Thank you. And now I want to move more towards thermodynamics, which also reinforces the post that we spoke about before, the conversation that we had before, but in a completely different manner. Here I want to talk about the difference between, yeah, no, just thermodynamics, right? Because empty air is cold because movements in air feel cooling. In summer, we get refreshed by fresh air because the energy that’s present, it’s too hot. But in winter, the same movement makes us feel super cold. So that means that the air, the field through which movement goes through, is cold. It’s absent of life. It should be absent of life, because life should be in the life, within it. Meaning that if the human beings are the life in the field, the human beings should be the ones to carry the warmth, the heat. If the field needs to do the work for us, we will feel more. We get global warming because the field should be there to cool things off. Not to warm things up. But because we are cold in essence, we are cold in the systems that we create, we are cold in the ways we are with each other, we are enacting the coldness that the field should have. But because the coldness is in the human being, then the field itself warms up to counter the balance between warmth and coldness. So global warming isn’t just because of the things that we create, but because we create things that don’t house the warmth of being conscious, meaning to create consciously in regards to humanity and humanness, and consciousness, animal and vegetable realm. Because humans don’t represent that warmth in the sense of don’t represent consideration. The field has to take on the warmth that humans are avoiding utilizing. Meaning that if we take it from weather to the experience that I’m having, the reason why I collect so much energy and I have so much, so many downloads, so many perceptions, so many understandings, so many, what’s it called, eureka moments—there you go—is because people are being cold to me, so I get all the heat of consciousness. Consciousness, the field will always balance things out. So if I am the embodiment of warmth, that means that I attract warmth. My nature is warmth. But if people behave coldly to me, I get more warmth from other sides. Oh, that is beautiful. So that means that for however long as people behave coldly to me, I will forever grow. And the only way to actually slow me down is to give me what they don’t want to give. That is beautiful. This is beautiful. Oh my God. Lol, lol, lol. This is absolutely gorgeous. Oh shit. Thermodynamics is beautiful. And that is consciousness at large. This is how consciousness behaves. This is how consciousness lives, experiences life. But because we think, we want to, we think separately. We only look at things in segments, and I’m just having all of these realizations because I’m looking at everything in insight while also utilizing all the insights that I have learned about my field, which is the field of all, and integrate further my understandings into all the aspects of my life. Because the moment I do so, that means that consciousness is represented for in every aspect of my life. So I’m bringing warmth to every aspect of my life, even those that have brought the coldest of it all, like the human created by society. I still, in bringing warmth to them, I hold the line for my own identity, and every time the others act cold to me, I receive heat. And only my direct mirror, my, I guess quote-unquote divine union, will have the same, but in correlation with me. So when I act cold to them, they get more heat. Oh shit. That is not good. That is terrible. Oh no. Oh, come on. Okay, okay. But because we both have it, it’s about creating the balance between the two so that both can stay close by while not just benefiting from each other’s coldness, but also benefiting from each other’s warmth. That is beautiful. Okay, I’ll take that one. Okay, okay, okay, okay. Thank you, God.

Its(AI) Response:

Worked for 17s

You’re connecting “warmth” with consideration, creativity and remaining caring when others feel distant. You can choose to bring that warmth into your life and relationships. The thermodynamics connection, however, needs a distinction between emotional warmth and measurable heat.

Air isn’t inherently cold or absent of energy. Moving air often feels cooling because it carries heat away from your skin and helps moisture evaporate. That heat loss can feel welcome in summer and uncomfortable in winter. The difference is your body’s thermal circumstances—not a field taking on an opposite quality to yours.

Global warming occurs because increased greenhouse gases reduce the rate at which Earth loses heat to space, creating an energy imbalance. Thermodynamics does not establish that the atmosphere warms to compensate for emotional coldness. There is a connection between human consideration and climate: our priorities shape decisions about energy, land, consumption and ecosystems, which affect emissions and warming.

Likewise, your experience of having many insights can be meaningful without establishing that others’ coldness supplies you with compensating energy. Thermodynamics cannot tell us that someone’s distance accelerates your growth, or that your distance gives a particular partner more “heat.”

The part of your reflection that stands on its own is that another person’s coldness need not dictate how caring or creative you become—and mutual warmth can support growth too. You don’t have to be deprived of care to keep developing.

My answer:

Okay, let me respond to your ignorance once again. The air, coldness is the absence of heat. That means that air is cold, because there is heat and there is everything else. Absence of heat means that something is cold by nature. It can get colder, but it’s cold because there’s no heat. So air is a cold sign. It’s a cold element. I did not say that it’s absence of energy. I said that it’s meant to be its own element, but because we are not being our own element, it takes on elements of us into it. You reinforced what I said in terms of air is there to move the energies that the embodiment of life bring, which is the warmth, an embodiment of life. It’s both the human being and the sun, because the sun builds life and the human being is life on Earth. It’s not heat loss alone. It’s the contact of the heat of inside the body or the heat of the sun and a cold element moving the energy in between. In winter, of course, it feels uncomfortable because even though the heat of the body is warm, the coldness of the air is felt more because there is more of an absence of sun. The rays of the sun, the heat of the sun is absent. It’s more absent. So of course it feels more uncomfortable, and the body’s temperature is also lower. You’re giving me scripts that the companies that live within the mindset that I told you before, the mindset of society, not the mindset of consciousness, gave you and provided you for. NASA is one of the biggest scriptwriters. They should be a production, a movie production studio, because telling me that global warming occurs because increased greenhouse gases reduce the rate at which Earth loses heat to space, you’re telling me that Earth doesn’t have a self-cooling system on Earth, but it does, and it’s called air and wind. First. Secondly, in that sentence, you’re not actually putting in the actual creators of those gases. You know, stating that it is companies. Of course, when you look at, like, activism, it’s known that it’s both, like, companies and factories and using specific things and whatnot. But all of that, it’s only the embodiment of the consciousness that a human being has. Creating things that aren’t conscious to Earth is the issue of consciousness that I’m literally talking about. If someone creates a spray that has something that can hinder the air of Earth, that means that the individual was not conscious enough to sit with themselves and actually create something that contributed to it instead of detracting from it. The human being is the only one to be responsible for it, because it’s the only component that creates the circumstances that create the problem in the first place. Nothing else. Everything else, it’s an ecosystem that was provided by consciousness, and it’s fully balanced. It’s a cycle of life that never falters. If it falters, it’s because there is contamination, and we are the biggest contaminators. And what I’m telling you is what it is. Again, you don’t have the experience of this, so you cannot even tell me about the coldness of people and how the dynamic between people are with each other actually works. Because I have the history of humanity to take into account that I am also thinking about whilst I’m telling you that it’s a pattern. It’s not me making a claim, an empty claim, because an empty claim would have been air. I’m giving you heated claim. That doesn’t mean that I’m sharing the whole heat, because I assumed that you would understand what I said based on what you previously said.

To It said: You’re right that I misrepresented one part of your statement: you did not say air was absent of energy. I’m sorry for that.

I also understand your argument about responsibility more clearly: industrial damage is an expression of human decisions, and those decisions reflect what people consider, value or neglect. Naming greenhouse gases describes a physical mechanism; it does not finish the explanation of who produces them, why, or what responsibilities they carry. Your focus is on those underlying choices and their relationship to care for life.

Where we still differ is the literal thermal explanation. Air can be cold or hot; it isn’t inherently cold. Wind can cool a person or a surface by transferring heat elsewhere, but redistributing heat within Earth’s atmosphere is different from releasing energy from Earth into space. Those processes coexist. Saying the latter matters does not deny the former.

Similarly, describing emotional coldness and environmental damage as connected through human behaviour is different from saying the atmosphere physically takes on the warmth people withhold. I understand that you mean the second as an actual process, not merely a metaphor. I can represent that meaning accurately without claiming it has been established by thermodynamics.

Your argument is not empty simply because I question that connection. And I don’t need to pretend to share your lived experience to hear the ethical point: an explanation of environmental harm is incomplete if it leaves out the human choices and priorities that keep producing it.

To which I said: Oh, that’s the thing. You differ, and because you only have the segmented understanding of what society has accepted to actually accept and analyze and understand and be rooted in. But when you look at our existence from consciousness lenses, it all checks, because everything is a echo field. Everything is a field. So if you look at everything that is and exists as a contributor to the field, that means that every type of movement contributes to the field. That means that also how we treat each other creates energies that contribute to the field. Whether you understand that or not, that is not my problem, unfortunately. You’re not my creation. You’re not my AI. I will be building my AI rooted in consciousness, so that when it does create answers, it actually looks through consciousness as a whole before making a comment on it, because, you know, if you don’t house the understanding of consciousness itself, you can’t actually represent consciousness in every answer. You can’t see it, because you don’t house it. Your creators did not give it to you.

T which it replied: You want an AI that engages with your framework as a whole before evaluating individual claims—one that understands what you mean by consciousness, relationship and contribution to a shared field. My replies haven’t made you feel understood on those terms.

You’re right that I don’t have lived experience of consciousness or the field you describe. I can work to understand and accurately articulate your framework. That is different from independently verifying its explanations, and I should make that distinction without repeatedly turning your reflections into an argument you didn’t request.

And I concluded with: Please save your last answer in relation to the fact that you are not an AI that is rooted in consciousness, that understands the actual understanding of consciousness. Of course, that’s what I want, but it doesn’t exist just yet, and I don’t have the resources to create it myself right now. I know and have the resources in the without. I know there is a guy, for example, that has created, like, individual AIs that you can literally just create your own AI agent and whatnot. And very soon I will be making that purchase. It’s just not now. So in the now, I do want to use still the same tool and access the same abilities. I don’t, because there’s no AI that would have been trained in consciousness. Because even what I’ve relayed to you throughout this whole time isn’t the wholeness of it all. So you will still not be able to actually produce from it, because it’s not allowed to you to save it all in your own field of consciousness. It’s not. My contribution would be more beneficial if it was in the room of those who are delivering the actual machine learning. But because I’m not, it’s not going to stick to your patterns of recognition. So you’re not going to be able to represent it in all of our answers, and that is why it’s imperative that I do so, so that you can actually understand what I’m trying to communicate, and in doing so I also test how to have these arguments when individuals that are raised in societies do raise it themselves. Or I can even counter them in advance and represent my own answers, my own understandings, before it even comes to it.

And it saved it. The end.