zurew

If you are dreaming at night, and in your dream you are in your room, the same process is happening what you just described above. The point is that there is no clear line you can point to between imaginary and not imaginary. Everything is inside your concious experience or simply put (in your consciousness). You are always interacting with your own consciousness.

The goal would be to make spirtuality and spiritual practices much more common in society, where most humans can embody love and empathy. We start giving more fucks about other creatures and people, if our sense of self is containing more and more things. No one would want to hurt his/her own parts (unless he/she is masochistic). So the goal would be to embody love, and to make our sense of self bigger (the end goal is to make it so big that it contains the whole Universe). We would still need some kind of a morality system probably, but it would be much easier to navigate, compared to now. So this would transcend the rational morality, where you need to basically justify everything, what i am talking about would be based upon embodyment. But the embodyment of love is a pipe dream for now, we are really far away from it, so we will need morality for a long time.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/dalle-mini/dalle-mini This is a different tool, works the same way, the only difference is that it generates 9 pictures in 15 seconds. (and you can't choose any background) Joe rogan, after smoking some DMT.

Wow, i couldn't help myself, i had to write "scary alien". This tool is actually addicting.

Yeah, exactly.

Giving Elon Musk some tips, how to make a Mars colony

It can create really good horror images. This tool is way too good.

Are you sure, that you need a PhD?

This comes back to the same lines we have discussed already. You can't prove nor disprove it using your current level of consciousness. This problem can only be solved, by looking at it from an infinitely big perspective that includes everything. Infinity the only thing that includes everything even its own self. So if you think about it, your question can only be solved using infinite consciousness. You can say, that its imposibble to have an infinitely big perspective, but thats the only way to solve existential problems and questions.

I am inside your dream, you are inside my dream. Can you tell me anything that was or is beyond your dream? If not, then why assume that anything can be outside of it?

You are inside my dream.

There is nothing beyond my dream. There is only perception change when i wake up, how i view myself and the world. Notice, that you haven't experienced anything that was outside of your dream.

I would say , that i can. There are more accurate perspectives compared to other perspectives. There are perspectives that can include other pespectives. If we want to get the most accurate perspective, we should use an infinitely big perspective, which includes all possible perspectives. We could call that becoming infinitely conscious. The only way you can know, that you are sleeping right now, if you actually wake up. You cannot judge it from lower, you can only judge it from upper. Because when you are having a dream ( not a lucid dream ) , then you are not conscious that you are dreaming in that moment, you only realize that you were dreaming, when you wake up from the dream. So reversing back my point it being unfalsifiable, it can be tested. Its only unfalsifiable in your current state of consciousness.

Exactly this. We can't abandon all our constructed morality, because the courtsystem is based upon morality. There are many many heavy and hard problems that can't be thrown to other people's judgement to decide in what situation what should they do. Imagine if being able to murder, rape, torture, theft, scamming, kidnapping, robbing would based upon individual feelings and choice. If there is no morality in use, then all the choices are made by that particuar individual's moral framework. The problem comes when one person's moral framework is that slavery, rape, kindapping,torturing is an okay thing to do, and in an other peson's moral framework its not. How can we have a functioning society like that?

Regardless of what kind of wordview we are using, the only thing i can interact with and access is my dream. So even if there is an objective true part of you, i cannot access it, so thats why i call it a dream. The only thing i can be sure of is my conscious experience, anything more would be based upon further assumptions.

It doesn't absurd at all. "Reality is a dream" claim is correct on many levels. Even if you want to make the argument, that there is an objective reality out there, even then, you don't really access that reality, but you only experience your own interpretation of that reality. Interpretation is basically reality, and interpretation = creating reality. So by you making your own interpretation of your own self and reality either consciously or unconsciously you are making your own dream. When you read this message, you won't read my message, you only read your own interpretation of my message. I am always inside your head, you basically can't get around that. You are communicating with an idea of Zurew in your head, you can't access any objective Zurew. So even with the "there is an objective world outhere" assumption, you still only access your own biased, distorted version of reality.

Because there is no difference between real and not real. What makes the "real beings" real and the dream characters not real? Also you are asking for evidence and proof, when this thing is unfalsifiable in the firstplace.

Yeah this is really true. I find it way too reductive to say that "all judgements just in your head" implying that its just subjective so it has no real substance on reality. There are a set of characteristics that we can agree on that is really destructive, unproductive and unhealthy in a society. The mind is constantly making judgements on reality and on its own self. The mind is a good tool for survival, and its necessary for survival. Survival is not bad, using judgements to survive is not bad either. We can use the mind consciously and unconsciously. Making a judgement call, that a person based on certain characteristic traits can ruin your life, could save your mental health and could save you from a lot of trouble.

Good stuff This is another one ,that is really good from Shpongle.

This assumes, that after death you won't have any experience. There is no objective answer that can be given, why experience makes life worth living. However, if we want to go with the conventional definition of death, then we can say, that paradoxically death making life worth living. When you ask yourself the question why living is better than being dead, its basically a subjective question. Because any experience can be subjectively evaluated on the good and bad scale. You are the one, who evaluates an experience and put a value on it. So the answer can only be given by you. On the other hand, we can talk about generally speaking why people subjectively value life over death. For instance being able to have enjoyable, pleasurable experiences, to create, to connect with others, to develop yourself, to express your unique nature in the world to have the ability to love to have the ablity to fall in love etc With life you have the ability to create. Lack of meaning is better than a deterministic meaning, because you can create the meaning yourself.

I would say, that not always but in a lot of scenarios the difference between conceptual understanding and embodiment, is that in the case of embodyment you have intuitive knowledge. Under intuitive knowledge i mean knowledge, that you can't really articulate and you don't neceassarily know conceptually, you just know it. For instance, could you describe me how to walk, if i didn't have any intuitive knowledge about it? (How to and what leg muscles should i use and in what ways and in what times, how to lift my leg up, how to step forward, how to not fall, how to use my foot ) etcetc you probably wouldn't be able to. I have a sort of intuitive knowledge about it, that i have gathered by fail any try, but conceptually i could only understand it at a certain level. In this case, conceptually i don't really have that much more knowledge about walking compared to a child, but i can still do the activity without being able to describe it or understand it in a very nuanced way. Now, i could teach a child walking ,but not because i have great conceptual knowledge about it, but because that child already has a ton of intuitive knowledge inside him that can be used for learning that particular activity. (in this rare scenario, for the sake of teaching, you don't need to have a conceptual knowledge about the particular activity to be able to teach it) Other example could be eating. Could you describe how to use all your organs and your muscles and your teeth and your tongue to be able to eat something? To a certain level you might, but not to the level of your embodiment. But you still embodied this particular activity. But for instance, in the case of boxing, for someone to be able to get to a world champion level, it doesn't really matter what genetics he has [what i mean here is that even if he has the best genetics in the world for boxing, he wouldn't be able to be a world champion without good coaches behind him], he need a really good coach behind him. He need a certain coach who understand his movement, his setbacks, the concept of boxing, how to adjust certain exercises to certain anatomy, a coach who can evaluate the strength and weaknesses, who can see all the boxer's blindspots, and a coach who has a really deep conceptual understanding how to punch and a whole set of techniques how to defend punch) . In this case, the coach could study this subject conceptually, and can understand all the knowledge that has been gathered from the past through a lot of fail and try by other boxers and coaches. This coach can have this knowledge, and articulate this knowledge without needing to embody all the stances, all the punches all the defending of the punches. So embodyment can happen without conceptual understanding.

You don't know what special ability or talent you have unless you try to discover it or find it. Also, you have the ability to get really fucking good (not at anything) but at a good number of things. You can basically master a lot of things, if you give it enough time. Everyone has their own advantages and disadvantages. Everything comes with a cost. Do the best, with what you have got. You can still do a lot, to find what you would love to be doing. How much time do you contemplate about it every day? How many different kind of jobs and activities do you try every day? How many new experiences you deliberately have every day? You can "attack" all those 3 above, and as time goes on, you can get closer and closer to your desired career/job/activity. You basically need to get to know yourself deeper, and better. You have to figure out yourself, no one else can know what you deeply want to do. We can only give you tools, and you can use those to dig with, but you have to do the digging yourself. And of course it will be hard to sit with yourself for hours and contemplate about it, it will be hard to get out of your comfort zone and try a bunch of things out without the guarantee that it will be the one that you will like. But you don't really have any better option, so you might as well use those that you have.

Teaching requires understanding and knowledge, but it doesn't require embodyment. Being good at something won't automatically mean, that you will be able to teach it well. Why? Because you have had a unique structure and you figured out a good way how to use your structure, but you won't necessarily will be able to adapt your knowledge to other people's structures. However, if you have the ability to think in other people's structures, at the same time you have a lot of knowledge about a field (conceptually), then you can help people with different structures to apply your knowledge. Having an embodyment is not necessary, but it can be a plus when it comes to teaching.

I think that letting an AI being a leader would be really bad. Especially, because of the constant set of values. As humanity evolves, our values are evolving and changing, being stuck at a certain stage wouldn't be good. Also there are an infinite number of factors that you wouldn't think of, where having a constant valuesystem would be bad. How would that even look like? What valuesystem would you program into an AI? Valueing what over what? Or if you say that you would make it such a way, where the AI can evolve its own morality, then thats even more scary. Using an AI to inform our choices is okay in my opinion, but having an AI to make important choices instead of us, wouldn't be wise.