Dialog 4: The Hardest Questions Become Clear

The morning was quiet. Pale light through the oak branches. You could see Brother Michael down by the garden beds, brushing frost off the new herbs, one by one. Haplous was already on the bench.

Synergos came up with his usual stack of papers, and sat down beside him.

“I’ve been thinking about what you said yesterday,” he said. “About dreams being only the start – like, just the beginning of how we understand the brain building experience.”

“Ah yes.” Haplous said. “Once you see that experience gets built, not just received... it opens things up.”

“That’s it.” Synergos nodded. “You mentioned those patients with split brains. And blindsight, too. I’ve heard those terms before, but I never thought they could really connect to all this.”

Haplous looked at the gravel path for a moment.

“Well,” he began, “what was it that convinced us about dreams?”

“Maury. The timing. It couldn’t have happened the way it felt – it had to be constructed after the fact.”

“Exactly. It had to be put together later,” Haplous said. “So now imagine if there were other cases – other situations – where the brain seems to behave in a way that doesn’t make sense. Unless you’re seeing it through that same lens.”

“You mean like the dreams.”

“Yes.”

Synergos blinked. “So what are you thinking of?”

“Have you ever wondered how people with split brains can function so normally? Like – go about their lives? Without seeming off?”

“You mean when they do that surgery,” Synergos said. “Cutting the corpus callosum, to stop seizures?”

“Yes. That’s the one. The two hemispheres get disconnected. At least, mostly. And that’s what’s so interesting.”

He glanced out toward the trees. “When they first started doing those surgeries, people were worried. I mean really worried. That it might create two minds in one person. Because you’re physically cutting the brain in half.”

“That would be a serious problem.”

“Yes, it would. But that’s not what happened.”

Synergos waited.

“In everyday life,” Haplous said slowly, “these patients... they’re fine. They get up. They eat. They talk to people. They go to work. You wouldn’t know anything was different.”

He paused.

“Until they’re tested the right way.”

“So the right hemisphere’s BAL is still working just fine,” Synergos said, “but it can’t get to the o-series, and it can’t do PTD-based Looping either.”

“Right,” Haplous agreed. “It stays competent, but it can’t report directly. And it can’t reflect on what it processed using Looping – not in the way the left side can.”

“So the left hemisphere BAL has the PTD. It has Looping. But only for the stuff in its own system.”

“Yes. Which is why it can say ‘I didn’t see anything,’ even though the left hand just reached out and picked up the object perfectly.”

Synergos rubbed his temple. “A strange disconnect. But I see it now. The two BALs are both active, but only one has that reflective channel for internal report.”

“That’s the big difference. And once you see that, these cases stop looking like puzzles.”

He paused again. “Now, here’s another twist.”

Synergos looked over.

“What happens if you show each hemisphere different information?”

“You mean, they flash something to each side at once?”

“Yes. Different inputs, same moment. And what happens is – each hemisphere processes its own input, and each guides the action on its own side.”

“So each brain at large is handling its own stream of reality in parallel.”

“Exactly. But – only one side can say what happened. The side with the PTD. And to do that, it needs to have looped the experience.”

“So you ask the patient, and they describe the left hemisphere’s view of the scene.”

“Yes. Even though the other side had its own take. Its own data. Its own response.”

“But it can’t say anything. It can’t loop it, and it can’t report it.”

“Right again,” Haplous said. “So what you get is one hemisphere talking, but the other still doing.”

“Right,” he said. “But there’s a detail worth keeping in mind.”

Synergos glanced up.

“Some of what the right hemisphere seems to understand might not be language in the full PTD sense. It could be using visual associations with word-forms. Or getting hints from the left side through slow, indirect paths. So when it follows a written instruction, like ‘point to the object,’ it may be doing that through a different route entirely.”

“So it’s not the same kind of language processing the left hemisphere does, even if it looks similar from the outside.”

“Exactly. It’s not silent. But it’s not doing the full symbolic decoding either – not the way the PTD does it.”

Haplous tapped the side of the bench lightly.

“And that,” he added, “is part of why the speaking hemisphere often gives strange explanations for things.”

“Ah.” Synergos leaned back. “Because the right hemisphere BAL reacts – maybe it sees something disturbing, or it makes a choice. But the left hemisphere doesn’t know why. So when you ask it...”

“It doesn’t say ‘I’m not sure.’ It just builds an answer. Right there, on the spot. From what it can access.”

“Even if the real reason is locked on the other side.”

“Right.” Haplous nodded. “The Looping system is doing its best with partial data. Just like with dreams. It uses what’s in reach.”

Synergos paused thoughtfully. “And the story it makes... it feels real to the person saying it.”

“Absolutely. Because the Looping process only sees what it’s allowed to see. It doesn’t know what’s missing. So the story feels complete, even when it’s just a patchwork from one side.”

“A kind of confident illusion. Built from fragments.”

“Built honestly,” Haplous said gently. “It’s not a lie. It’s what the BAL can do with the proxies it finds – using Looping to shape them into something reportable.”

Synergos was quiet for a moment. Then he asked, “So when both hemispheres are active, but only one has access to Looping – and only for its own proxies – what happens when they don’t agree?”

“They don’t resolve it. Not in the usual way. Each BAL just follows its own cues.”

“You mean, they can act at cross-purposes?”

“Yes. That’s exactly what happens in some patients. One hand starts doing something – and the other interrupts. Or reverses it. Like one begins to button a shirt, and the other unbuttons it.”

“But why? What would make one side stop the other?”

“Each hemisphere’s BAL is making sense of the world in its own way. Each is working with its own set of proxies, and acting on its own goals. Without the corpus callosum, they don’t share proxy states anymore.”

“So there’s no way for one BAL to know what the other is trying to do.”

“Exactly. Not in real time. The left BAL can’t see what proxies the right BAL is activating. It can’t inspect them, and it can’t simulate them with Looping either.”

Synergos sat back. “So the conflict isn’t the result of confusion – it’s the result of two competent systems both acting... just not together.”

“That’s it. They’re each trying to do something reasonable – but without coordination, they might clash.”

“So if each BAL can act independently – and neither can inspect the other’s proxies – then the one with Looping just... fills in the reason afterward?”

“Often, yes. That’s where it gets even more interesting. Because sometimes the patient’s response – what they say – has nothing to do with the real cause. But it still sounds perfectly reasonable.”

“Like in those experiments where they flash different words to each side.”

“Yes,” Haplous said. “One side sees ‘clap,’ the other sees ‘walk.’ The person hesitates. Then walks.”

“And then you ask them why.”

“They say something like, ‘I wanted to stretch my legs.’ But really, the instruction came from the right hemisphere – which the speaking side never saw.”

Synergos gave a low whistle. “So it’s the same pattern again. The BAL acts, and then the hemisphere with the Looping system builds a reason. But it’s guessing.”

“Yes. Based on what proxies are available to it.”

“And it doesn’t know it’s guessing.”

“Nope.” Haplous smiled faintly. “It sounds confident, because Looping assumes it’s looking at everything it needs to. There’s no indicator that something’s missing.”

Synergos looked out toward the chapel. “That’s just like dreams. The BAL wakes up, finds certain proxies active – and the Looping system builds a story around them.”

“The same process. Same naïve archaeologist. Same reliance on local fragments.”

“In split-brain patients,” Synergos said, “the left hemisphere still has the PTD, right? So if you show something to the right visual field, it gets processed by the left BAL – and they can talk about it.”

“Correct. It sees the object, loops it, and can report it normally.”

“But if you flash the image to the left visual field, then the right hemisphere sees it. The right BAL processes it. But it can’t report it – because it doesn’t have PTD access.”

“Exactly. The left hemisphere can’t see those proxy activations. Its Looping system has no access. So when you ask, ‘Did you see anything?’ the answer is no.”

Synergos leaned forward. “But then you ask them to point – with their left hand – and they point straight to the object. Like a spoon.”

“Yes. Because the right BAL saw it. And the left hand is under its control.”

“But the speaking hemisphere still says it saw nothing, and then when you ask why they picked the spoon...”

“The left hemisphere’s BAL uses Looping to construct an answer. Something plausible, even if it has no connection to the real cause.”

“And the person believes it. Because the Looping system doesn’t know it’s missing anything.”

“Yes. The BAL assumes completeness. It doesn’t second-guess its own access.”

“Just like in dreams. The feeling of wholeness, even when the construction is patchy.”

“Same mechanism,” Haplous said, his fingers briefly touching his cross.

He continued, “And the framework predicts all of this. When one BAL reacts emotionally to something it saw, the reaction comes from that BAL – even if it can’t explain it. Or even if the other side says something completely different.”

“What about those cases where one hand grabs something – and the other pushes it away?”

“Sometimes it’s just each BAL following its own idea. Its own goal. They don’t share proxy states anymore. So one tries something, and the other interrupts.”

“No agreement.”

“Right. Because there’s no PTD-based Looping system pulling them into a shared internal picture.”

Haplous paused. “But once in a while, they find workarounds.”

“Workarounds?”

“One BAL might use a physical cue. A foot tap. A cough. Something the other side can notice. Something external.”

“A kind of code. A signal.”

“Yes. They call it cross-cueing. It’s like the BAL is inventing new channels – because the old ones are gone.”

Synergos raised an eyebrow. “So the brain, even split, still wants to act as one.”

“It’s still a unitary system underneath. The BAL spans both hemispheres. It just can’t share proxies directly anymore. So it improvises.”

Synergos was quiet for a moment.

“You know,” he said slowly, “we’ve talked about Looping mostly as if it’s a reporting tool. A way to build an explanation. Or narrate experience. But I think it’s more than that.”

Haplous waited.

“It’s starting to feel like it’s a real cognitive tool. Something the BAL can use to solve certain kinds of problems that it couldn’t solve otherwise. Or at least, not easily.”

He turned toward Haplous. “And here’s the interesting part. I don’t think everyone uses it the same way. Some people rely on Looping to do certain tasks – and others might do those same tasks without it. It depends on the brain, the person, maybe even the situation.”

Haplous gave a small nod.

Synergos went on. “You give two people the same mental puzzle – say, one that requires forming associations based on inner imagery or re-lived emotion. One of them just gets it, instantly. The other has to stop and think – loop it, imagine it, maybe even feel it – before the solution comes into view.”

“And in split-brain patients, we see this in sharp relief. The right hemisphere might understand language in a rough way, or react appropriately, but when you give it a task that depends on inner imagery or structured recollection, it falls short. Not because it lacks logic – but because it can’t revisit anything. It can’t loop.”

“Yes,” Haplous said. “Certain tasks only become reachable when the BAL is able to inspect its own activations. Not just act on them – but look at them. Consider them. Hold them in place for a moment.”

“So it’s not that the BAL isn’t smart enough. It’s that it can’t reach the task in that way, without the tool.”

“And that’s why,” Haplous said, his hand resting near his cross, “Looping isn’t a feature of consciousness. It’s a resource. A resource for cognition itself.”

Synergos looked down at his hands. “So all these strange experiments... they stop seeming strange. It’s just a matter of who processed what, and who could loop and report it.”

“Exactly. The architecture is the same. The rules haven’t changed. The integration pathways just got cut.”

“So all the strange things we see – confabulations, contradictions, actions without reasons – they’re not errors. They’re just the BAL doing its job with what it has. And Looping... Looping is like a flashlight. It lights up one corner of the proxy map. But it doesn’t see everything.”

He paused, then looked up at Haplous.

“And it’s not just for telling stories. It lets the brain look at itself. Inspect what it’s doing. Sometimes even stop, consider something, hold it up before acting.”

He frowned slightly.

“But here’s what strikes me. You don’t always need it. The brain can know things – act wisely, respond to past experience – without looping at all. Without revisiting anything. The right hemisphere does that all the time. It remembers, in a way, but not by re-entering the experience.”

Haplous nodded once, quietly.

“But if you want to revisit something,” Synergos said, “to feel it again as a lived moment, or imagine a scene, or recollect something consciously – that’s when you loop it. That’s what looping gives you. Not just competence. Not just behavior. But the possibility of experience itself.”

He looked directly at Haplous.

“Looping doesn’t just let us describe life. It lets us return to it. From the inside.”

There was a long pause, the gentle sounds of the monastery filling the space around them.

Then Haplous said softly, “Yes. That’s it.”

“There’s another fascinating phenomenon that might seem quite different from split-brain cases, but actually demonstrates the same principles.”

“What’s that?”

“Well, sometimes after certain types of brain injury, people develop what scientists call ‘blindsight.’”

“Blindsight? That sounds like a contradiction.”

“It does, doesn’t it? These people claim they can’t see anything in parts of their visual field. If you ask them what’s in front of them, they’ll say they see nothing at all.”

“But I’m guessing there’s more to it?”

“Yes. If you ask them to reach for an object in their ‘blind’ area, or to guess whether something is moving...”

“They can do it?”

“Not only can they do it, they can do it with remarkable accuracy! While insisting they see absolutely nothing.”

“But...” Synergos frowned. “How can they respond to something they claim not to see? That seems impossible...”

“Rather like our split-brain patients responding to information they claim not to have?”

“Ah!” Synergos said. “Is this another case where the brain at large is handling the operations smoothly, but can’t engage looping to consciously examine the experience for report?”

“Yes, think carefully about what’s happening in these cases. The brain at large clearly receives the visual information...”

“Because it can guide accurate movements and responses!”

“Exactly. But when they try to consciously examine what they’re seeing via Looping...”

“They can’t engage Looping for that information! Just like how our split-brain patients can’t loop about information in their non-speaking hemisphere’s BAL!”

“And notice something fascinating about their explanations...”

“Do they try to explain their accurate responses?”

“Yes! When asked how they could reach for something they couldn’t see, they often say things like ‘I just guessed’ or ‘I had a feeling...’”

“Ah! Just like our split-brain patients – their BAL has the Looping system create explanations using whatever information is available to that system!”

“And what does this tell us about our framework?”

“That we’re seeing the same principle at work! Whether it’s split-brain patients or blindsight... We’re seeing the brain at large operate perfectly well, while only being able to engage Looping for certain information and subsequent report!”

“Rather compelling evidence that these apparently different conditions...”

“Actually demonstrate the same fundamental mechanics! The brain at large handling everything, with Looping restricted to specific pathways for explicit examination!”

“You know what strikes me,” Synergos said thoughtfully, “about all these different phenomena we’re examining...”

“Yes?”

“Each one seems mysterious on its own. Split-brain patients who can’t report what one hemisphere sees but can act on it perfectly. Blindsight patients who can respond to things they claim not to see...”

“And don’t forget our dreamers, constructing experiences that couldn’t possibly have happened during sleep.”

“Yes! But through our framework... they all show the same basic principle at work, don’t they?”

“What principle is that?”

“The brain at large operating perfectly well, using Looping when needed for specific kinds of examination and report – but Looping only being available through specific pathways! Whether those pathways are cut by split-brain surgery, affected by the blindsight condition, or not engaged during sleep...”

“Rather like a detective finding the same clue at different crime scenes?”

“Yes! Each case is different, but they all point to the same underlying truth – the brain at large as the fundamental operator, with Looping as a tool it can employ for certain tasks, accessible only through certain channels!”

“And notice something else about these phenomena...”

“They’re all well-documented! It’s not theoretical – we can see this principle at work in real, measurable ways!”

“There’s another fascinating set of phenomena,” Haplous said, “that seems quite different from what we’ve discussed, yet demonstrates the same principles.”

“What’s that?”

“Consider what happens in moments of extreme danger. In terms of how it is recalled later, it seems that our subjective experience slowed way down – people often report that everything moved in slow motion.”

“Yes, I’ve heard of that. Though how could time actually slow down?”

“Think about our framework. If there is no Looping taking place in those moments of split-second urgency, because more rapid BAL-direct action is required, when does the first conscious experience of the event occur via Looping?”

“Ah!” Synergos sat forward. “Just like dreams – it must be constructed by Looping afterward. And the Looping process constructs an experience that seems to have lasted much longer. Just like Maury’s dream seeming to take days!”

“Rather elegant how the same principles appear in such different situations?”

He paused. “But now consider something else about time perception. And this goes back to what we were just talking about, about the experience of driving home and suddenly realizing you have little or no memory of the last few minutes of the journey.”

“Yes! It’s rather unsettling – I clearly drove safely, made all the right turns, but I can’t recall doing it...”

“And yet when we try to remember those ‘missing’ minutes...”

“Our brain at large has Looping create some sort of vague construction? Though it feels different from memories where Looping was actively engaged during the original experience?”

“Exactly! But let’s take a closer look at what’s happening here. Unlike the extreme danger case, this isn’t just a simple absence of Looping – it’s a hybrid.”

“A hybrid?”

“Yes. Some moments of that drive were likely engaged with Looping – perhaps when you noticed a landmark or checked your speed. But much of it was handled automatically by the BAL, without Looping at all.”

“And because Looping was intermittent, the recollection has a hybrid nature! Some parts are fully constructed from conscious engagement via Looping, while other parts are reconstructed by Looping from whatever traces the brain at large can retrieve from its non-looped operation.”

“And notice something else – your BAL isn’t just fabricating a story from nothing when Looping reconstructs. It’s looking back over multiple available proxy traces: muscle movements, navigation adjustments, even micro-corrections in balance.”

“Ah! Interfunctional complementation! Because the driving was a real experience involving the BAL, the Looping reconstruction has access to all these traces. That’s why, even if I don’t consciously remember driving via Looping at the time, I still know I did it!”

“Exactly. Your brain at large doesn’t just invent memories for Looping to examine – it assembles them from everything available. But compare this to a dream...”

“Ah! A dream is also a reconstruction by Looping, but it doesn’t have those real-world BAL-level traces to draw from – just maintenance activity and bits of previous memories.”

“Which is why dream recall feels so fluid and strange, while even ‘forgotten’ real experiences still feel grounded when Looping pieces them together.”

Synergos frowned thoughtfully. “But wait – this means something important about memory in general, doesn’t it?”

“It does. It means every memory examined via Looping is a hybrid to some extent. Even in everyday experience, Looping is not continuous – it shifts between engagement and other thoughts, while the BAL continues its work.”

“So all recollection via Looping is partly reconstruction and partly drawing on traces of direct Looping from the time of the event. And what feels like a seamless memory is actually an assembly by Looping from whatever traces it happened to leave behind during the original experience, or can access from the BAL’s ongoing operations.”

Haplous smiled, watching a pair of doves peck at crumbs near the kitchen door. “That’s why people find it so hard to understand how their own minds work. These processes are so smooth, and the reconstructions generated by Looping so convincing, that we never notice them – until we have a framework to make sense of it all.”

He turned back to Synergos. “Tell me, do you remember your drive home last night?”

Synergos blinked at the change of topic but nodded. “Yes, I can recall parts of it.”

“So, as you drove, were you consciously thinking via Looping about every turn, every acceleration, every stop?”

“No, not really. I was mostly lost in other thoughts, my Looping engaged elsewhere. But now that I think about it, I can sort of reconstruct what happened – where I turned, when I hit a red light...”

“Exactly.” Haplous said. “Your Looping wasn’t focused on the drive at the time, but now, as you remember it, the act of remembering is a Looping event. Why does it feel like you were conscious of the drive then?”

“Because... the act of remembering now forces it into Looping?”

“Yes! The moment you recall an event, you pass its traces through your Looping mechanism. And since Looping is the primary way cognition generates reportable subjective experience, it seems like that’s how the event originally happened for your awareness – even if, at the time, your BAL was handling it and your Looping was elsewhere.”

Synergos exhaled sharply. “So even if my brain at large handled the driving, when I reflect on it now using Looping, it looks as if ‘I’ – my Looping self – was consciously involved at the time?”

“That’s why people often falsely believe that Looping is the core of the self – because every remembered event, even those originally processed primarily by the BAL without focused Looping, now appears through the lens of Looping during recall.”

“That’s... unsettling. It means my recollection of my own experience via Looping is always a current construction, not a pure replay.”

“Not distorted, necessarily,” Haplous said gently. “Just structured by the Looping mechanism in a way that foregrounds what is loop-accessible. Reportable consciousness is not the author of all our actions, but it is, as it were, the only historian we can directly consult.”

They sat in silence for a moment. Synergos absently watched a gust of wind stir the edges of a parchment Brother Michael had left on a nearby table. Across the courtyard, the young monk hunched over a long sheet of paper, his brush moving with slow, practiced strokes.

“Consider something interesting about learning new skills,” Haplous said, nodding toward the monk. “Notice how differently a beginner and an expert engage with their task.”

“Yes... when Brother Michael first started learning calligraphy, his BAL had to use Looping for every stroke, didn’t he? Consciously examining each movement via its proxies?”

“And now?”

Synergos watched as Brother Michael added a final flourish to a character. “His brain at large handles most of the actual writing beautifully, drawing on well-established proxies, without engaging Looping for every detail! Though sometimes he does pause, and I imagine his BAL engages Looping to examine a particular character more carefully...”

“Rather like Sister Agnes with her flowers?”

“Yes! And this fits perfectly with what we’ve discovered about split-brain patients and blindsight! The brain at large is perfectly capable of skilled action using its proxies without constant Looping, but it can engage Looping as a tool when useful for more focused examination!”

“And notice something about watching skilled practitioners work...”

“Sometimes their Looping seems completely absorbed in the immediate task, examining each detail... while other times their Looping is clearly elsewhere, yet their BAL continues the work perfectly through its established proxy patterns?”

“Just like our driving experience?”

“Yes! And when I think about my own work with the monastery accounts... My BAL does the same thing! Sometimes I’m deeply engaged in Looping about each calculation, other times my Looping is elsewhere while my BAL handles the familiar tasks directly!”

“All demonstrating the same principle?”

“The brain at large as the fundamental operator, using Looping as a tool when needed – whether for careful examination of the task at hand, or for engaging with other content entirely while the BAL manages the routine!”

“Consider Brother Thomas and his woodcarving.”

“What about it?”

“Well, when he first learned, his BAL had to constantly engage Looping to check each step against what he’d been taught – proper tool angles, grain direction, cutting depth...”

“Yes! Like consulting an internal instruction manual by Looping through those learned proxies!”

“But now watch him work. His brain at large has developed its own deep, integrated proxy model of the wood, hasn’t it?”

“Yes! His BAL responds to qualities in the wood, via its proxies, that weren’t even mentioned in his training! Like it can sense exactly how each piece wants to be carved through its direct proxy activations...”

“Rather like how a skilled musician goes beyond just playing the notes?”

“Exactly! The brain at large develops capabilities, through the refinement of its proxy model, that transcend what can be put into words or explicit instructions! Is this why masters often have trouble explaining exactly how they do things when they try to use Looping to access that BAL-level knowledge?”

“Think about what happens when they try to explain via Looping...”

“Their BAL has to use Looping to try and construct PTD-formatted explanations for something its own deeper proxy systems just... know and do? Like our split-brain patients’ left BALs trying to explain actions performed by the right BAL, actions they can carry out perfectly but whose initiating proxies aren’t directly accessible to the Looping system?”

“Yes. And notice how this fits with everything else we’ve discovered...”

“The brain at large as the fundamental operator, developing sophisticated proxy-based capabilities that don’t depend on Looping at all! Though its Looping system can still be engaged when needed – either to examine details or to try constructing PTD-formatted explanations for others!”

“You know what’s fascinating to watch,” Haplous said, “when the brothers are repairing the chapel roof.”

“How so?”

“Observe how their BALs work together. Brother James passing tiles without looking, his BAL knowing exactly where Brother Thomas’s BAL will have his hand ready to receive them...”

“While their Looping systems are carrying on a discussion about scripture! Their Brains at Large handling the complex physical coordination via established proxy patterns, while Looping is engaged with theological debate?”

“Yes. But notice something else...”

“Sometimes they pause their discussion, their BALs engage Looping to examine a particularly tricky section of the roof... Then they seamlessly return to their debate while their BALs have their hands continue the work!”

“Rather like masters of any craft?”

“Yes! The brain at large handles everything – the physical work, the coordination with others, even knowing when its Looping tool should be engaged for closer examination... And all while Looping can be free to engage with completely different content!”

“Like how a skilled organist’s BAL can have their hands play the hymn perfectly while their Looping system contemplates its meaning?”

“Exactly! Though now I understand that it’s not really their ‘mind’ being elsewhere – it’s just their brain at large employing Looping for different proxy content while its other systems handle the music directly!”

“Speaking of things we all experience,” Haplous said, “have you ever noticed what happens when you’re walking along a familiar path?”

“Like my daily walk from my quarters to the chapel?”

“Yes. Sometimes your Looping is fully engaged with the walk itself...”

“Noticing the morning light, the feel of the stones, the sound of my footsteps via looped proxy activations...”

“While other times...”

“My BAL has my feet follow the path perfectly while my Looping is occupied with other thoughts! Just like driving home! The brain at large handles the navigation flawlessly using its proxy model, whether or not we’re Looping about it!”

“And notice something interesting about these familiar paths...”

“Sometimes we arrive with almost no memory of the journey formed via Looping, yet our BAL clearly made all the right turns, avoided obstacles... Just like our split-brain patients’ right BALs responding perfectly to information the left Looping system can’t report!”

“Yes. And what does this tell us about the brain at large?”

“That its BAL develops these sophisticated proxy-based capabilities that don’t require Looping at all! Whether it’s an expert craftsman’s BAL working without conscious oversight via Looping, or any of our BALs walking a familiar path while Looping is focused on other things...”

“Rather conclusive evidence for our framework’s view of Looping as a tool the BAL uses?”

“Yes! One the brain at large can engage or not engage for specific proxy sets as needed, while its other systems handle everything else perfectly!”

“Speaking of how the brain at large operates,” Haplous said, watching the monastery cat leap suddenly to catch a wind-blown leaf, “have you ever noticed what happens in moments requiring instant BAL-direct action?”

“Like when Brother Thomas caught that falling candlestick before it could break?”

“Yes! Think carefully about what must have happened there...”

“His brain at large responded to the movement instantly using its proxy model... But there wouldn’t have been time for his BAL to engage Looping, would there?”

“No more than that cat had time to loop about catching its leaf! And notice something interesting about these moments...”

“When we try to recall them afterward via Looping, they’re like those automatic driving periods – Looping can only reconstruct vague impressions! Because the brain at large handled everything directly, and Looping wasn’t engaged at the time to form its specific kind of examinable trace!”

“Rather elegant evidence that Looping isn’t needed for skilled, rapid BAL action?”

“Yes! Just like our split-brain patients’ right BALs responding perfectly to information their left Looping systems can’t access... We’re seeing the same principle everywhere, aren’t we?”

“Consider what happens in truly dangerous situations.”

“Like when Brother James caught that novice who slipped on the icy steps?”

“Yes. Notice how in such moments, the brain at large seems to orchestrate complex sequences of movement...”

“Without any time for Looping! Brother James’s BAL couldn’t have consciously planned each movement via Looping – it just acted!”

“And think about martial arts masters...”

“Ah! Their BAL responses are too fast for Looping, yet perfectly coordinated! The brain at large must handle everything directly using its highly trained proxy systems?”

“Rather like our split-brain patients’ BALs responding to information their other hemisphere’s Looping system can’t examine?”

“Yes! And when we try to recall these moments later via Looping... Sometimes the BAL has Looping construct/reconstruct them as happening in slow motion, doesn’t it?”

“Now you’re seeing something very interesting about the constructive nature of Looping-based recollection...”

“We’ve discovered something quite remarkable about the brain at large operating without Looping.”

“Yes! Through split-brain patients, blindsight, rapid reactions... All showing how the brain at large can function perfectly well using its proxy models without always engaging Looping for examination!”

“And when we try to recall these non-looped BAL-direct moments later via Looping...”

“Looping can only reconstruct vague impressions or build narratives, because it wasn’t engaged to form its specific kind of examinable trace at the time!”

“But this raises a fascinating question,” Haplous said. “About memory and Looping-based reconstruction in general…”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, when Looping helps us remember any past moment, we tend to assume we’re recalling exactly what our Looping system was experiencing then…” Haplous smiled gently. “But given what we’ve discovered about reconstruction…”

“Ah!” Synergos leaned forward, a look of fresh insight on his face. “Are you suggesting that what our Looping system reconstructs as a memory might be quite different from what our BAL was *actually* processing, or even what our Looping was focused on, at the original time?”

“Rather like how dreams seem like experiences during sleep, until we understood they must be Looping constructions upon waking?”

“Yes!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “Is this another whole category of evidence for our framework – that Looping-based memory is always a present-moment construction?”

“Indeed.” Haplous nodded. “There are some fascinating phenomena that seem impossible... until we understand them as Looping constructions based on the BAL's available traces.”

“Let me share something fascinating,” he then said, a new example coming to mind. “When Sister Agnes worked in a factory before joining us, she experienced something that seemed almost supernatural…”

“What was it?”

“Well, she’d be working at her station, surrounded by the rhythmic sounds of the machinery, when someone nearby would suddenly start humming a tune. And she’d realize, with astonishment, that her Looping system had just been mentally humming the exact same melody.”

“That does seem remarkable!” Synergos exclaimed.

“It happened so often that she began to wonder if there might be some kind of telepathic connection at work. After all, how else could two people be sharing the exact same internal Looping experience without communicating?” Haplous recounted.

“But now, with our framework…” Synergos prompted eagerly.

“Think carefully about what we’ve discovered about Looping-based construction/reconstruction from BAL traces…”

“The rhythmic machinery would create a common set of proxy activations in her BAL!” Synergos’s eyes lit up. “When someone started humming aloud, her BAL could have Looping construct the experience of *having been* mentally humming the same tune, because the proxy traces from the machinery’s rhythm could support that pattern for Looping!”

“Just as Maury’s BAL had his Looping system construct a whole narrative leading up to the headboard striking his neck?”

“Yes! We don’t need telepathy or any supernatural explanation!” Synergos shook his head in wonder. “Once we understand how the BAL has Looping construct experience, what seemed mysterious becomes perfectly natural!”

“Speaking of seemingly mysterious experiences,” Haplous said, his tone shifting slightly, “consider what pilots report after narrowly avoiding a collision…”

“What do they report?”

“Many say their entire life flashed before their eyes, via Looping, during those critical seconds.”

“But...” Synergos frowned thoughtfully, “these are highly trained professionals. In those moments, wouldn’t their BAL be focused entirely on survival actions, using its proxy models for immediate control of the aircraft, the instruments, the precise movements needed to avoid disaster, with no time for Looping a life review?”

“Exactly,” Haplous said, his fingers touching his cross. “Think about what this tells us about Looping-based memory and experience…”

“It’s absolutely impossible that their BALs were having Looping review their lives *while* their BALs were also executing emergency procedures!” Synergos declared with certainty. “A BAL couldn’t possibly direct Looping to do both at once with that intensity!”

“And yet their Looping system's memory of those moments includes this life review…” Haplous pointed out.

“So what Looping later seemingly reconstructs about a moment…” Synergos’s eyes widened with the profound realization, “might be completely different from what the BAL was *actually* processing or what Looping itself was engaged with at that time!”

“Rather fundamental insight, wouldn’t you say?” Haplous affirmed.

“Yes! We tend to assume our Looping-based memories show us exactly what our Looping system was experiencing…” Synergos shook his head, still marveling. “But they’re really Looping constructions created afterward, based on the BAL's available traces, which might include elements that couldn’t possibly have been part of the original Looping focus or even the BAL's primary processing during the event!”

“You know,” Haplous said thoughtfully, his gaze distant, “there’s another mysterious experience that might make more sense through our framework…”

“What’s that?”

“Have you ever had that strange sensation where a completely new situation suddenly feels familiar to your Looping system – as though you’ve experienced it before?”

“Déjà vu!” Synergos nodded. “It can feel quite uncanny.”

“Yes. And like Sister Agnes with her apparent telepathy, people often seek supernatural explanations – past lives, precognition…” Haplous continued.

“But given what we understand about Looping construction and BAL pattern matching…” Synergos prompted.

“Consider what might happen,” Haplous suggested, “when your BAL encounters a situation that causes proxy activations sharing certain patterns with previous experiences…”

“Ah!” Synergos leaned forward. “Like how the factory machinery’s rhythm provided proxy traces that could support Looping different tunes?”

“Yes. Perhaps something in the current situation triggers BAL-level recognition of familiar proxy patterns…” Haplous touched his cross. “And once that recognition begins within the BAL…”

“The BAL has Looping start looking for more matching patterns!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “And Looping finds them, constructing a sense of familiarity, because the BAL is specifically directing Looping to seek them out based on its own proxy-level pattern match?”

“Rather like how overview and focus work within Looping? When Looping focuses on any aspect brought forth by the BAL…” Haplous offered.

“Looping finds more details that support the BAL’s initial sense of overview!” Synergos nodded excitedly. “So what seems like Looping remembering a complete previous experience…”

“Might actually be the BAL having Looping construct a sense of familiarity based on proxy-level pattern matches the BAL discovers in the present moment, which Looping then elaborates?” Haplous finished.

“You know,” Haplous said thoughtfully, watching sunlight trace patterns on the ancient stones of the courtyard, “there’s another fascinating phenomenon that might demonstrate this same principle.”

“What’s that?” Synergos asked.

“Well, you’ve likely heard of what people call ‘truth serum’ – though that name is quite misleading…”

“The drugs they supposedly use to make people tell the truth?” Synergos straightened his papers. “Though I understand that’s not really accurate?”

“No, it isn’t. But consider something interesting about what these drugs actually do…” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “People under their influence seem to lose the BAL's ability to use Looping to preview or filter what they’re going to say before they say it.”

“Ah!” Synergos sat forward, the connection clear. “Like returning to that Garden of Eden state we discussed? Where the Brain at Large has the PTD express directly from BAL-level proxy activation without the BAL engaging Looping for prior examination?”

“An interesting possibility, wouldn’t you say?” Haplous offered. “Though we should be careful here – this is more speculative than our split-brain and blindsight examples…”

“But if these drugs do work that way,” Synergos said thoughtfully, “it would suggest something fascinating about this Looping capability…”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, if chemicals can selectively disable the BAL's use of Looping while leaving the BAL itself and the PTD’s direct output pathway operating…” Synergos gestured animatedly, “it supports what we’ve discovered about Looping being just one of the BAL’s tools, a specific functional process!”

“Yes. And notice something interesting about this pattern…” Haplous prompted.

“It’s like our other examples!” Synergos nodded with excitement. “Whether through physical disconnection in split-brain cases, pathway disruption in blindsight, or chemical interference…”

“The Brain at Large continues functioning,” Haplous affirmed with a smile, “while the BAL's use of Looping for internal examination can be selectively disabled?”

“Rather elegant support for our framework’s distinction between them, wouldn’t you say?”

“But this helps explain something else,” Haplous continued. “Why the term ‘truth serum’ is so misleading.”

“How so?”

“Well, think about what we’ve discovered about the Brain at Large and Looping.” Haplous touched his cross. “The Brain at Large still determines what proxy configurations get expressed via the PTD…”

“It just goes straight out through the PTD’s o-series without the usual preview by Looping?” Synergos suggested.

“Exactly! And notice what this means…”

“The expressions aren’t necessarily truthful,” Synergos leaned forward. “They’re just unfiltered expressions of the BAL’s current proxy state!”

“Rather like our young children before their BALs develop effective Looping,” Haplous smiled. “Speaking directly from BAL-level proxy activation without Looping's preview doesn’t guarantee truth – it just bypasses the BAL’s usual filtering mechanism that Looping provides.”

“So these drugs don’t force truth-telling at all,” Synergos concluded thoughtfully. “They just disable the BAL’s ability to use Looping to examine expressions before making them?”

“And think about what else this suggests,” Haplous added. “About how natural this capability for direct BAL-to-PTD expression is…”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, we’ve seen it in so many contexts now – young children, split-brain patients (from the non-looping hemisphere if it could speak), blindsight cases… And if these drugs can temporarily return the BAL to that state of PTD output without Looping…”

“It suggests direct BAL-driven expression is our natural baseline?” Synergos’s eyes widened. “The state the BAL returns to when its Looping tool is disabled?”

“Yes. And notice something fascinating about this…”

“The Brain at Large clearly evolved to operate this way with its PTD,” Synergos spoke slowly. “Direct expression through the PTD from BAL-level proxy activation must be the more fundamental state, with Looping being an additional refinement the BAL learns to use!”

“Rather like how losing consciousness during sleep returns the BAL to its basic maintenance mode, distinct from Looping-based waking experience?” Haplous suggested.

“Yes!” Synergos exclaimed, fully grasping the parallel. “In all these cases – sleep, split-brain effects on the non-PTD hemisphere, blindsight, these drugs – we’re seeing the Brain at Large’s fundamental operational capabilities when this newer Looping capability is disabled or bypassed!”

“Something else is quite interesting about this example,” Haplous said reflectively. “Consider what it suggests about the Looping mechanism itself…”

“That it has a chemical basis, or at least can be affected by neurochemistry?” Synergos offered. “Since drugs can interfere with the BAL's ability to engage it?”

“Yes. And notice how this aligns with everything else we’ve discovered…”

“About Looping being a relatively recent capability in evolutionary terms, and a developmentally learned one!” Synergos leaned forward. “Something that overlaid the BAL’s more ancient basic operation?”

“Exactly. And think about what this means for our framework…” Haplous prompted.

“It supports the mechanical, functional nature of the process,” Synergos affirmed with enthusiasm. “If chemicals can selectively disable the BAL’s use of Looping for internal examination while leaving other BAL functions and direct PTD output intact…”

“It suggests this Looping capability is based on ordinary brain mechanics that the BAL learns to exploit,” Haplous touched his cross. “Not some mysterious or supernatural process?”

“Though no less remarkable for being mechanical,” Synergos added, a note of respect in his voice. “Like understanding how a sunset works doesn’t make it less beautiful.”

“You know what strikes me most about all these examples,” Synergos said, adjusting his papers on his lap. “Whether it’s physical disconnection in split-brain cases, pathway disruption in blindsight…”

“Or chemical interference in this case,” Haplous nodded.

“They all show the same pattern! The Brain at Large continuing to operate its proxy models and guide behavior, while the BAL's use of Looping for internal, reportable examination is selectively disabled or inaccessible.” Synergos gestured animatedly. “It’s rather compelling evidence for our framework, isn’t it?”

“Though remember,” Haplous smiled gently, “this particular example of truth serum is more speculative in its precise effects than our others.”

“Yes, of course. But even as a possibility… it fits so perfectly with everything else we’ve discovered?” Synergos maintained.

“Another piece in the puzzle,” Haplous said, his hand near his cross. “Though perhaps we should return to our more clearly established examples?”

“Of course,” Synergos agreed with a nod. “Though I must say, it’s fascinating how many different ways the BAL's Looping capability can be dissociated while leaving its fundamental operational competence largely intact!”

“You know,” Haplous said thoughtfully, his gaze turning towards the quiet activity of the monastery, “there’s another fascinating phenomenon that demonstrates this separation between Brain at Large operation and Looping…”

“What’s that?”

“Sleepwalking. Consider what science has observed about these cases – people getting up, navigating complex environments, even driving cars or preparing meals…”

“While completely asleep?” Synergos frowned, puzzled.

“Well, that’s the interesting part,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “Their Brain at Large is clearly operating – controlling complex behaviors with remarkable precision using its proxy models. But when they wake up…”

“They have no memory of it, formed via Looping!” Synergos finished. “Because Looping was never engaged by the BAL during those BAL-direct actions?”

“Exactly. Rather like our other examples, wouldn’t you say?”

“There’s another interesting phenomenon to consider,” Haplous said, his tone inviting further thought. “Have you ever heard of complex behaviors during sleepwalking?”

“You mean people getting up, walking around?”

“More than that.” Haplous touched his cross again. “Some sleepwalkers drive cars, prepare meals, even send emails…”

“While asleep? How is that possible?” Synergos looked incredulous.

“Think about what we’ve discovered about the Brain at Large,” Haplous suggested. “Its BAL can operate using its proxy models without engaging Looping, can’t it?”

“Ah!” Synergos leaned forward. “Like in our split-brain and blindsight cases! The Brain at Large continuing to function based on its proxy activations while Looping is disabled or not engaged by the BAL for that specific activity?”

“Though notice something particularly interesting about sleepwalking behaviors…” Haplous paused.

“What fascinates me about sleepwalking,” he continued, his expression thoughtful, “is how it reveals something crucial about the Brain at Large’s relationship with Looping.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, sleepwalkers can perform complex learned behaviors using their BAL's proxy models, but they often make strikingly poor decisions – attempting dangerous activities, taking unnecessary risks…”

“That seems significant.” Synergos straightened his papers, his analytical mind at work. “The Brain at Large isn’t just operating independently of Looping, is it?”

“No. Think about how our BALs develop,” Haplous suggested. “From childhood onward, they adapt to having Looping available as a tool for examination and planning…”

“So when Looping is suddenly not available to the BAL, as in deep sleep…” Synergos’s eyes widened with the implication. “The Brain at Large is missing a capability, a tool, it’s come to rely on for certain kinds of oversight and judgment!”

“Rather like trying to play a complex piece of music with a key instrument suddenly removed from the orchestra?” Haplous offered.

“Yes! The remaining parts can still function, but not as effectively or with the same level of refined judgment as when they’ve learned to work together with that instrument!”

“This tells us something quite important,” Haplous stated. “About how deeply integrated the BAL's use of Looping has become in our typical waking brain’s operation.”

“Not just evolutionarily, but in our own individual development?” Synergos clarified.

“Yes. Consider how Brother James’s BAL has learned to integrate Looping with his organ playing for complex pieces…” Haplous touched his cross. “Even when his Looping seems elsewhere for simpler passages, his BAL operates within an expectation that certain reflective or planning capabilities (via Looping) *are* available if needed.”

“So sleepwalking isn’t showing us some primitive BAL function entirely separate from Looping’s influence,” Synergos spoke slowly, grasping the nuance. “It’s showing us what happens when a sophisticated BAL, which has developed to incorporate Looping as a key tool, temporarily loses access to that tool for explicit examination?”

“Exactly. And notice what this suggests about the role of Looping-based consciousness…” Haplous prompted.

“It’s not just an add-on capability for report,” Synergos declared. “The Brain at Large has developed to *work with it*, depend on it for certain kinds of complex decision-making and foresight, even if the BAL can still operate many functions without it?”

“Though it can still operate many functions without it,” Haplous nodded. “Just not always as effectively or with the same level of nuanced judgment as when Looping is available to the BAL as an examinative tool.”

“Consider something else about sleepwalking,” Haplous added. “The kinds of behaviors involved…”

“They’re usually learned behaviors, aren’t they? Things people’s BALs know how to do while awake using their established proxy models?”

“Yes. And think about how those behaviors were learned by the BAL…”

“With Looping available as a tool for examination and refinement during the learning process!” Synergos’s eyes showed his clear understanding. “The Brain at Large learned these patterns with Looping as part of the developmental process?”

“So when its BAL tries to execute them without current Looping input for oversight…”

“It’s like trying to perform a complex, learned duet with one player (the Looping examination) suddenly missing or silent,” Synergos nodded thoughtfully. “The remaining part (the BAL) can still play its part from its proxy-based memory, but not as effectively or with the same coordination as it learned to?”

“Rather telling about how thoroughly integrated the BAL's use of Looping has become in our typical waking operation?” Haplous mused.

“Yes,” Synergos spoke carefully. “Though it’s remarkable that the Brain at Large can operate at all with such complex behaviors without active Looping.”

“There’s something else quite fascinating about sleepwalking,” Haplous said, his gaze thoughtful. “Consider when it typically occurs…”

“During deep sleep, isn’t it?” Synergos asked. “Not during REM sleep, where we usually recall dreams constructed by Looping?”

“Yes. And notice something interesting about the Looping-based construction of recollection in these different states…”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, think about our naïve archaeologist – the Looping process examining traces upon waking,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “When examining traces from deep sleep states where the BAL was active…”

“The BAL’s activity patterns are so different from waking patterns where Looping is usually active,” Synergos spoke slowly. “It would be like our Looping archaeologist trying to interpret completely unfamiliar marks left by the BAL?”

“Exactly! While from REM sleep, where BAL activity patterns might more closely resemble those associated with Looping during waking (due to narrative-like dream constructions later attributed to it)…”

“The Looping archaeologist can often construct much more coherent narratives upon waking!” Synergos finished. “Because the traces are more similar to what it knows how to interpret from its waking operations?”

“And there’s something else quite telling,” Haplous continued. “Sometimes sleepwalkers, if awakened during or shortly after an episode, report vague, dream-like fragments that seem loosely connected to their BAL-driven actions…”

“Even though they were in deep sleep, not typically associated with vivid Looping-based dream recall?” Synergos frowned.

“Think about what we’ve discovered about Looping-based construction/reconstruction,” Haplous suggested. “When our Looping archaeologist, upon waking or near-waking, finds traces from these BAL-active deep sleep states…”

“It still tries to make sense of them using Looping!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “Even if they’re very different from the traces left by normal waking Looping-based experiential states?”

“Yes. And notice what kind of constructions result…”

“They’re more fragmentary, more symbolic, perhaps?” Synergos spoke carefully. “Like Looping trying to interpret the BAL's deep-sleep maintenance marks as if they were dance steps?”

“Rather like our dance expert finding partial patterns in marks that weren’t made by dancing at all?” Haplous offered.

“The BAL has Looping still trying to construct meaning,” Synergos nodded thoughtfully, “even from traces that weren’t created by typical Looping-based experience!”

“But what I find most remarkable,” Haplous said, his voice taking on a note of emphasis, “is what this tells us about memory formation in general, particularly for our waking lives.”

“How so?” Synergos asked, leaning in.

“Consider what happens during normal waking experience,” Haplous suggested. “Even when our Looping is primarily engaged elsewhere, say, when we’re daydreaming, our BAL periodically directs Looping to briefly engage with our immediate situation…”

“Checking our surroundings, confirming where we are via a quick loop?” Synergos offered.

“Yes. And think about what this means for later Looping-based reconstruction of memory…”

“Ah!” Synergos sat forward. “Those intermittent moments of BAL-directed Looping during the original experience create familiar traces! Ones our Looping archaeologist knows how to interpret when constructing a memory later?”

“Rather crucial for accurate, detailed Looping-based memory reconstruction, wouldn’t you say?”

“Yes! Without those periodic BAL-directed loops about immediate experience during the event itself…” Synergos’s eyes widened with the implication. “The BAL would have much less specific material for Looping to work with when trying to reconstruct what happened later!”

“Something else is quite remarkable,” Haplous said, his tone thoughtful, “about how our Looping archaeologist interprets the BAL's sleepwalking activities upon waking…”

“What’s that?”

“Well, consider when sleepwalking occurs during different sleep stages,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “During deep sleep, when BAL function is very unlike the state when Looping is typically active…”

“The Looping archaeologist would have trouble making sense of the BAL's activity traces from that period?” Synergos suggested.

“Yes. But during REM sleep, when overall brain function might generate traces that, upon waking, *seem* more like those associated with narrative Looping (even if Looping wasn't active during REM itself)…” Haplous paused thoughtfully. “Our Looping archaeologist has much more to work with when constructing a dream narrative.”

“Ah!” Synergos leaned forward. “Because the BAL’s actual operational traces during REM sleep might be more easily interpreted by Looping *as if* they were from a Looping-based experience, compared to the BAL's deep-sleep traces?”

“Exactly. The interfunctional complementation – all those different BAL systems working together during REM – might leave traces that Looping, upon waking, can more readily interpret as a coherent, experience-like narrative.”

“So Looping might construct a much clearer, more story-like recollection of what the BAL was ‘up to’ during REM sleep, even if no Looping occurred then,” Synergos nodded thoughtfully, “simply because the BAL's REM traces are more amenable to that kind of post-hoc Looping-based narrative construction than its deep-sleep traces?”

“Rather like trying to read footprints,” Haplous smiled. “Much easier for Looping to construct a story when the BAL's traces are made in familiar ‘soil’ than in some completely alien substance generated during deep sleep maintenance?”

“There’s something else quite fascinating,” Haplous said, his voice taking on a new note of intrigue, “about what happens when normal brain mechanics are disrupted in specific ways.”

“What do you mean?” Synergos asked.

“Well, consider what we discovered about overview and focus within Looping – how they must normally show different aspects of experience when the BAL directs Looping…”

“Yes, Looping for overview giving us the broad pattern from the BAL, while Looping for focus examines specific proxy details within the BAL?”

“Now think about what might happen,” Haplous touched his wooden cross, “if certain substances forced these two modes of BAL-directed Looping to become identical.”

“But that’s impossible, isn’t it?” Synergos frowned. “They can’t show the same thing…”

“And yet there are well-documented cases,” Haplous smiled gently, “where people under the influence of certain serotonin-affecting substances report a very specific type of visual experience generated by Looping…”

“What kind of experience?”

“When their BAL has Looping try to take in the whole scene – like we normally do with overview – they see a distinct pattern. Then when their BAL has Looping focus its attention on a specific part of it – as we normally do with focus – they find themselves seeing that exact same pattern again. This sort of shape is called a fractal.” Haplous explained.

“Yes! And when their BAL has Looping focus on any detail of that pattern…”

“Looping gets the whole thing again!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “Creating an infinite recursion within the Looping process?”

“Rather elegant confirmation of our framework’s view of Looping's overview and focus capabilities, wouldn’t you say?”

“Yes!” Synergos spoke slowly, with emphasis. “When the BAL's direction of Looping for overview and focus are forced to show identical content…”

“The only possible result for Looping is this infinitely self-similar pattern,” Haplous nodded. “Exactly what people report experiencing.”

“But what I find most remarkable about this,” Haplous continued, “is how specific the effect is.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, these substances don’t just cause random visual disturbances for Looping,” Haplous suggested. “They create this very particular type of recursive pattern within the Looping process…”

“Because they’re forcing the BAL's Looping for overview and focus to be identical!” Synergos nodded excitedly. “The framework actually predicts exactly what Looping should experience!”

“Yes. And notice something fascinating about these reports…”

“They’re remarkably consistent,” Synergos spoke carefully. “People describe Looping seeing the same kind of self-similar patterns?”

“Rather compelling evidence for our mechanical explanation of Looping's functions?” Haplous offered.

“Yes!” Synergos shook his head in wonder. “Even though we don’t understand why these substances would affect the BAL's direction of Looping for overview and focus this way…”

“The framework tells us exactly what Looping must experience when they do,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “Though perhaps we should be careful not to speculate too far beyond what’s well-documented…”

“Of course,” Synergos straightened his papers. “But it’s remarkable how the framework can explain such specific effects on the Looping process!”

“You know,” Haplous said thoughtfully, a new direction opening, “there’s another quite common experience that demonstrates this separation between Brain at Large operation and the BAL's use of Looping…”

“What’s that?”

“Have you ever had that peculiar feeling where your BAL knows you know something – perhaps a name or a word – but your Looping system can’t quite access it for examination?”

“Ah yes,” Synergos nodded with recognition. “That frustrating tip-of-tongue state! It’s right there, but Looping can’t grab it…”

“Think carefully about what must be happening,” Haplous suggested. “The Brain at Large clearly has the proxy information…”

“Because our BAL knows we know it!” Synergos leaned forward. “The BAL can even sometimes have Looping recall details *about* it – first letter, number of syllables…”

“Yes. And yet Looping can’t quite…”

“Can’t engage Looping to examine the specific proxy directly!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “Another case where the BAL's operational knowledge and Looping's access are temporarily disconnected?”

“What’s particularly fascinating about these moments,” Haplous continued, his hand near his cross, “is what the BAL can still do with the information versus what Looping can access…”

“Yes – it’s not like the information is completely unavailable to the BAL,” Synergos agreed. “The BAL often knows quite a bit about what Looping can’t quite bring into focus.”

“Rather like our split-brain patients’ non-PTD hemisphere,” Haplous suggested. “Whose BAL can act on information that its PTD-dominant hemisphere cannot consciously report via Looping?”

“Ah!” Synergos straightened his papers again. “The Brain at Large has the information and its BAL can use its proxies in various ways…”

“But Looping can’t quite engage with that specific proxy directly for examination?” Haplous finished.

“Yes! That’s why Looping can often have us recognize the word immediately when someone says it,” Synergos spoke excitedly. “The BAL can verify the external PTD input is correct via its own proxy match, even though Looping couldn’t dredge up the proxy for internal examination just moments before!”

“Another elegant demonstration of the separation between the BAL's broad competence and Looping's specific examinative capability?” Haplous mused.

“Consider something quite remarkable about these moments,” he then said. “The certainty the BAL conveys – that feeling that the knowledge *is* there…”

“Yes – we’re absolutely sure our BAL knows it,” Synergos affirmed. “Not like when we’re simply unsure or have forgotten.”

“Think about what this tells us about the Brain at Large,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “Its BAL must have some way of knowing its own states and the presence of specific proxies…”

“Without Looping being able to bring them into explicit examination!” Synergos leaned forward, fully engaged. “Just like in our other cases – split-brain patients’ BALs knowing things their PTD/Looping hemisphere can’t report, blindsight patients’ BALs responding to what their Looping can’t ‘see’…”

“The Brain at Large operating perfectly well with its proxies…”

“While Looping access to those specific proxies is temporarily blocked for examination!” Synergos’s eyes reflected his clear understanding. “And our BAL can actually make our Looping system feel this separation happening!”

“Rather compelling evidence for our framework’s distinction between these capabilities?” Haplous queried.

“But there’s something even more telling,” he continued. “About how this BAL-level knowledge, even unlooped, can still influence behavior…”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, even when Looping can’t access the word directly, our Brain at Large can still use its proxy,” Haplous suggested. “Having us reject incorrect suggestions from others, or recognize words with similar sounds or meanings…”

“Just like how Brother James’s BAL can have his fingers play complex passages,” Synergos spoke slowly, making the connection, “even when his Looping is engaged elsewhere with the hymn’s meaning?”

“Yes! And notice something fascinating about this…”

“The Brain at Large doesn’t need Looping to work with the proxy information,” Synergos nodded with enthusiasm. “It just needs its Looping tool to examine and report on it specifically!”

“Yet another demonstration of our framework’s fundamental principle…” Haplous began.

“That Looping is just one of the Brain at Large’s tools,” Synergos completed the thought. “Not necessary for its basic operational competence with its own proxies!”

“There’s something else quite remarkable,” Haplous said thoughtfully, his gaze turning inward for a moment, “about how the Brain at Large can detect patterns far more subtle than Looping can typically examine…”

“What do you mean?” Synergos asked.

“Well, consider those moments when someone enters a situation and their BAL immediately senses something deeply wrong,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “A visceral feeling of danger or malevolent intent, without any obvious evidence that Looping can immediately grasp or articulate…”

“Ah yes,” Synergos nodded, his expression becoming serious. “That powerful gut feeling, that visceral sense of threat, even though Looping can’t point to anything specific?”

“Think about what must be happening,” Haplous suggested. “The Brain at Large, with its vast parallel processing of proxy activations, has detected something…”

“Something sinister, perhaps a subtle incongruity in patterns,” Synergos spoke carefully, “but whatever specific proxy configurations its BAL has recognized are completely inaccessible to the serial, PTD-formatted process of Looping for immediate examination and report?”

“Yet the BAL's knowledge is powerful enough to make us act, to trigger a profound physiological response…” Haplous affirmed.

“What I find most striking about these experiences,” he continued, his voice measured, “is their compelling nature.”

“Yes – that absolute certainty from the BAL that something’s wrong,” Synergos agreed, “even when Looping can’t explain why!”

“And notice something fascinating about this certainty…”

“It comes from the Brain at Large directly, from its holistic processing of proxies?” Synergos leaned forward. “Not from any conscious, Looping-based analysis?”

“Exactly. Like our blindsight patients’ BALs responding to danger their Looping system can’t ‘see’,” Haplous nodded. “The Brain at Large can process deeply complex patterns from myriad proxy activations – subtle changes in behavior, microscopic expressions, barely perceptible environmental cues…”

“While leaving our Looping system completely unable to examine or articulate what the BAL has detected!” Synergos’s eyes widened with the implication. “Is that why these feelings can be so unsettling – this profound knowing from the BAL without Looping access?”

“This profound separation between the BAL knowing and Looping being able to examine what the BAL knows?” Haplous suggested. “Rather stark demonstration of our framework’s distinction between Brain at Large operation on its full proxy model and Looping's more limited access for explicit examination?”

“Yes,” Synergos spoke slowly, absorbing the weight of it. “The Brain at Large warning us about something its proxy system has detected, but keeping the specific evidence entirely beyond Looping’s ability to articulate it…”

“Consider something fundamental about these experiences,” Haplous said then, shifting slightly. “About the BAL knowing versus Looping being able to express what the BAL knows…”

“They’re not always connected, are they?” Synergos offered.

“No. The Brain at Large can know something – its BAL can activate proxies with absolute functional certainty…” Haplous touched his wooden cross, “while Looping may be completely unable to access or express that knowledge through the PTD.”

“Like in these moments when our BAL senses something deeply wrong,” Synergos nodded thoughtfully. “The BAL's knowledge is there, completely real at the proxy level…”

“But entirely inaccessible to Looping for report.” Haplous finished.

“And wise people,” Synergos sat forward, a new thought sparking, “they learn to trust this BAL-level knowledge?”

“Yes. Even when their Looping system can’t explain it,” Haplous smiled gently. “They understand that the Brain at Large’s knowledge, its direct proxy activations, don’t always come paired with Looping's ability to examine and articulate them.”

“Rather crucial insight for navigating the world?” Synergos mused.

“Especially in situations where something *feels* profoundly wrong according to the BAL,” Haplous nodded. “Even if Looping can’t immediately say exactly why.”

“There’s something interesting,” Haplous said, a slight smile playing on his lips, “about why these experiences are called ‘gut’ feelings…”

“Because we physically feel them in our stomach, a bodily response from the BAL?” Synergos guessed.

“Yes. And think about what our framework tells us,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “When the Brain at Large’s BAL knows something through its proxy activations, but Looping can’t access or examine the actual source of that knowledge…”

“Ah!” Synergos leaned forward, the connection clear. “Looping can only examine the *physical effects* that the BAL's state triggers in the body?”

“Exactly. The BAL's proxy-level knowledge triggers bodily responses – changes in heart rate, stomach tension, muscle readiness…” Haplous smiled gently. “And since Looping can’t examine the originating BAL-level proxies that triggered these responses directly…”

“Looping can only examine *how they feel in our body*!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “The churning stomach, the tightness in the chest… these become the proxies Looping *can* access!”

“These physical sensations become the only way for Looping to indirectly access knowledge from the BAL that’s otherwise inaccessible to its direct examination,” Haplous nodded. “Rather elegant explanation for such an ancient description?”

“Yes! We call them ‘gut’ feelings because the gut sensation is the only part of the BAL’s knowing that Looping can actually examine and report on!”

“You know,” Haplous said thoughtfully, his gaze drifting towards the chapel, “there’s another fascinating phenomenon that reveals something profound about how our BAL has Looping construct experience…”

“What’s that?”

“Well, during transitions into or out of sleep, people often experience vivid visual phenomena via Looping – sometimes brief flashes, but they can also last several seconds and even morph from one form to another.”

“Like Looping creating shapes or patterns?” Synergos straightened his papers.

“Yes, though often much more specific – Looping generating experiences of faces, geometric designs, familiar objects…” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “And notice something interesting about when these Looping-based experiences occur.”

“You said during sleep transitions?”

“Exactly. Almost never during normal waking hours. And think about what our visual system normally experiences when our eyes are closed… what proxy activations related to vision are typical for the BAL then?”

“Just darkness, usually,” Synergos nodded. “Well, not pure darkness – Looping might report that sort of speckled blackness from background neural activity in the BAL related to the retina and optic nerve…”

“Yes! And during normal waking hours, our BAL has Looping interpret this correctly. But during these sleep transitions…” Haplous smiled gently. “Something quite remarkable happens with Looping.”

“What’s that?”

“When Looping engages with the BAL's visual system proxies during these transitions…” Haplous paused, letting Synergos anticipate.

“Ah!” Synergos leaned forward. “Instead of Looping interpreting this BAL-level background activity as the usual darkness we see behind our eyelids…”

“Looping constructs something else entirely from it?” Haplous guided.

“Think about what must be happening,” he continued. “During these transitions, when Looping engages with the BAL's visual system proxies…”

“Looping tries to construct meaningful experience from the BAL's background neural activity?”

“Yes. And what kinds of things do people report Looping showing them?”

“Well, you mentioned faces, geometric patterns, familiar objects… Are these Looping constructions coming from the BAL’s stored templates, its frequently activated proxy configurations?”

“Just as in Looping-based dream construction,” Haplous nodded. “The Brain at Large having Looping use its familiar patterns to construct meaningful experience. Though notice something fascinating about these specific Looping constructions…”

“They can last several seconds and even morph from one form to another! The BAL having Looping continue to construct and reconstruct from this basic BAL-level neural activity?”

“Rather like Looping trying to make sense of clouds changing shape?” Haplous offered.

“Except in this case,” Synergos spoke carefully, “Looping is constructing from BAL activity that should, by rights, just be perceived by Looping as darkness?”

“You know what fascinates me about these experiences,” Haplous said, his expression thoughtful, “consider exactly what kinds of patterns people report Looping showing them…”

“Faces appear frequently in these Looping experiences,” Synergos noted. “And geometric designs, familiar objects, sometimes even complete scenes…”

“Yes. And notice something telling about these patterns generated by Looping,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “These aren’t random – they’re exactly the kinds of things our BAL is trained to have Looping look for, based on its proxy templates.”

“Like how our BAL is always having Looping scan crowds for familiar faces using its proxies?”

“Exactly! Our Brain at Large has these proxy templates ready for Looping to use…” Haplous smiled gently. “And during these transitions, when Looping encounters the BAL's background neural activity…”

“Looping actively tries to construct meaningful patterns from it using the BAL's proxies! Just like how the BAL always has Looping trying to construct meaning from visual input using its proxy model?”

“Though in normal waking vision,” Haplous suggested, “what constrains these Looping constructions derived from the BAL's proxies?”

“The actual sensory input to the BAL!” Synergos’s eyes widened. “But during these transitions, when Looping is just working with the BAL's background activity that should be seen by Looping as darkness…”

“The Brain at Large can have Looping construct more freely from its proxy templates,” Haplous nodded. “Using any patterns and proxy configurations it has available.”

“Rather revealing about how our BAL normally has Looping work with visual input and its own proxy model, isn’t it?” Synergos mused.

“You know,” he said thoughtfully, watching a bird flit across the courtyard, “something just occurred to me about these flashes Looping creates…”

“Yes?”

“Well, we’re treating them as a special case, where the BAL has Looping construct visual experience using stored proxy patterns and templates. But isn’t this exactly what our BAL has Looping do all the time with perception?”

“How do you mean?” Haplous encouraged, his interest clear.

“Like when your BAL is having Looping look for someone in a crowd,” Synergos gestured animatedly. “Your BAL is actively having Looping construct potential matches based on the proxy patterns it’s looking for – their height, their way of walking…”

“Ah!” Haplous’s eyes lit up with genuine surprise and pleasure. “And notice how this connects to what we learned about how Looping constructs dreams from BAL traces…”

“Yes! Dreams showed us what patterns our BAL naturally has Looping look for,” Synergos leaned forward excitedly. “And now we can see this same BAL-directed Looping construction process at work in both hypnagogic flashes and normal vision!”

“Rather remarkable insight!” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “All three showing us how the Brain at Large actively has Looping construct experience using its proxy templates…”

“Just with different degrees of BAL-level sensory input guiding Looping,” Synergos nodded. “In normal vision, strong BAL-level sensory data guides Looping's construction. In hypnagogic flashes, Looping works with minimal BAL input but follows the same constructive process using BAL proxies. And in dreams…”

“Pure Looping construction from the BAL's maintenance traces and stored proxies!” Haplous beamed. “I hadn’t considered how perfectly these three states reveal this fundamental mechanism of BAL-directed Looping.”

“Like seeing the same process under different conditions,” Synergos spoke carefully. “Each showing us how our BAL actively has Looping construct what we experience?”

“You know,” Haplous said thoughtfully, his gaze profound, “this insight about BAL-directed visual construction by Looping leads us somewhere quite remarkable…”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, think carefully about what we’ve discovered,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “When the Brain at Large has Looping look for someone in a crowd, its BAL actively directs Looping to construct potential matches using its proxy templates…”

“Yes, just like in hypnagogic flashes and dreams constructed by Looping from BAL traces,” Synergos affirmed. “The same constructive BAL-Looping process with different degrees of BAL-level sensory input.”

“But notice something even more fascinating about this Looping process the BAL uses to examine experience…”

“What’s that?” Synergos leaned in.

“Whether Looping is examining current perception (from BAL sensory proxies), memories (from BAL stored proxies), or plans for tomorrow (BAL-generated hypothetical proxy configurations)…” Haplous suggested gently, “what exactly is the Brain at Large *doing* with Looping?”

“It’s…” Synergos paused, his administrator’s precision engaging. “Its BAL is having Looping activate neuronal proxies through the PTD pathway to create meanings that Looping can then examine?”

“Yes. And think about what this tells us about *all* examinable experience generated via Looping…” Haplous prompted.

“Oh!” Synergos sat forward, a look of profound understanding on his face. “Every experience Looping can actually examine…”

“Must come through this same BAL-directed, PTD-mediated Looping mechanism?” Haplous finished.

“Consider something fascinating about these flashes Looping generates,” he said. “They almost always occur during transitions into or out of sleep…”

“Not during normal waking hours, when Looping is constructing our perception from richer BAL sensory data?”

“No, and that tells us something interesting about the mechanism,” Haplous touched his wooden cross. “During sleep transitions, the BAL’s normal processing of visual information becomes disrupted…”

“While the retina and optic nerve portion of the BAL are still sending some signals, some proxy activations?” Synergos suggested.

“Yes! And notice what happens when Looping engages with these BAL states during these transitions…”

“Looping encounters this disrupted BAL-level visual processing,” Synergos continued, picking up the thread. “And instead of Looping interpreting it correctly as the background neural activity of the BAL we normally experience with closed eyes – that darkness with subtle speckling and phosphenes that Looping usually reports…”

“Looping tries to construct meaningful visual experience from it, using the BAL's proxy templates!” Haplous nodded. “The BAL directs Looping to use whatever patterns and proxy templates it has available from its internal model.”

“That’s why Looping doesn’t show us these constructions during normal waking hours,” Synergos’s eyes widened. “Because our BAL's visual processing normally has Looping interpret this background activity correctly as just the ‘blackness’ we see behind our eyelids?”

“Exactly. It’s only during these transitions, when the BAL's normal regulation of Looping's input is disrupted, that Looping can get ‘confused’ by the BAL's state and construct vivid visual experience from what should, from a Looping perspective, just be perceived as darkness.”

“Rather like dreams,” Synergos spoke thoughtfully, “where the BAL has Looping construct experience from its maintenance traces?”

“Yes! Though in this case,” Haplous smiled gently, “Looping is constructing from the BAL's background neural activity that would normally just be experienced by Looping as darkness.”

“It’s strange," Synergos began slowly, a reflective look in his eyes. "I used to think these were separate curiosities – each its own mystery. But now they all feel like symptoms of the same underlying BAL/Looping architecture.”

The monastery bells began to ring for evening prayer, their deep tones resonating across the courtyard. Synergos gathered his papers, a look of settled understanding on his face.

“It’s remarkable,” he said, as they began to walk towards the chapel, “how many mysteries become clear through this framework. Split-brain patients, blindsight, the construction and reconstruction of experience by Looping from BAL states... But that leads me to something I was wondering about, that I read about falsifiability. Just solving mysteries is not enough for something to be a valid scientific framework, right?”

"What do you mean?" Haplous inquired with a smile, his hand near his cross.

"Yes. During my administration studies, I took an elective in science and I learned that the best theories are those that can be tested – theories that make predictions which could potentially be proven wrong.”

"Ah, falsifiability," Haplous acknowledged with a nod. "The principle Karl Popper emphasized as essential to genuine science.”

"Exactly," Synergos leaned forward slightly as they walked. "And I wonder – this framework we've been discussing... is it falsifiable? Could it be tested and potentially disproven?”

Haplous's eyes held their characteristic warmth as he watched a sparrow take flight from the lavender near the path. "That's a crucial question. And I'm glad you've raised it.”

“So?” Synergos prompted, his gaze expectant.

“The framework is indeed falsifiable," Haplous stated, his voice firm but calm, "for a fundamental reason – every element in it, from the BAL's operations to PTD function and Looping, corresponds to physical processes and functional states within the brain.”

“Physical processes?” Synergos frowned slightly as they neared the chapel. "Even things like 'Looping' and 'Neuronal Proxies’?”

“Yes. Consider what we've established about Neuronal Proxies.” Haplous touched his cross. "In our first dialogue, we discussed that they are most likely not fixed physical structures. They might be diffuse, spread out, or involve dynamic states within the BAL, but they function as specific correlates for elements or relationships within the organism's environment or internal state. We know they must exist because any cybernetic system like the BAL requires an internal model, and that model must have these functional correlates for aspects of its world."

"I see that," Synergos nodded thoughtfully, "but the framework talks about their 'activation' by Looping – could that specific Looping-driven activation be observed distinctly from general BAL-level proxy activation?”

“The Looping-driven 'activation' is just a way of saying that those particular BAL-level proxies come into the specific focus of the Looping mechanism for examination via the PTD pathway. The BAL itself might have many proxies active simultaneously. But when Looping occurs, a subset of these, or a newly constructed configuration, is processed through the PTD's incipient output stages and then internally re-sensed, leading to that focused, reportable subjective experience.” Haplous clarified as they paused at the chapel door.

“Yes, of course,” Synergos agreed.

"The framework specifies that when Looping generates a subjective experience – say, imagining a lion – the BAL's proxies for 'lion' are activated *in this specific looped way*, perhaps sharing many characteristics with how those same BAL proxies are activated by seeing a real lion, but now modulated by the PTD pathway involved in Looping. The important thing here, is that Looping involves this PTD-pathway-dependent reactivation of BAL-level proxies – and this entire functional sequence is, in principle, testable.” Haplous explained.

“Ah!” Synergos said, a look of comprehension on his face. "So we could potentially identify the neural correlates of BAL-level proxy activation, and then the distinct neural signature of those proxies being specifically engaged by the PTD/Looping mechanism?"

“Precisely.” Haplous smiled. "And from there, it would be a matter of research to find the correlates for the BAL states within the outgoing path of the PTD during Looping. As we discussed, the PTD isn't a single anatomical spot, but a functionally distinct process guiding structured expression. Linguists have studied its output stages extensively – morphemes, syntax. There must be physical correlates for these PTD operations within the BAL."

**The monastery cat** appeared from the shadows of the cloister, observed them for a moment, then settled in a patch of evening sunlight near the steps.

"And after that?” Synergos asked, his attention returning to Haplous.

“We could correlate BAL activity in the PTD's outgoing path during Looping with the specific reactivation of those Neuronal Proxies. Through subjective report, we could show that when people report conscious awareness of something via Looping – whether recollecting, imagining, or perceiving – the relevant BAL proxies are in this PTD-loop-activated state.”

Haplous looked intrigued himself. “Go on…”

“And again, this Looping-based activation wouldn't necessarily be identical to simple BAL-level proxy activation from direct sensory input across all neural measures, but it would share core features while also showing signatures of PTD involvement.” Haplous nodded in agreement. "Most importantly, the framework predicts that reportable conscious experience *always* involves this Looping: incipient PTD expressive activity from the BAL leading to the specific reactivation of BAL proxies corresponding to that Looping activity.”

Synergos frowned again, considering the practicalities. "But is all this practical to prove at this time? Our current neuroscience seems far from this level of functional precision.”

“Perhaps not at this exact moment for all aspects," Haplous conceded, his eyes following **the monastery cat** as it stretched languidly. "But consider Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift.”

“The idea that continents move over time?”

“Yes. When Wegener first proposed it in 1912, there was no way to directly observe or measure continental movement. Many among the scientific community rejected it because they couldn't imagine how massive continents could possibly move through solid ocean floors. And lasers did not exist back then; they were only invented in the 1960s, when they were finally used to show that continents actually move.”

“And now it's accepted as fact," Synergos affirmed.

“Because technology and understanding advanced.” Haplous touched his cross. "You would need to have a very dim view of the future of neuroscience if you don't think we will eventually be able to identify BAL-level proxies, their correlates in the PTD's incipient expressive activity, and observe the specific correspondence that constitutes Looping."

Synergos straightened up, a look of resolve on his face. "So it's falsifiable!”

“Yes, Popper's principle does not require that it has to be experimentally falsifiable at this very minute, just that it can be potentially falsified through proper research. And here we have a very clear hypothesis: reportable conscious subjective experience is *always* accompanied by 1. the BAL initiating incipient expressive activity in the PTD, which triggers 2. the Looping-based reactivation of BAL neuronal proxies corresponding to that PTD activity. This is a straightforward and testable hypothesis." Haplous stated.

"Really?" Synergos’s brows rose. "Can you really be sure of that?”

“Yes, that’s a core prediction of the framework. So, the framework is falsifiable.” Haplous confirmed with quiet confidence.

Synergos raised an eyebrow. “That’s a bold claim. You’re saying that if someone were to find what is called conscious subjective experience occurring without *both* the BAL initiating incipient expressive activity in the PTD channel *and* the subsequent Looping-based activation of the corresponding neuronal proxies in the BAL, then your entire framework would have to be thrown out?”

Haplous smiled, watching **the monastery cat** now dozing in the last rays of the evening sun. “That’s exactly what I’m saying.”

Synergos let out a low whistle. “That’s really putting yourself out on a limb.”

Haplous chuckled softly. “I didn’t teach the history of science for twelve years without learning a thing or two. Any real scientific framework must stand or fall on falsifiable principles. If this specific Looping process – the BAL's internal reuse of PTD pathways for proxy examination – does not underlie all reportable conscious activity, then the core of this framework is falsified, and it should be discarded.”

Synergos leaned back against the cool stone of the chapel wall as other monks began to enter. “Most theories of consciousness seem to hedge their bets – talking in vague correlations without ever really committing to a make-or-break test.”

Haplous tapped his cross lightly against the bench they had briefly occupied. “That’s the difference between speculation and science. If a theory is worth anything, it must be willing to risk being wrong.”

He paused for a moment, his gaze following **the monastery cat** as it rose and stretched again, then wove between the legs of a passing brother entering the chapel. Then he continued, “And while some neuroscientists have been trying to locate consciousness – as if it’s a specific place in the BAL – the framework doesn’t do that. Looping-based conscious experience isn’t confined to a structure or a single region; it’s a *process* that happens when the BAL utilizes its PTD in this specific re-entrant way to examine its own proxy states.”

Synergos frowned thoughtfully. “So you’re saying the framework doesn’t pinpoint a physical location for Looping-based consciousness?”

Haplous smiled. “Not in the way some might expect a single 'consciousness center.' But in another sense, we do locate it – not as a fixed place, but at the *juncture of the functional circumstances* that give rise to it. Looping-based consciousness doesn’t reside somewhere as a static entity; it is a specific kind of subjective experience that occurs when the BAL meets these necessary functional conditions using its PTD.”

"And you say, 'loosely defined' for the term 'consciousness' itself," Synergos recalled, "because it's a common term people use, but 'Looping generating reportable subjective experience of BAL proxy states' is the more precise operational term within your framework?”

"Yes, that is right," Haplous affirmed. "If you go back and remember everything we have discussed, the conventional term 'consciousness' isn't a core defined element *of the mechanism*. But since this term is used so generally, we refer to it as a means of interfacing with traditional terminology. 'Consciousness,' as commonly understood, often refers to one's subjective state when the Brain at Large is making direct use of the Looping procedure, actively focusing Looping on certain proxy configurations as part of its ongoing cybernetic operations.”

A gentle evening breeze stirred the lavender outside the chapel door. Synergos considered this. "But what if this 'Looping' process – this BAL-directed use of PTD pathways for internal examination – is too spread out and nebulous in the BAL for scientists to ever use instruments to measure and isolate its specific neural path distinct from general PTD use for communication?"

Haplous smiled again, reassuringly. "That's an excellent question. But the precise anatomical channel or specific widespread route of Looping isn't what matters most for observing that it takes place functionally. What matters is observing the *correlation*: that the BAL initiating incipient PTD output (beyond just o1 proxy selection) consistently leads to specific proxy reactivation *via this internal loop*, whenever you have reportable conscious attention to speech, thought, or perception. And there are a myriad of other predictions that arise from the framework.”

“Oh?” Synergos prompted, his interest clearly still strong despite the call to Vespers.

"Consider this example," Haplous suggested as they finally stepped inside. "Sometimes the BAL can have the PTD o-series active for external communication without the BAL concurrently engaging Looping for detailed internal examination of that output – such as when a person is speaking automatically without paying close attention to what they're saying. The framework predicts a measurable neural difference between this state and one where Looping *is* actively engaged by the BAL for conscious examination of the same potential output. This distinction is also falsifiable.”

“Ah!” Synergos’s eyes brightened with understanding as they found their places. "So we could test whether there's a measurable difference in BAL and PTD pathway activity between conscious, Looping-examined speech processes and more automatic, non-looped PTD output?”

“Exactly. And the framework makes specific predictions about what those differences should be, particularly in the patterns of proxy reactivation via Looping versus direct PTD throughput." Haplous nodded. "Because everything in the framework relates to functional states and processes within the BAL, it is potentially observable and falsifiable.”

**The monastery cat**, having found a quiet spot near the altar, curled up as Synergos pondered this.

"There's something else quite important," Haplous continued in a lower voice as the service was about to begin. "As the framework becomes better known, it will actually guide the discovery of these functional entities and their neural correlates, potentially accelerating the point at which it can be tested in practice, not just in theory.”

“Like a map that helps explorers know where to look for specific landmarks?” Synergos whispered.

“Yes! Scientific understanding often advances this way – a theory points toward what functional patterns we should look for, and that focus leads to discoveries that might otherwise have been missed or misinterpreted as mere noise.”

Synergos nodded, his administrator’s precision engaging with the logic even in this hushed setting. "So the framework doesn't just make claims that could be proven wrong – it actually provides direction for how to test those claims regarding the BAL, PTD, and Looping?”

“Precisely.” Haplous touched his cross. "And that's what makes it a genuinely scientific framework, rather than mere speculation.”

“You know,” Synergos whispered thoughtfully, watching **the monastery cat** track a moth near a candle, "in administration, we're always seeking frameworks that not only explain what we observe but also guide effective action. This seems quite similar.”

“Yes,” Haplous affirmed with a quiet smile. "The best scientific frameworks don't just account for existing observations – they lead us toward new discoveries about how things actually work.”

“Rather like how the best maps don't just show where we are," Synergos offered in a near whisper, "but guide us toward territories yet to be explored?”

“Exactly,” Haplous confirmed gently. "And in that sense, the framework's greatest value may be in the questions it helps us ask about the BAL and its remarkable capabilities."

Hearing the intonation for the first prayer, Synergos turned to Haplous one last time. "Before we begin, there's one more thing that caught my attention in what you just said.”

"Yes?" Haplous inclined his head slightly.

"Well, you mentioned Wegener's theory of continental drift. But didn't it take decades for that to be accepted?”

“Indeed.” Haplous nodded, his hand near his cross. "Though something quite fascinating happened during those decades, before the actual movement was directly measured in the 1960s.”

“What was that?” Synergos asked, his curiosity still strong.

“The theory gained increasing acceptance simply because it explained so many diverse observations that had previously seemed unrelated," Haplous explained softly as the chanting began around them. "The matching coastlines of South America and Africa were just the beginning. It also explained similar fossil species found on now-distant continents, matching geological formations, evidence of ancient tropical climates in now-polar regions, intriguing directions of ancient glacial striations, even bands of slightly magnetized rock in the mid-Atlantic seabed apparently laid down during different eons when the Earth's magnetic field had flipped – in short, a vast array of BAL-level geological and paleontological data were explained by it…”

“Ah!” Synergos whispered, his eyes lighting up. "So even before direct measurement of continental movement by lasers was possible, the *explanatory power* of the theory over diverse BAL-processed data became compelling?”

“Exactly. And something similar applies to this framework,” Haplous suggested with a final smile as he turned his attention to the prayers. "Consider the diverse phenomena related to BAL function and Looping it accounts for that previously seemed unconnected.”

“We were just talking about those… what were they again?” Synergos murmured to himself, trying to recall as the service began.

“Well, yesterday we discussed how Looping constructs dreams upon waking from BAL traces, rather than dreams being experiences during sleep. But the framework also elegantly explains split-brain phenomena, doesn't it?” Haplous whispered back during a pause in the liturgy.

“Yes!” Synergos affirmed quietly. “How patients’ BALs can respond perfectly to information their Looping system claims not to see – because the BAL in one hemisphere operates independently of the other’s Looping access!”

“And blindsight," Haplous added almost inaudibly, "where a person’s BAL responds to visual information their Looping system insists it cannot see.”

“The same principle at work," Synergos whispered. "The Brain at Large processing information via its proxies, but that specific information not being accessible to the BAL’s Looping tool for reportable examination.”

**The monastery cat** appeared to be asleep near the altar, seemingly oblivious to their hushed philosophical exchange.

Haplous continued in a very low voice, "We talked about a lot of things today – atemporal dream events, split-brain phenomena, blindsight, rapid life review events, déjà vu, humming the same tune, all explained by the BAL's operations and its use of Looping. Yesterday, we talked about how Looping can't simultaneously examine two distinct sets of BAL proxies. Everywhere you turn, everywhere you look in terms of mental operation, you will find that it is explainable through this framework of the BAL and its Looping capability.”

“Rather like how continental drift explained those diverse geological observations?” Synergos whispered back, the analogy clear in his mind, "independent lines of evidence concerning BAL processing, all pointing toward the same underlying BAL/Looping mechanics?”

“Exactly. This converging evidence provides substantial validation for the framework, even before we can directly observe all its neural correlates in the BAL and PTD pathways.”

A gentle breeze could be felt even within the chapel.

"There's something else quite fascinating," Haplous murmured after a moment. "Different methodologies in neuroscience could converge to test specific aspects of the framework’s account of BAL and Looping function.”

“What do you mean?” Synergos whispered.

“Well, consider fMRI studies that track blood flow in the BAL. They could identify regions active during PTD speech production versus regions active during Looping-based conscious examination of meaning from BAL proxies.”

“And EEG might capture the timing of these BAL-directed PTD and Looping processes?” Synergos offered back.

“Yes! While single-cell recordings in certain contexts might directly observe how BAL-level neuronal proxies activate during different modes of Looping-based experience.” Haplous confirmed.

“I see. So even before we can comprehensively test the whole framework of BAL, PTD, and Looping…”

“Multiple approaches could validate specific components of BAL and Looping function." Haplous touched his cross. "Just as geologists found independent lines of evidence for continental drift while waiting for direct measurement techniques to develop.”

**The monastery cat** twitched an ear but remained asleep.

"You know what strikes me about this framework," Synergos whispered thoughtfully, as the monks began a new chant, "compared to other theories I've encountered?”

“Yes?” Haplous turned his head slightly.

“It makes very specific predictions that distinguish it from other approaches. For example, it predicts that when Looping seems to be experiencing multiple things simultaneously…”

“Yes?”

“It’s actually the BAL rapidly switching Looping's focus between different proxy sets! Since Looping can only handle one PTD-formatted stream at a time. That's a testable prediction about BAL/Looping dynamics that other theories don't necessarily make.”

“Rather remarkable how many unique predictions emerge from these basic principles of BAL operation and Looping?” Haplous commented almost inaudibly.

“Yes! And let's not forget the predicted dissociation between what the Brain at Large knows at a proxy level and what can be accessed by its Looping tool for examination," Synergos added with quiet excitement. "That seems particularly distinctive compared to other theories.”

Haplous watched a sparrow that had flown in through an open window and now perched on a high rafter. "Though perhaps we should acknowledge something important about scientific theories in general…”

“What’s that?” Synergos asked.

“Even if parts of the framework – say, specific details about how the BAL implements PTD stages or how Looping accesses proxies – were shown to need refinement," Haplous touched his cross, "other core elements, like the fundamental BAL/Looping distinction, might still be validated. Science often advances through this kind of partial confirmation and revision.”

“Like how continental drift evolved into the more comprehensive theory of plate tectonics?” Synergos suggested.

“Yes, did you know that Wegener actually thought that as a continent moved, friction between it and the mantle could push up mountains like the bow waves in front of ships? This was later disproven, but his general theory of continental movement stands.” Haplous explained.

“Exactly. The core insight about continental movement remained valid, while the mechanics were understood with greater sophistication." Synergos nodded. "Similarly, the framework's fundamental principles about the Brain at Large and its use of Looping for examining proxy states might remain sound, even if specific details about neural implementation need refinement.”

“That seems like a mature approach to scientific understanding," Synergos reflected. "Not claiming absolute certainty, but offering a framework robust enough to guide investigation and potentially survive refinement as we learn more about the BAL."

The resonant tones of the organ began to fill the chapel.

Haplous smiled, touching his cross as they both turned their full attention to the service. "Though perhaps some of the most compelling reasons for a framework's validity is not just its ability to be tested…”

“You mean like its capacity to make sense of things that previously seemed mysterious, by clarifying BAL operations versus Looping?” Synergos offered, his voice now truly a whisper.

“There is that, but when evaluating different explanations, scientists consider certain characteristics beyond just falsifiability and explanatory power – things like parsimony, evolutionary plausibility of the BAL and PTD, developmental consistency of Looping... we should examine these more carefully in relation to the phenomena we've discussed. Take parsimony, for instance,” Haplous continued, his voice barely audible above the music, "the principle that, all else being equal, simpler explanations are preferable to more complex ones.”

“Occam's Razor.” Synergos nodded. "And when I think about all the phenomena we've discussed today related to the BAL and Looping…”

“Yes?”

“The framework explains them all with a few fundamental principles – the Brain at Large operating through purely mechanical processes on its neuronal proxies, the PTD emerging for communication and then being exapted by the BAL for Looping… Rather than requiring different explanations for dreams, split-brain cases, blindsight, hypnagogic experiences, and so on, all of which can be seen as variations in BAL operation and Looping access.”

“Rather like how Newton's laws explained both falling apples and planetary motion using the same core principles?” Haplous suggested.

“Exactly! One set of principles about BAL/PTD/Looping explaining diverse phenomena. That seems quite compelling from a scientific perspective.”

**The monastery cat** remained asleep, a picture of serene indifference to their complex discussion.

"There's another important aspect to consider," Haplous murmured as a reader approached the lectern. "The evolutionary plausibility of the framework.”

“What do you mean?” Synergos asked softly.

“Well, any explanation of consciousness, or more precisely, reportable subjective examination via Looping, should align with evolutionary principles." Haplous touched his cross. "It should be possible to see how such BAL capabilities could develop gradually, with each stage providing incremental advantages.”

“Ah!” Synergos affirmed quietly. "And the framework does show this, doesn't it? The Brain at Large developing its proxy-based modeling through natural selection for millions of years, the Proxy Transfer Device emerging for the clear advantages of communication…”

“Yes, and consider the Looping capability itself," Haplous prompted. "How even its simplest form – the BAL being able to internally check a potential PTD output – provides immediate survival benefits. From that point on, the refinement of Looping could become a matter of cultural and individual learning. The framework also predicts that exercises with children in their younger formative months, encouraging them to reflect and articulate, will encourage the formation and strengthening of their BAL's Looping capability. This touches on collective and cultural evolution, where cultures and groups that foster such reflective Looping might thrive.”

“Like the BAL being able to have Looping test possibilities before physically attempting them? Even the most basic version of that Looping capability would help the BAL with finding food, avoiding predators…”

“Rather than requiring some sudden, fully-formed emergence of consciousness from nowhere?” Haplous offered.

“Yes! The framework shows how each component – BAL, PTD, Looping – could develop gradually, with clear survival advantages at each stage for the organism." Synergos spoke with quiet conviction. "That alignment with evolutionary principles seems quite significant.”

The evening prayers continued, the voices of the monks rising and falling in chant.

"There's something else quite important in scientific advancement," Haplous whispered during a brief silence. "The developmental consistency of a framework.”

“What do you mean by that?” Synergos asked, his voice equally low.

“How well it explains the development we observe in children," Haplous smiled faintly in the candlelight. "Notice how the framework accounts for the stages of language acquisition and the BAL's development of Looping-based subjective examination that we see as children grow.”

“Yes! The direct PTD expression stage where the BAL has children simply speak their active proxies, then the BAL discovering prediction and internal PTD use..."

“And eventually the BAL developing full Looping capability for complex thought," Haplous nodded. "The framework makes specific predictions about when and how these capabilities should emerge in the BAL's use of its PTD and Looping tools.”

“That could be tested through developmental psychology research, couldn't it? Observing children at different stages to see if the BAL's transitions in PTD/Looping use happen as the framework predicts?”

“Indeed. And notice something fascinating about how scientific frameworks gain acceptance…” Haplous suggested.

“What’s that?”

“They often suggest natural collaborations across different disciplines." Haplous touched his cross. "Consider how this framework connects neuroscience (studying the BAL and proxy mechanics), psychology (Looping and behavior), linguistics (PTD structure), even computer science (modeling BAL/PTD/Looping)…”

“Creating a kind of roadmap for interdisciplinary research?” Synergos’s eyes showed his understanding. "Each field investigating different aspects of the same underlying BAL/Looping principles?”

“Yes. Neuroscientists might focus on identifying the neural correlates of BAL-level neuronal proxies and PTD pathways, while psychologists study the behavioral implications of Looping versus direct BAL operation.” Haplous elaborated.

“And linguists could examine how the PTD causes BAL-level neuronal components of meaning to coalesce around PTD-formatted semantic packages like words, where BAL proxy groups that would not normally contain all the components of a word, through repeated exposure to PTD-mediated language, tend to gradually take on the same component structure as embodied in the word," Synergos added with quiet enthusiasm. "While computer scientists might model these BAL/PTD/Looping processes!”

“Rather like how continental drift eventually brought together geologists, paleontologists, oceanographers, and geophysicists?” Haplous offered.

“Yes! That kind of convergence across disciplines seems particularly compelling," Synergos nodded thoughtfully. "When different fields independently arrive at compatible conclusions about a shared underlying system like the BAL and Looping.”

**The monastery cat**, still near the altar, twitched its tail in its sleep.

"You know," Synergos said after a moment, as the chanting paused, "something else strikes me about the framework compared to other explanations I've encountered…”

“Yes?” Haplous turned his head slightly.

“Its compatibility with existing BAL-level neurophysiology and evolution, while extending it in new directions to explain Looping and subjective examination," Synergos spoke carefully. "It doesn't contradict what we know, yet it offers new insights about consciousness by detailing the Looping mechanism.”

“An important consideration," Haplous acknowledged with a nod. "Scientific progress typically builds upon existing understanding rather than requiring its complete rejection.”

“Like Einstein's relativity extending Newton's mechanics rather than abolishing it?”

“Exactly. Though notice something fascinating about major scientific advances…” Haplous said.

“What’s that?”

“They often face resistance initially, precisely because they challenge certain assumptions while preserving others." Haplous touched his cross. "Think about the history of scientific revolutions – from heliocentrism to germ theory to quantum mechanics…”

“Each faced skepticism at first," Synergos reflected. "But gained acceptance as evidence accumulated and as people recognized their explanatory power concerning the BAL's world or the nature of Looping?”

“Yes. And there's something else quite remarkable about frameworks that eventually succeed…”

“What’s that?” Haplous prompted.

“They typically make novel predictions that other theories don't," Haplous suggested. "Not just explaining existing observations, but pointing toward discoveries about BAL function or Looping dynamics that wouldn't have been made otherwise.”

“Like how the framework predicts specific differences between BAL-direct conscious processes and Looping-based ones?” Synergos offered. "Or how it suggests we should find evidence of the BAL rapidly switching Looping's focus rather than simultaneous Looping processing?”

“Indeed. And perhaps most compelling of all…” Haplous began.

“Yes?” Synergos urged.

“How it specifies conditions under which the Brain at Large would operate differently with and without Looping access to its proxy states," Haplous affirmed. "Leading to testable predictions about skill acquisition, expert BAL performance, and even the effects of certain meditative practices on Looping.”

**The monastery cat** appeared once more at the edge of the light from the chapel door, its eyes gleaming, before vanishing again into the night.

"There's one more scientific criterion I recall from my studies," Synergos said, his voice barely above the organ music that now filled the space. "How a framework compares to competing explanations for consciousness or BAL operation.”

“Yes, an important consideration," Haplous agreed with a smile. "Though perhaps we should be careful about how we frame this.”

“What do you mean?” Synergos asked.

“Well, many theories of consciousness focus primarily on identifying neural correlates of conscious experience within the BAL," Haplous touched his wooden cross. "Without necessarily explaining the underlying Looping-like mechanics.”

“While others address specific BAL-processed phenomena like memory or perception," Synergos added, "without providing a unified account that includes Looping.”

“Yes. And notice something interesting about how the framework relates to these approaches…” Haplous suggested.

“It doesn't necessarily contradict them," Synergos spoke quietly. "It offers a mechanical explanation for the very BAL-correlations and Looping-related phenomena they're studying?”

“Rather like how plate tectonics provided a mechanical explanation for the geological observations that preceded it?” Haplous offered.

“Yes! So it's not about replacing other approaches entirely," Synergos’s eyes held a new light. "But offering a deeper explanation for what they're observing about the BAL and Looping!”

“Though perhaps most important of all,” Haplous suggested gently, as the final prayers began, “is how a framework influences how we understand ourselves and our BALs.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, beyond its scientific credentials," Haplous glanced towards where **the monastery cat** had last been seen, "a truly valuable framework should help us make sense of our own subjective experience generated by Looping from BAL states.”

“Like how understanding Looping helps me recognize what's happening in my own mind – my BAL directing Looping – from moment to moment?” Synergos reflected. "That seems like a uniquely powerful form of validation.”

“Yes. Though notice how this brings us full circle…” Haplous murmured.

“Back to falsifiability of the BAL/Looping model?” Synergos suggested.

“And beyond," Haplous nodded as the service drew to a close. "To a framework's capacity to guide further discovery about the BAL, to make sense of diverse Looping phenomena, and perhaps most importantly…”

“To illuminate our own lived experience via Looping," Synergos completed the thought. "Making the mysterious operations of our BAL suddenly comprehensible through understanding Looping.”

The evening service concluded, and a profound quiet settled over the chapel, broken only by the distant chirping of crickets.

"You know," Synergos said as they walked out into the cool night air, stars bright above, "what strikes me most about our discussions today…”

“Yes?” Haplous inquired, pausing by the ancient well in the center of the courtyard.

“How the framework, with its BAL, PTD, and Looping, seems to meet all these scientific criteria we've discussed – falsifiability, parsimony, evolutionary plausibility for the BAL and PTD, developmental consistency for Looping, interdisciplinary connections…” Synergos spoke carefully, his voice full of a newfound respect. "Without requiring extraordinary claims or special mechanisms beyond the BAL's capabilities.”

“Rather remarkable convergence, wouldn't you say?” Haplous commented, his tone thoughtful.

“Yes. Though I suppose the ultimate test will come as more researchers engage with these ideas about the BAL and Looping?”

“Indeed.” Haplous touched his cross, his eyes reflecting the starlight. "Though perhaps there's wisdom in something the great physicist Niels Bohr once said.”

“What was that?” Synergos asked.

“‘How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress,'" Haplous quoted with a gentle smile. "The framework of BAL and Looping helps us resolve paradoxes about consciousness that have troubled humanity for centuries.”

“And that progress," Synergos suggested, gazing up at the vastness of the night sky, "might be the strongest validation of all for this view of the BAL and its Looping tool?”

“Yes,” Haplous smiled, his hand near his cross. “Though another remarkable validation is how the framework connects with much older insights and questions about the human spirit and its inner workings.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, philosophers and mystics throughout history have puzzled over consciousness, memory, the nature of experience – essentially, the workings of their own BALs and Looping systems…” Haplous’s eyes took on that distant, reflective look Synergos had come to recognize. “And as it turns out, they were actually seeing the principles of the framework according to metaphors available to them at the time. Perhaps tomorrow we might explore what they discovered about their BALs and their Looping?”

“I wouldn’t miss it,” Synergos replied, the promise of new understanding already kindling his curiosity for the morrow.

— End of Dialog 4 —