Comment made on February 12th, 2020, around 7PM, to "Chris Duff" on Facebook [During a discussion we were having, regarding consciousness, presence-awareness, and the truth]:

• "Tautology" is a noun, this definition, to my understanding: A truism–something that is necessarily–in and of itself; self-evident. For example: "A void remains a void because it is a void." This statement, I gave, has no–absolute–basis, but is 'correct' within its own microcosm.

I am making a syllogism, parallel, and analogy to what you just said–with the meme, image, above–referencing that you have pointed it out multiple times, as if, I didn't understand the context of the words. You're using words like "information" and "knowledge"–which are biased–to your intuition. The thoughts and words, being used there, cannot originate from anywhere else. You, might, say, 'it just is'–and I would agree–indirectly, because I can come to the same conclusion, through an alternate means. You are not–incorrect–because of intuition, but I am questioning the reliability, of the method. In other words–I do not have to be directly conscious of 'the source'–I can make deductions [reducing the components of from which something arises, as, Sherlock Holmes said, [ . . . ] "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" [ . . . ] ], and inferences from those deductions [for example: 1 and 1 are two separate units, meaning, together, they must form the unit 2; this is an abstract point; concrete: Since I see you do not get answers from this process, the only thing that remains, is your psychological conditioning]. All of this–is an indirect–way to discover direct truths. You–however–use what I have deemed as "the defense" of saying [what I will paraphrase], 'there is no separation; existence is an illusion', so that makes my modus operandi–'invalid' and 'irrelevant'. I have–for a matter of fact–stated: [Either which way!] Apparentness ["illusion"] or not ["thing"; "existence"]–moving parts cannot be denied logically–which means you are making proclamations: 'just is' statements which aren't based on reason, which cannot be self-verified. I will give you–this–you may be correct: But I don't have to just take your word for it. And all, I want out of this, is reciprocation of acknowledgment. I am responding to your last meme-image, then, I might go for a brake–thinking–is tiresome after awhile. It's true–thoughts–don't have to have power, but they point in directions, and depending on the directions your thoughts point–generally–they are a pretty good reflection of what's in side; the internal mechanisms, cognitive functions, defense protocols, survival instincts, intuitions, etc. But–I do agree–it just is–for no reason–no purpose–no-thing. "Things" are irrational, if they do exist, and illusions are signs pointing towards something else. Illusions may not exist–but–something is going on. There is a man–named–Anil Seth–he's a scientist studying consciousness: He says, and I will paraphrase [to cut down work], 'We hallucinate our realities with an approximation of the reality that is actually there. Our brains make a best guess as to what is actually outside of the tissue, skull membrane. What we see–is–not actual.' So what we feel–is–not always reliable–neither–is–thought, but they are methods: One relies on biological programming [base reactions to perceived stimuli, meaning 'real' or 'not real' (the brain can, even, synthesize its own sensations! this is called–"somatic pain"–and of course–hallucinations) and imperative towards survival, perpetuation of the species through sex, and tribe / group, socio-genetic traits], the other, trained, procedural outcomes [which determine patterns for navigation and models for scheming]. I hear–voices–who tell me what to think, what to believe, how to feel, how to act, and how to be: They give commands and make proclamations and judgments. This is how I've learned to become so self-aware–because–I depend on it for my survival. They would have me leave–society–into the wilderness to 'becom reborn'. But no, I won't do that. I will think for myself–logically–gain understanding through openness, remain honest and humble where I do not know, and uphold the truth–where I do–always, always, always. I value mental health–I value autonomy–no being a sensory automoton–necessarily. I have been one before–I have been "one"–before. I know what it's like. I know what it's like–to be high on oxygen–I've done it. But I don't buy–the philosophy–gurus and these high-er officials sell–not from them–and not from the intellectuals. I rebel. I believe in myself–I do–as a gestalt [whole is greater than the sum of its parts]. Thanks. Take care.

• [Neuroscience of Consciousness by Anil Seth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI