Osaid

Many things are, and yet people don't realize it. So they "self-report" or lay it out in the open without realizing it all the time. "How did you know that about me??"

Very real. Intimately tied with emotion/psychology. Kind of like libido. Same for movies and shows too. People don't get this and project negative emotions like "this makes me feel cringe and embarassed", etc., when it's quite clear a song or movie couldn't do any of that.

Electronic slander.

These are "grounding" activities. (they are about what is present or real) It probably also created a kind of flow state. It's hard to think about yourself when you're focused on what is present, like friends and work. Similar things are making jokes (humor) or really just focusing on anything that is directly perceived (like the breath). Even basic actions like drinking water or eating food are grounding, because they are real. Beautiful, the present (truth) sets you free. Truth can also be non-resistance, or "surrender". I think you're already good. Try some guided meditations on Youtube if you haven't tried them. They should be relaxing, like exiting the shower. Also pay attention to how emotions and feelings change based on what you focus on, that is also insightful. Nothing is wrong with you, nothing about you has really changed. “The unreal never was and the real never ceases to be".

Have you ever met someone that isn't emotional? Are men pretending to be robots or something?

That's true longevity, Bryan Johnson needs to up his game.

With the caveat that it will be 100 years spent as an inanimate object, until it wears off.

It's "unlimited", in that it isn't anything other than itself. Therefore it is being itself (as a tautology). When you make distinctions, like awareness != perception, you only make it by referring to what perception isn't or what is other than it, which isn't actually perceived as a real perception and thus it does not actually define perception at any point. Perception has no way to define itself, all it can do is point to what isn't itself, via what we call "distinctions". Yes, meaning would be the implication of something other than perception which could define perception.

From what I can tell, all their recent posts are straight from GPT. I forgot what the rules about that were. Kinda cool having GPT as a member of the forum, though.

I'd recognize my good friend GPT anywhere

Looks like they picked a good one.

That would be overlooking existence. In order for there to be needs and hardware, there has to be a concession that they exist (and thus are perceived). Otherwise, you're going off of what is never experienced (Santa Claus). Consider that, at the moment of the Big Bang, the Big Bang did not create the universe. Rather, the universe was the Big Bang. Only when the universe stops being the Big Bang do you say "the Big Bang created the universe" because now you can make a causal chain of events out of it. It is not absolutely true that the Big Bang created the universe, it is only true via a relative chain of events created by the separative faculty of your mind. You can only make that claim via memory, or by referring to what doesn't exist anymore, or non-existence, or "other-than-perception", aka "Santa Claus".

Nothing, really. What you described is not perception. Just like not seeing, not hearing, etc. Those are distinctions, which would be other than perception. No one knows what they aren't perceiving, because it's not perceived. Just like no one knows about Santa. If someone said they knew about Santa, it would be belief (not experienced), not something actually known.

You'd have to perceive that.

What am I "not getting"?

Getting what?

Perception doesn't require anything. Hence, infinite. Are there opposites or not?? Pick one. You can't be a non-dual dualist.

Distinctions are quite literally made of what isn't. In order for there to be lower consciousness, there has to be what it isn't (higher consciousness). No contrast means no distinctions.

No. Consciousness is being the sleep and wakefulness. You can make the distinction, but it wouldn't be other than consciousness.

Only by pointing at what it isn't. "Evil" is also a distinction. It's not really about good and evil, as that would be more distinguishing. It's just about seeing that the nature of distinctions is such that it's never actually being. It's precisely what isn't. It's like the word "non-existence".

In order for there to be a distinction, it has to be against something other than itself. That's how all distinctions work. You are making a distinction between higher and lower consciousness. A table is only a table because it isn't a lamp. If there is only higher consciousness, then there isn't lower consciousness. If there is only lower consciousness, then there isn't higher consciousness. You can only make the distinction (between higher and lower consciousness) because you've pitted consciousness against itself as if it is other than itself.

Consciousness doesn't go higher or lower than itself, because it's just itself. That would require something other than itself (to be higher or lower than it), and at that point the consciousness you describe would be limited, not infinite.

Dark would be other than light, hence the distinction. Lower consciousness would be other than higher consciousness, hence the distinction, which implies that there is something other than consciousness. But you've never been conscious of that.

And yet, somehow, "levels of consciousness"?

Love wouldn't be separate.