Andre Gaudreault (Gaudwin)
4 min readJun 14, 2023




Re: “I cannot buy the “oscillating between observed and unobserved”

This dichotomy is central to my thesis. It goes like this:

Daniel Dennett defines consciousness as: “Consciousness arises from the interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.”

Since I consider consciousness as fundamental, I replaced “cognitive process” (since this process belongs exclusively to humans, cf, Cogito ergo sum) with ‘information process,’ and defined consciousness as simply being “matter informed” — as all atoms are while being “informed” differently by the identical elementary particles (Protons, neutrons, and electrons) composing them, and as all chemical compounds are informed by the atoms forming them, and so on, up to us conscious individuals, through the more elaborated process that I will define below.

And since, in nature, all other entities, living and inert, don’t think that they are but are, following the “information” that made them who they are, they happen to live in the “thing-in-itself,” the enfolded and continuous (sic) implicate order where everything happens without movement but only through “holomovement” allowing for entanglement, of which they all benefit.

While human entities, because they “know themselves” by being solely aware of the (inner, and discrete because “observed) representations of the outside “continuous” (sic) implicate order, see the world as a series of discontinuous frames (observations), for which they have concocted through the years the notions of space, time, categories, etc., and all sort of mathematical scheme to make sense of the movement they perceive in their every-day life and on their instruments, for the micro-level of reality.

You may understand what I mean. However, because this has to be understood by everybody if I am right, and I know I am, I am writing my dissertation to show how I came to perceive this reality.

Here’s a “macroscopic” representation of what It means for us observers:

You see, animals are “conscious” of the niches in which they live “without any representation” (which I will convincingly demonstrate in my dissertation) while knowing what to do in them from the start. In contrast, we are conscious of a spatiotemporal reality, which we represent to ourselves as unique and helpless individuals.

That is why “species are individuals” being all “informed” by the same genetic code, while humans are unique individuals (like species are) and in need of a “theory of everything” that will be understood by every honest mind while giving them the means to control altogether as an individual “Homo novus” the destructive force that Homo sapiens modern has become in evolution.

This thesis, which will be developed as such a theory of everything, is the fruition of forty years of independent research as a learned-ignorant generalist and a physicist-at-heart among modern Homo sapiens who don’t know what they are talking about when defining reality in itself, no more than the scholastics knew about the planets while taking their apparent motion as real.

Do you see where I am going here? It is not reality that is discontinued but our observations, thus throwing a wrench in the mechanics of science. The point is that it is human individuals who produce the tools that our species use for itself while considering the environment as an externality that it feels free to destroy as generalized cancers do to living bodies.


PS for medium readers: If you want to hear more about the ad hoc notions used by science to describe the “appearance” of reality, which are unique to human beings, you can look at my comment to Aaron Endelman, a scientific from MIT



Andre Gaudreault (Gaudwin)

70+generalist, two general BA & one unspecialized MA in ZooAnthropoSociology acquired to find out why specialists cannot solve the problems created by progress.