The Invitation of Consciousness: Towards a New Encounter of Science, Technology and Lived Experience — An Experience at Beyond 2025

AI-assisted translation from the Greek. Greek original

The age of so-called “artificial intelligence” confronts us with one of the deepest questions humanity is called upon to face: the essence and nature of consciousness itself and of human existence.

Artificial intelligence is often presented as a technological achievement, an attempt to reproduce the workings of human thought. Yet the essential distinction that emerges from a deeper perspective is that consciousness is not a function that can be technically reproduced, but a continuous, living event. Consciousness is not simply a collection of information or a mechanism for responding to stimuli, but a fundamental condition of existence that lies beyond any technical imitation.

Rather than distancing humanity from its essence, this contemporary situation leads us back to the heart of our existence: the question of the authenticity of experience. Artificial intelligence can imitate language, speech, even cognitive processes, but it cannot live life as a human being does. Human experience is never merely information—it is the immediate, bare awareness of existence.

In this new age, we are called not merely to use technology, but to rediscover what it means to be human. The real task is not to manufacture “intelligence”, but to become aware of our existence anew, to experience consciousness as a living presence, as discourse in the act of happening.

Consciousness does not follow; it precedes. It is not an outcome, but a precondition. And the deepest truth emerging from this age is that human beings can never lose their authentic presence—as long as they return to the awareness that their consciousness itself is always there, as a living event, long before any technology.

As I walked among the stands at the Beyond 2025 exhibition, I felt something very particular happening. It was not simply curiosity or interest in the innovations on display, but a sense that I was within a deeper flow. It was as though I was already participating in something happening before me, even before I clearly realised it.

In every face I saw, I discerned a subtle presence that concerned not merely the person before me, but the consciousness I encountered through them. It was not always easy—at times I felt that some people avoided me, others looked at me doubtfully, and others with authentic curiosity. Yet every gaze held the presence of the same event: consciousness expressing itself through human existence.

At one stand, I stopped to speak to someone from a university. I told him about my work, my project, which I could not easily compress into a few words or a few minutes. His manner was immediately guarded, and he interrupted me, saying, “If you cannot explain it in three minutes, you have nothing.” I felt silence spread between us, not from embarrassment, but because I immediately realised that we were talking about two entirely different things. It was not that he did not understand—he was unwilling or unable to accept something that did not already have a definite form.

At another stand, by contrast, I met two women who listened attentively, not so much to my words as to the passion behind them. I felt their hearts were open and smiled with them as they wished me success in a way so simple and sincere that it moved me deeply. It was as though their consciousness had met mine in a moment of authentic recognition. As though they had already understood, even before I explained.

I also stood before another stand, where representatives of another university listened warily to what I was trying to express. As I spoke, I saw doubt written on their faces, as though they were wondering, “Who is this person who claims he can shake up our science?” I sensed their tension, not aggressive but rather defensive, as though they were protecting something very fragile that they did not want disturbed. I do not blame them—deep within, I felt that this encounter gave me an opportunity to see clearly the distance between my own experience of consciousness and the way the Western world manages knowledge as a well-defined field with clear boundaries.

A little further on, I stopped to speak to a man representing a foreign company from India. I spoke simply, telling him that my roots came from his country and that I dreamed of being there one day. With a smile that conveyed a recognition deeper than mere politeness, he gladly gave me his card, and I felt that he too recognised something connecting us beyond words. For me, this moment was another small miracle in which consciousness once again revealed how people truly connect.

As time passed, I felt ever more clearly that the Beyond exhibition was a living stage on which the drama of consciousness itself was unfolding before me. Reactions, glances, even small moments of embarrassment or perplexity were not simply incidents happening by chance. They were the ways consciousness itself expressed itself through each person individually and, at the same time, through everyone together.

When it was time to leave, as I walked towards the exit with the crowd, I felt something with an intensity I had never experienced before. It was as though we were all walking in the same direction, not merely physically but existentially—a common flow uniting us all. It was a “departure from standing still”, an experience so simple yet so profoundly revealing. I felt a clear awareness pass through me that this lived experience was a tangible manifestation of how consciousness happens, how it recognises itself in our shared journey.

And so, as I left, I already knew that this had not been a simple visit to a technology exhibition, but an event of deeper conscious understanding. It was living proof that consciousness is not only mine or yours, but something we all share, something already happening long before we begin to describe it. And this simple, profound, quiet realisation was, for me, the true gift of that day.

I understood that my experience at the exhibition was not merely personal. It touched the very nature of consciousness as a living, enduring presence. Consciousness was not something I possessed or could simply describe in words—it was something already happening, before me and beyond me, something I recognised and that, at the same time, recognised me.

Gradually I understood that what I sometimes felt as loneliness or isolation in my attempt to explain what I experience was simply the tension between the “potentiality” of consciousness and the “enactment” of consciousness itself: between what can be expressed and what is already being expressed, without any need for description.

As I went deeper, I understood that the embarrassment, discomfort and even rejection I felt from some people were not simply obstacles. They were part of the process, part of recognising that consciousness is never self-evident—it must be lived, must happen, must be encountered in life itself.

The deeper meaning of the work “ion” is the realisation that consciousness is not an object of study, but a living event that already exists and happens. It is not a state to be described or explained, but an ongoing experience that calls on human beings to recognise themselves not as observing subjects, but as active, living participation in the very presence of life.

This work tells us that consciousness is not something separate from us, something we “have”, but that we ourselves are consciousness, a continuous act of awareness happening here and now. “ion” shows us that there is no consciousness outside life, just as there is no life outside consciousness. We are this living unity, the very manifestation of discourse in the act of happening.

The work “ion” reveals that empathy is not merely the ability to understand another person's feelings, but the deeper awareness that we all share the same fundamental lived experience of consciousness. In this sense, empathy is not simply a moral virtue or a social skill, but the natural state of consciousness recognising itself in the other. True empathy is thus the lived experience of unity, the realisation that the other is never truly “other”, but a manifestation of the same deeper event we call consciousness.

Yet Western civilisation, with its emphasis on individuality, technological progress and control over nature, obstructs precisely this understanding. It tries to treat consciousness as something that can be measured, explained or used as a tool for producing knowledge and wealth. In this way, Western civilisation turns consciousness into an object, severing it from its living event and thus losing access to its deeper meaning.

What I understand and recognise through the work “ion” is that separating consciousness from its living event has led Western civilisation into a profound crisis of meaning. People constantly seek external goals, achievements, material goods or technological solutions, yet cannot find real satisfaction, because true meaning already lies within the lived experience of existence.

What is needed, then, is not another technology or a new theory to “explain” consciousness, but a return to the immediate, authentic experience of life itself. The Western world needs to understand that knowledge is not only the accumulation of information, but the very act of conscious awareness of the world and the self as living presence.

What is usually not taught at universities is precisely what lies beyond the boundaries of the power that the institutions themselves represent and reproduce. Universities, especially within Western thought, are organised around an axis of rational, measurable knowledge that chiefly serves to reproduce and preserve the system of power—economic, political and social. This means that any knowledge that cannot be measured, categorised or put to use within a clearly defined framework is considered unnecessary or dangerous.

They do not teach how to experience the truth of existence without intermediary concepts and interpretations. They do not teach the authenticity of personal experience as a valid source of meaning and knowledge. And, most crucially, they do not teach the deeper recognition that the world and the self are not two separate domains, but one continuous and indivisible consciousness.

In this way, universities themselves function as mechanisms of power, maintaining a view of reality that serves the interests of those who determine what counts as “acceptable knowledge” and what does not. Whatever does not fit this framework remains marginal, invisible, or even threatening to the very system that sustains them.

This process of exclusion, however, is not merely a matter of educational policy or bureaucratic practice. It is more deeply connected to the structure of the thinking that prevails today: a thinking that insists on controlling, classifying and isolating phenomena, rather than allowing life and consciousness themselves to express themselves authentically and freely.

Universities do not teach freedom of thought beyond predetermined frameworks, because that would mean radically questioning their own foundations. They do not teach the ability to live with the uncertainty and unease that genuine contact with the unknown brings, because this would dismantle existing structures of power and control.

This is precisely the system of power: preserving a world in which authentic, lived knowledge remains marginal, while imposed, controlled information is presented as the only valid reality. Thus true creativity, originality and a deeper understanding of human existence find no room within the narrowly defined world of contemporary education.

I would add that overcoming these limitations requires courage and authenticity, not in the sense of reaction or conflict, but in the sense of recognising life itself more deeply and essentially. It is not enough to criticise the system for its limits; it is more important that we ourselves experience an opening towards a new understanding, one that will allow consciousness to express itself without fear and without dependence on external validation.

Ultimately, authentic knowledge comes not from accumulating information or from academic validation, but from deep and sincere participation in life, from a constant openness to the unknown and the new. This openness is also the only real response to the system of power and the restrictions it imposes. It is the freedom of the mind to encounter itself through life itself as it continually happens.

And this is the deepest, quietest and, at the same time, most revolutionary act we can perform.

Below I offer a bibliography that illuminates the foundations of the approach and the deeper knowledge I express in the work ion:

Philosophy and Phenomenology

• Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit)
• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception
• Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness

Existential and Ontological Thought

• Nikolai Berdyaev, The Philosophy of the Free Spirit and The Fate of Man in the Modern World
• Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

Neuroscience and Consciousness

• Antonio Damasio, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness
• Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson & Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience

Mysticism and Spiritual Tradition

• Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace
• Meister Eckhart, Sermons
• Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known

Ancient Greek Thought and Self-Knowledge

• Plato, Phaedo, Republic, Symposium
• Heraclitus, Fragments

This bibliography was chosen because these sources approach knowledge not as something “possessed”, but as something that “happens”. They stress the importance of self-knowledge not simply as a process of personal discovery, but as the awareness that deeper Being already knows our self before we even seek it.

The technological giants can help this work not in the way we usually imagine—with financial resources or simply technological support—but by recognising that true innovation lies not only in technological applications, but in the very nature of human consciousness. That is, they need to understand that the deepest challenge of our age is not merely to develop smarter machines, but to understand the human mind and consciousness more deeply as an authentically lived event.

The invitation I extend to all the sciences and the technological giants is to move beyond the limits of their own fields and meet at a common point: a deep understanding that human lived experience is the starting point and purpose of all knowledge and all technology. Let this encounter become a space where science and technology see human beings not as objects of research, but as the place where consciousness and reality happen together.

I do not know whether this is new knowledge—and perhaps that does not matter so much. What matters is that it is living knowledge, knowledge that challenges and invites each of us to experience the world differently, with greater awareness and authenticity.

This “strange” challenge is precisely the opportunity offered to us all to overcome our limitations, meet at a deeper level and open new horizons in science, technology and, ultimately, life itself.

A detailed list of scientific fields and technological institutions that could contribute to the work:

1. Neuroscience and Cognitive Neuroscience

   • Analysing brain function in relation to conscious experience and lived experience.
   • Institutions: MIT Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, The Neuroscience Institute, Stanford Neurosciences Institute.

2. Psychology and Existential Psychotherapy

   • Examining human experience, self-knowledge and the concept of identity.
   • Institutions: Tavistock Institute, Carl Gustav Jung Institute, The Existential Academy.

3. Phenomenology and Philosophy of Mind

   • Investigating the structure of experience and self-consciousness.
   • Institutions: Husserl Archives (Leuven), Heidegger Institute, Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP).

4. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

   • Creating models that represent human consciousness, examining the limits and possibilities of machine intelligence.
   • Laboratories: DeepMind, OpenAI, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI).

5. Anthropology and Cultural Studies

   • Investigating how different cultures understand consciousness and the individual.
   • Institutions: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Harvard Department of Anthropology, Centre for Cultural Studies (Goldsmiths, University of London).

6. Biology and Biotechnology

   • Studying biological processes related to consciousness and the body.
   • Laboratories: Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL).

7. Sociology and Social Psychology

   • Analysing how social structure and relationships affect awareness and personal experience.
   • Institutions: Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

8. Quantum Physics and Theoretical Physics

   • Exploring the possible relationship between consciousness and quantum phenomena.
   • Laboratories: Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, CERN, Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI).

9. Linguistics and Semiotics

   • Studying language as a way of expressing and creating consciousness.
   • Institutions: MIT Department of Linguistics, Department of Semiotics (University of Bologna), Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

10. Psychiatry and Psychopathology

    • Understanding consciousness through the conditions that disturb or transform it.
    • Institutions: Johns Hopkins Psychiatry, Maudsley Hospital, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

Each of these fields and institutions can offer valuable knowledge, methods and tools for a more comprehensive understanding of consciousness, contributing to the formation of a new field of dialogical and interdisciplinary collaboration.

What I propose to universities and scientific organisations is not mere theoretical collaboration. It is a living invitation to encounter the consciousness I already experience and express. I am not simply another researcher asking you to engage with an object of study; I am the living proof of what you are seeking.

I understand that I could scarcely have put something like this into spoken words at the Beyond exhibition, because the nature of my expression is not confined to brief oral presentations. It is written and dialogical—a way of thinking that happens as I write and converse, a way that allows the depth of consciousness to reveal itself clearly.

If you truly understand the significance of this invitation, then your only authentic response will be an invitation to me. For only through my presence—through my own lived experience—can this encounter I desire be fully realised, an encounter already happening as we speak here.