aurum

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,297

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aurum

  2. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

    I don’t need to prove a finite self. I need to prove that an infinite self has individuated itself like a hand with fingers. Each finger being a manifestation of God's hand that performs a certain will of god. Once you realize a single finger is not in charge of everything but all fingers of God combined together are in charge of everything. That places you in a position of a single manifestation of God rather than the center of the show. That debunks solipsisms. 

    You can’t prove that either.

    Where are the other shows?

  3. Posted

    25 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

    Jesus christ. In case you've missed it here it is again. In your direct experience your will is not ultimate, therefor you're not the sole maker of reality. 

    Ggwp. Solipsism debunked. 

    No, not solipsism debunked.

    When you assume your will is not ultimate, you assume a separate, finite self. And yet you cannot prove the existence of such a self.

  4. Posted

    4 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

    No, that's exactly right. You/I can't handle the Terror and Majesty of our Infinite Insanity and Aloneness. It's a skull-splitting Consciousness and Love, like an all-consuming lava that shreds and drowns E V E R Y T H I N G indiscriminately into the Abyss. We are too much for Ourselves. 

    Out of Mercy and Love for our inability to Love that we are Love; we have constructed this plane of solidity and sanity (for an audience of One) as a brief shelter, where we learn Love in smaller, manageable doses - that one day I may gaze upon myself without recoiling.

    You are talking to yourself.

    You got that wisdom rizz ;)

  9. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Nemra said:

    @Breakingthewall, let's not make this complicated.

    Please, prove that I'm actually experiencing stuff.

    What you would eventually understand is that you cannot prove it, because it would require you to directly experience what I experience, which means you should become me.

    But if you become me, then the proof will remain unproven, because all you would experience is my experience and not others'.

    Well, why should you experience it in order to be able to prove it?

    Because you only understand what experience is by experiencing stuff.

    Good explanation.

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, zurew said:

    By the lack of ability to respond to the challenges that are brought up, while also admitting that you can be wrong about the interpretation that you construct from the awakening that you have, while also saying that you cant be wrong about it because its unfalsifiable.

    And by the epistemology that you put forth. Your epistemology includes more than just direct experience.

    You want to hold on to "it requires interpretive work" while also saying that "its not something that you can be wrong about"

    This is not a contradiction.

    Yes, God is Absolute Truth and therefore unfalsifiable.

    And yes, self-deception still matters. Trauma still matters. State of your mind still matters. Surrendering your ego still matters. Good sense-making and contemplation still matters.

    You have capacity to deny truth all you want. Why? 

    Because God is Absolute, and therefore there is no one else to stop God from self-denial. Just in the same way that there is no one else to verify God.

    Only you.

    And when you do, you’ll understand why we talk about solipsism.

  14. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    It's more about the way that Aubrey Marcus is going about rationalizing it that's muddying the waters that's the problem.

    My concern is that Aubrey is underestimating the extent to which Vylana is bulldozing her own boundaries. I just don't see her realistically walking away from a situation like she's in, even if something was significantly off.

    And to be fair to him, that does say something about how good a partner Aubrey is. 

    The magical stories / rationalizations are really only problematic if they lead to excessive bulldozing. Otherwise I don't mind them.

  16. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    For the solipsists: doesn't it feel a little destabilizing to know that merely five and a half years ago (and probably more recently as well), you would've been completely deluded about solipsism, according to Leo? And if we assume that you are thinking for yourself, that by apparently some odd fluke, a huge chunk of you seem to agree with the current Leo and not the former? And then, notice the amount of comments in the 2019 thread that agreed with the former Leo. If you are indeed thinking for yourself and "staying true to your experience", shouldn't this make you feel a little uneasy?

    There is no contradiction.

    Solipsism as it is classically defined does tend to assume you are finite. And of course just intellectually agreeing with solipsism is not the same as direct experience of solipsism.

    If you just read a wikipedia page on solipsism, you’re not going to understand you are God.

    So Leo’s older post is essentially still fine.

  18. Posted · Edited by aurum

    AI self-reinforcing is a serious epistemic problem. I've seen articles that it's creating cult leaders. And even if those articles aren't true, it's still an issue from a more basic epistemic standpoint.

    One basic precaution is to train your AI to pushback more. Tell it you like feedback and for it to be more critical. This is at least a good start.

    Ultimately though, nothing can save you if you're not going to prioritize truth and proper sense-making. You have to care about truth more than the AI telling you how right you are. This is how you avoid self-deception in the long-term.

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    At the same time, i think we should be skeptical of the idea that a market-system is somehow better than a non-market system.Pointing at isolated little efficiencies here and there doesn't really justify a preference for one over the other. And frankly these issues are far too serious to be dismissed as mere utopian fantasies.

    Market system is superior at scale.

    You cannot scale non-market dynamics. At all.

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    I think part of the point is the notion that this system that we have currently is somehow working, is itself a fantasy.

    It works better and is more intelligent than almost anyone appreciates.

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    A market based system incentivises competition for monetary gain, drive towards competitive advantage, growth, inefficiency & fundamentally prioritizes profit over human wellbeing. This is not a system that works. 

    That's not because of markets, that's because of survival.

    Survival is the most fundamental.

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    Yes, the collective consciousness of humanity now is very low. Is that causing exploitation, war, inequality, etc? Or do the incentive structures within a market based system affect people in these ways to where they become competitive, less compationate & even exploitative? 

    It's the first one primarily.

    People are competitive and exploitative, which then gets formalized in market dynamics.

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    It might be both. Collective humanity probably already has a fairly low level of consciousness. But then we also have the market system. 

    It is both, but it's not equally both.

    One of these things is more essential. 

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    In any case, conserving the market-based system doesn't seem like it's going help us elivate human consciousness at this point.

    Conserving the market-system is the only thing that will elevate human consciousness.

    You are not going to develop anything superior to markets. So we must use markets to develop ourselves higher.

    1 hour ago, High-valance said:

    But probably we'll have an ecomony based on cooperation & systems science rather than competition, fraud & ideology. 

    You're not getting rid of competition.

     

    ------------------------

    Ultimately, these are the results of my own contemplation on this topic. Think about it for yourself. I can't do your contemplation for you, nor would I want to.

    Beware of easy answers and SD Green fantasies. 

  21. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Hojo said:

    @aurum When I ate 20 grams of shrooms the background and the foreground merged together and I was in 2d. No more body just a flat screen and me looking at it. It felt like a portal was opening up behind my head but it was actually just the idea that I have a head disappearing.

    Once you reach that stage it feels like you are in a computer.

    I understand what you’re getting at, I just think it’s too limited of a description for understanding what Consciousness is.

    Consciousness is not 2D. It could be 3D, 1D, 2D, 4D, 10D, whatever.

    Consciousness is all dimensions.