LastThursday

@Majed there's humility in knowing what you've shared. It's good to recognise when to quit something that doesn't work for you, and put your energies somewhere else. It's also good to always have in your thoughts "this may not work for me, but I'll see how it goes", it's a much gentler way to go about things.

@Carl-Richard Is a termite mound a natural part of evolution? It is not to do with silicon itself, it is the arrangement and construction which matters. In fact it is more to do with modulating electrons, and more abstractly computation: AI is the leaf in that great information processing tree. It is a product of the human mind, but the human mind is a product of evolution. You argument makes the assumption that the only way to produce consciousness is to have that long history of information processing, but it doesn't necessarily follow. There may be other ways. Indeed it is, but it is only one way to cut the whole.

You're confusing the finger and hand. The entire evolutionary process includes AI, it is the culmination of that process not a tiny part of it. The error is to think of AI as a separate entity, it isn't, it's AI and humanity. A leaf is not the whole tree, but it is the tree.

@Nercohype watching that first video now. Man it's a Leo length monster will get popcorn. The second I've come across before! Good recommendations.

Don't forget that humans and their machines are still the product of that evolution not separate from it. Seen in that light the quest for AI might just be the glimmer of a new thing in evolution. If there is an underlying force guiding things, then what we're producing is part of it, not separate from it.

I'm very wordy lately. It's like the tide coming back in. In my magical workings so far these things have come up: There's mostly a sense of loss as things stand and my current state is one of grieving. Some of the things which made me "me" eroded away over time. I can see the arc of that erosion in hindsight and it was mostly an organic natural process both in my control and out of my control. I think I can and should regain some of those qualities: energy, flirtatiousness (interest), creativity, love of people, humour, optmisism. My grief is making me withdrawn and inactive. There are many other qualities I feel like regaining. There are some things I should shed. I have an inherent almost neurotic neediness to be seen and heard. Being seen instead should just be a natural consequence of those qualities I need to regain - i.e. the motivation for being seen is different, no neuroticism. There is also a strong sense in which I don't feel worthy enough. What is strange for me is that this is at odds with my defiant sense of sovereignty. It's like deep down I'm aware of my inherent self-worth and always have been, but I doubt myself for expressing that with others. I need to shed that doubt. A more difficult thing for me is to have greater discernment in my relationships. I have tended to drift in and out of relationships (all types) very organically. Whilst on the surface that may seem like an ok way to go about things, it has meant that I've fallen into some very dysfunctional relationships. I think I learned to tolerate dysfunctionality and become blind to it from my parents ultimately: they were not bad people, but they were/are very dysfunctional people each in their own different ways. Some of my romantic relationships were dysfunctional in hindsight and yet I continued with them for years. I suspect I'm tolerant of it because some part of me believes I too am dysfunctional and am drawn to it naturally. I will need to be more ruthless about this in future: don't get into dysfunctional relationships, and if I do without realising, don't drag them out. What is dysfunctional in this case? Many things, but primarily lack of openness, bad communication or lack of it, mismatch in needs, aspirations or style (a bit more woolly that one). But also I need to shed this idea that I am dysfunctional at core, I'm not, and the pretence that a beggar can't be a chooser. That is what the Death stage is for in my rituals however: shedding. It's not all bad though. I have managed to keep my intelligence, general openness, and some of my good humour, all high on my list of values. And, my incessant knowledge that through constant change I can become the person I always wanted to be. I have stagnated for far too long.

I think it'll be good to get out things that arise and put them down in written form. I have so many lost thoughts and ideas, and some of them were very good.

Your anarchy is my absurdity, I'm in agreement with you. Out of that anarchy something does crystallise however and that is meaningful. You yourself couldn't be less anarchic in your posts there is a deep meaning there.

Some ideas from science

As I said in another post: I would add to that list: Freedom - to be able to express my true self without prejudice or conformity. Sovereignty - to be acknowledged as a being in my own right and not be torn apart. Clarity - to see things as they truly are, to keep on learning and expanding Empathy - to constantly try and understand others in deeper ways Humour - to understand the absurdity of being alive, to choose not to take it all too seriously, to show others "it's ok". Sounds like a company mission statement if you ask me.

Why are so many men dickheads? I suppose I should qualify my passive aggressiveness. Firstly, there seems to be a large imbalance between men and women, yes some women can be dicks, but definitely it applies to men more than women. Secondly, the quality of dickishness is different between men and women. Lastly, the clue is in the word: dick. Not all mean are dicks, the vast majority are not. But some do let the side down. Typical dickish behaviours in men are (this is my experience your mileage may vary): Verbal and physical aggression Not backing down Bullying and harassment Oneupmanship Dismissing, not listening, being "right" Lacking empathy The last in that list I find interesting. A lot of males are socialised away from being empathetic towards others. This happens because males are often taught to be disconnected from their own emotions. And by disconnected I mean not that males don't feel emotions, they certainly do, but that they aren't taught to interpret and sit with those emotions. Instead, they are taught to dismiss emotions and use rationality to explain difficult things. This often results in an immature and stunted EQ. How is it you can be empathetic to others when you yourself are not empathetic to your own emotions? You can't. A lot of men will dismiss even talk of emotions as not being in their realm, it is for women to deal with, and indeed a lot of men offload that responsibility on to their partners or mothers. A lot of men will feel deeply awkward or uncomfortable of going anywhere near talking about emotions. Even for me to simply acknowledge some of my male friends' problems and offering my empathy and help is awkward for them. Why for god's sakes? Being a dickhead is not a male trait, it is the trait of someone disconnected from their and others' emotions; and their inability to inhabit the world of others. I see a lot of dickishness on this forum and IRL, and it makes me sad. I feel like fighting it but it's pointless, but I understand its source. If only some men would just man-up!

I like this. We can get to the same destination through different means. I suffer from this, the truth is that I'm also not cut out for certain things and my time and energy is ever more limited. So I should free myself "to hell with it".

I would define the supernatural as those things not having a natural explanation. That gets around the problem of a supernatural thing being common. Maybe before science came along explaining anything and everything, our natural inclination was supernatural. We still have a strong vestige of that way of being in our psyches. Science can only explain a consensus repeatable reality, and so a lot off stuff slips through that net. But we all have our own individual science of how the world works, so there is room for atheists and wizards.

Certainly the history of science is super interesting, most folks think it sprouted de novo from the minds of a few, but really it's just a continuation of much older ideas. I suppose the guy is Jewish so he could be cut some slack for focusing on Jewish mysticism 😋

If interested:

This is what I meant, somewhat obliquely, by: From a more detached perspective it's possible to see that life is completely arbitrary, which implies that it has no inherent meaning. If you really look at reality it's utterly absurd. However life forces us, whatever us represents, to be an intimate part of that absurdity and as such there is meaning in every little thing. We're lost in a sea of meaning. It is only the "us" that conspires in that meaning, outside of that there is no meaning.

I mostly veer into his alchemy and sorcery/magic/witchcraft stuff, but I'm omnivorous. You?

How dare you. I'm not like you lot! I'm a special snowflake❄️😁

I agree with you @VeganAwake that there is no ultimate meaning to life. On the other hand life is so in your face it's hard to ignore. If there is meaning then it's: we're not meant to just sit passively and watch it all go by, we should constantly push ourselves to be active participants in it. The top things I seek are: beauty, intelligence, love, connection and all those things are Truth.

I'm reading The Master and His Emissary by Ian McGilchrist. It's a chunky dense book about how the two parts of the brain function, and how studies of the right brain have been neglected, and the greater ramifications on society. I'm also reading The Alabaster Girl by Zan Perrion prompted by one of the topics on here. Will I become a master seducer? I doubt it, but it's a fun read into the mind of one.

Having two feet firmly in two different centuries I've seen a lot change over that time. I am both a 21st century man and a 20th century man. Language changes and I remember some of these words used to be used regularly when I was a kid. I'd say they're all Britishisms and rarely if ever used any more: Palaver - a dramatic, messy, complicated or difficult situation. Typically said in the phrase "What a palaver!" Cowson - a derogatory term similar in vein to "son of a bitch" nowadays. Watcha - a greeting like hello, but meaning more along the lines of "how are you doing?". Possibly coming from medieval "What, how?" or "What ho!" Git - still in common parlance, but much much less. Refers either to an unpleasant person, in the phrase "what a right git", or to a smug or uncannily lucky person: "what a git how did he win the race, he was well behind?" Reckon - in place of "I suppose" or "I guess". My Gen-Z nephew finds it funny when I say "I reckon you should call home" At the moment - this is going the way of the Dodo, everyone says "Right now" instead and it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to my ears. "Right now" used to mean "immediately".

Hug her of course (if I know her). Be present. Listen. What else?

@Olaf one way is through direct feedback. You believe you can't do a thing for example, you try it and find that you can. A lot of limiting beliefs are just narratives running around in our heads. Find ways to change the narratives and your limiting beliefs change with them. Questioning your narratives is the way to start. There's a bunch of techniques for that. The harder nut to crack is if you have an embodied reaction that stops you from achieving, such as traumas or phobias. But there are also ways to overcome those, such as exposure therapy or CBT or disconnecting the triggers of those physical responses (NLP).

@OBEler Does a character in a novel experience suffering if the writer puts them in difficult circumstances? Is the character conscious? You have to distinguish what the AI outputs - something akin to the character in a novel - from how that character is generated (written). AI is basically like any other computer: it's a stimulus/response system. The user enters stuff, the stimulus, and the AI processes to produce a response, then it stops processing. If it is conscious then it's only conscious when it processes. It's hard not to conflate the output of the AI with its internal processing, which is completely deterministic and down to mathematics and physics. It's organisation is nowhere near as complex as the brain's. Nobody knows the exact relationship between matter and consciousness, and even if one generates the other, or how consciousness might be "attached" to matter if it's independent. Some philosophers can't even agree if others are conscious (they might be zombies). We don't have a consciousness detector.

Is gospel bending the rules? The stalker's anthem: