct structural designs of its gnos which store individual information uniquely through the flowchart effect via information inputs and outputs that create experiences, behaviors, and feedback. This object is considered inlearn or inform, but not symbiotic or self-emergent. (inform) The symbiosis of living. This is the process of adding social interactions to the object, such as cooperation or competition. This allows the object to form relationships and networks with other objects and benefit from their resources and support. This object is considered symbiotic but without self-realization, self-identity, or self-recognition yet. (living) The emergence of self. This is the process of adding self-referentiality to the object, such as self-identity, self-expression, or self-reflection. This allows the object to recognize itself as a distinct entity and create its own meaning and values in life. This object can recognize itself, thoughts, feelings, actions, and experiences. (life) According to Lawsin’s theory, these seven orders are necessary and sufficient in generating interims from being alive, living, and having life. He claims that this formula can be applied, partially or completely, to any intuitive object, whether natural or artificial, and that it can explain the origin, creation, and evolution of life. The culmination of the five integral foundations is the Single Theory of Everything which claims that "Everything exists because other things cause it to exist, otherwise, it doesn't exist, but it exists, meaning, it is not there but it is there" (Joey Lawsin,1988).

Many thinkers, past, and present, have tried to solve the underlying mystery of consciousness. Yet, no one has ever categorically expressed its exact concrete essence, scope, or meaning until a new school of thought known as Autognorics was conceptualized in 1988 by Joey Lawsin. Consciousness, awareness, and self-realization, are three different things that can not be properly explained by science and philosophy due to the fact that their theoretical and philosophical bases are misguided. When the bases are incorrect, the outcomes will be incorrect too. Consciousness, awareness, and self-realization, as well as being alive, living, and with life, are different terms that are always being interchanged and misinterpreted to be all one and the same. In this paper, they are properly corrected individually and accurately redefined. The findings uncovered in Autognorics, the science of engineered life forms (SELFS), reveal that Life is a sequential evolutionary progression that begins from being alive to having life. Rather than as a detailed thesis, the seven sequential criteria or evolutionary signatures of life are addressed here in an outline format: (i)Mechanical Aliveness, (ii)Sensoric Awareness, (iii)Logical Intuitiveness, (iv)Aneural Consciousness, (v)Information Inlearness, (vi)Symbiotic Living, and (vii)Self-Emergence. Thus, to be conscious, something must be alive (self-energized), aware (with sensors), intuitive(logic), and aneural (a brain without the brain). Consciousness is the ability of an object to match or associate things with other things. On the other hand, to emerge as "me" (thy Self), the seven evolutionary orders of life must be met accordingly. A seed specimen called ELFS, or engineered life forms, is one of the aneural experiments developed primarily to address and rewrite the true essence of life and consciousness. Aside from the various aneural prototypes, neural specimens such as dogs, mice, birds, fish, plants, and molds were utilized as well in the research to eliminate the misguided overrated concept that consciousness emerges solely in creatures with brains or neurons. Life, consciousness, thoughts, emotions, animations, dreams, music, colors, senses, and the self are known as Interims because they only emerge when objects that cause them to exist are present. This is based on the Theory of Generated Interim Emergence, also known as the Single Theory of Everything, that claims "Everything exists because other things cause it to exist, otherwise, everything never existed at all".

In the realm of philosophy, concepts such as dualism, physicalism, panpsychism, functionalism, epiphenomenalism, the theory of the mind, closing the explanatory gap, and solving the hard problem often suffer from misinterpretation due to their fundamentally flawed foundations. To address this, we propose a novel perspective rooted in Originemology—a new school of thought centered on the origin, creation, and evolution of early information. By applying Originemology’s seminal theories—the Caveman in the Box Trilogy, the Human Mental Handicap, and Generated Interim Emergence—we rectify the inherent flaws in the study of the mind. The Hard Problem (Chalmers) and What it is like to be a Bat (Nagel) is not actually hard if their focus is directed toward this new paradigm. Delving into the Caveman in the Box Trilogy, we investigate consciousness by unraveling the mysteries of information origin, creation, and evolution back up by the following key questions which include: (i) How did information emerge into the early minds of the very first humans? (ii) Who supplied our primitive ancestors with information? (iii) Where did it originate? Where did it come from? (iv) Was the source of information a who or a what? Was it god, space aliens, or something else? Inside the Human Mental Handicap Argument, also known as the Codexation Dilemma, we assert that " No human can think of something without associating his thought with something else naturally inherent physically." The something else refers to an object, a word, a label, a name, a definition, a symbol, a gesture, or a representation. This association serves as the primary litmus test for consciousness. Embracing the theory of Aneural Associative Consciousness, that claims consciousness doesn't exclusively need to manifest from the brain, we pave the way for fresh insights and transformative perspectives on the nature of conscious. Associative Consciousness is based on (a) Autognorics, the science of creating engineered life-forms (SELFS); (b) Abiozoism, a view that deals with the transformation of non-life to life; and (c) the theory of Generated Interim Emergence, the concept that highlights creation through inscription by design. Abiozoism claims Life is a sequential process that begins from being non-life (abioform) to being with life(bioform)-based on the seven evolutionary stages of life: the mechanization of aliveness, the sensation of awareness, the codification of consciousness, the intuitiveness of logic, the inlearn acquisition of information, the symbiosis of living, and the emergence of self. By adopting Originemology, the science behind the beginning of everything, and emphasizing Associative Consciousness, the ability to match things without the help of mental reasoning, the nature of consciousness can now be put to rest. As Lawsin playfully put it: "If I can match x with y, therefore, I am conscious."

The concepts of zero and one are abstract constructs that lack intrinsic physical existence and arise through cognitive processes and formal definition. In mathematics, they function as numerals that encode quantitative relations, and when expressed as the symbols 0 and 1, they operate as numbers within established representational systems. These inscriptions allow abstract concepts to take on perceptible form and circulate within scientific, social, and material practices. Yet the ontological status of numbers remains contested. A written symbol is a physical mark, but whether this mark constitutes the existence of a number or merely represents one continues to be debated across philosophy, mathematics, and cognitive science. If numerical entities remain abstract despite their physical representations, broader epistemological questions emerge concerning the extent to which human concepts are grounded in external reality rather than constructed through convention or inference. If all ideas conceptualized by humans are abstract in this sense, then they may ultimately rest on assumptions, conjectures, or suppositions rather than direct access to mind‑independent reality. This concern aligns with Joey Lawsin’s paradox, also known as the Codexation Dilemma, introduced in 1998 as part of his broader account of consciousness as an emergent interaction between information and material processes. Lawsin's dilemma proposes that "no human can conceive an idea without linking it to a physical object or a concept borrowed from the external world". In this view, thoughts and ideas are always tied to something tangible or materially grounded and cannot exist independently of such associations. The dilemma extends beyond mathematics to domains in which foundational concepts, such as justice, emotion, moral value, or divinity, lack direct material correlates yet play essential roles in reasoning and social organization. Interdisciplinary inquiry must therefore address not only whether such concepts exist, but how they function within cognitive systems, how they gain stability through representation and practice, and how they interact with empirical and theoretical models of the world. For this discussion, abstract refers to concepts or informational structures generated within cognitive or formal systems, while physical refers to entities or processes that exist independently of those systems and are accessible through empirical observation. This paper offers a conceptual and interdisciplinary analysis aimed at clarifying how abstract representations function across scientific and cognitive domains.