Remarks on...

Aug 28, 2025

Brought Forth…

Is there existence to be had? I mean, is there sentience within every kind of existence?! Are there levels of sentience, unexplored; left for us to acknowledge? Starting with one’s own [level of] sentience, which acknowledges one's own existence? Which moves on to acknowledging others’ [out of that very own sentience]?
Is there much to be had, as an existence, that we’re not seeing? Existence at levels we’re not yet able to acknowledge because we’re not yet apt to directly observe? Signaling the level of sentience we are using to acknowledge our own existence is yet to develop, yet to unveil before us? A completely different spectrum within which our sentience knows from?
Within the existence of a compound of molecules or more basic singular elements, are their "movements" persisting into a pattern? A pattern to be had, to be moved into becoming a distinctive movement that is different from others’? A pattern of their own? Each with its own kind of movement? Making this "different-from-that" movement, unique, and even authentic? Alive?! Alive even before life as we understand it?! Non-biological even?! A certain kind of sentience, enough (or with the potential) to recognize its own existence?!

Show-How…

Sentience, instead of [only] the ability and capacity to perceive or feel, as it is usually described, it is the ability to know without the need to learn. Knowing without the knowledge. There’s an experiential acquaintance that happens with the subject matter. One that states it knows. You know you exist without the need to learn you do. You can learn about it later, but the knowing is there [before the need to learn]. Sentience is knowing that precedes knowledge.

In order to achieve that kind of knowing there is a need for certain “patterns” to occur: patterns that “persist,” that in themselves make up for that distinctive conjunction of movements; followed by an environment that is appropriate, that is conducive to and for those specific kinds of movement to occur.
One could argue that this is the case of artificial intelligence (AI), how large language models (LLMs) are programmed. But those are algorithms that learn. Not yet constituent elements in themselves which know. See the difference?! (That is not to dismiss the possibility of spontaneously arisen or architecturally instructed constituent elements which know or which are yet to know.)
That said, the “agglomeration” of our own “constituent elements”—the matter with which they are founded, sustaining the integrity of every single cell of our body (not only the brain’s)—are the ones “who” know. There’s sentience in them. The sentience with which you use (pull from) to know you exist.

Good to Know…

The interaction taking place, the “not” communicating in the way we’re used to, using language to do so, and because of that, taking communication, that of what we take it to be, out of the equation (as if communication is something we mastered already and it's checked off done from the list of things to be had; as if communication, to be had, exchanged, it has to happen in this way, the one we're used to) is just taking it for granted, what communication can be—the kind of expansion we have never been exposed to and with, or don't remember.
Which brings us back to existence as a sentience. The kind of silent network moving everything, in the background of things, the elements of things. The carbons. The oxygens. The hydrogens. The electrons. The sum of those; on and on. The stochasticity of it all, the random chances (rather than predictable forms) which wait (what nobody talks about): wait for the impulse that propels them into certainty; that of which makes them become.
Certainly within their own silent communication. But silent to us, that is. There's much to be had; said. Much movement there. There is a whole world [of movement] there to be had. [To be] exposed to. [To be] communicated with. A movement our sentience could certainly be here for; more attentive for.

Frank Thousand