Joey Lawsin

Consciousness is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied from various scientific and philosophical perspectives. However, there is still no consensus on how to define, measure, and explain consciousness. In this paper, we propose a new framework for understanding consciousness based on Information Codexation through Codexation Dilemma, which was first introduced by Lawsin (1988) as a way to reconcile the scientific, philosophical, and aesthetic aspects of consciousness. Based on this dilemma, we present seven core interpretations of consciousness, each with its own definition, characteristics, and correlates. These interpretations are: (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; and (7) Evolutionary Consciousness, which is based on the seven Laws of Inscription. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we describe the Codexation Dilemma and its key role in defining and measuring consciousness. Then, we present the seven core interpretations of consciousness and their neural and non-neural correlates. Next, we discuss the methods and limitations of our framework, and we compare it with other existing approaches. Finally, we conclude with some remarks and suggestions to generate new hypotheses and experiments for future research, specifically in Autognorics, the study of engineered life forms (ELFS).

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 Inscription by Design and Generated Interim Emergence. The former 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, also known as The Single Theory of Everything.

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 or will 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, Inlearness of Information, Codexation of Consciousness, 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 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 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 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 them to exist, otherwise, everything never existed at all" (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."

Zero and One are abstract concepts. They don't exist. 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 exists 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? Are the numbers really existing or are they still abstract, imaginary, or imagined? If they are still abstract, then all ideas man has thought of are all assumptions, guesswork, or suppositions (The Lawsin Conjecture). If the mental outputs of our brain are simply "pixels" that simulate the physical fiber of reality; does this mean that the outside material inputs detected by our biological sensors are also but "pixels" that trans-codify to create the abstract frame of reality? (The Codexation Dilemma). (i) Can a man think of something without associating it with a physical object? If he thinks of an idea, is the idea real without associating it with a physical object? If he thinks of God, does it mean god doesn't exist if he can't associate it with any physical object? (ii) When does his abstract idea become physically real? Is the idea of the letter "I" real when written on a piece of paper? If so, how does this abstract figure become a physical reality without being naturally inherent? (iii) What makes information "jumps" from abstract to physical or vice versa? Note: Abstracts are things (e.g. information or ideas) inside the mind. Physicals are things (e.g. objects, materials) outside the mind.