Someone here

Sure! When it was unmanifested yet it wasn't real. Or you could say it was real as a potential like a seed for a tree. So again it either exists or has some kind of existence (different degrees). "imaginary" has no place in the spectrum.

I'm not imagining anything. Even the stuff that I am actually imagining (thoughts and images in my mind) are real as that. The imagination is not an opposite to reality. The imagination is a part of reality that is less solid but real nonetheless. It doesn't add anything to say that everything is imagination so long as it exists. A monster in a nightmare for example is as terrifying and painful as a waking state monster.

Well it's hard to respond to all this. But I will just say this.. There's no such thing as imaginary thing. A thing is either real or it doesn't exist and that's it. There's different levels to this (waking state..dream.. Objects.. Thoughts.. Actuality.. Hallucinations etc.) But all these are real. they just are different types of phenomenon. That's it . I don't think I'm qualified to argue with you. But I think that fact that I just stated above is beyond arguing. We can conceptualize all we want but I don't want to get distracted from this particular point. You might object that I'm constructing this.. Here we are getting lost in a conceptual game. To communicate we have to use concepts and constructs so saying that I'm constructing my reality by using concepts is somehow a smart trick to deceive from something that's so obvious and beyond concepts . we need to step outside of the concept and look around us and see the actual thing

Probably for a similar reason why Leo says no one has ever accessed the levels of consciousness he has accessed. Not to say that they are lying but that's how followers follow you. You can't bulid a new reilgion by saying "I'm no one special I'm just humble and I don't know anything".

The thing is that all he can see is the natural world (the movie). No one can see something else nor can he see how is he constructing the natural world. That's precisely what he is disagreeing with. This identification with our bodies and the world around us is not a privilege.. It's a chore. It's the default state that we find ourselves in. Disidentifying with it from his pov is a mental disorder "disassociation" and works as escapism from the" real" to the imaginary world of "love and God and woo woo BS". What you call imaginary is real from his perspective and what you call real is imaginary from his perspective. And vice versa. I'm actually by his side at this point in my journey. That doesn't mean spirituality has nothing to offer. But like everything else when it's taken to extreme levels it can be counter productive and work against it's own purpose. I disagree with his rude attitude btw. That's not how to have a civil discussion.

Lmao.

So what am I supposed to do now? Lol.

Shooting me will produce enlightenment. The ego is the veil. Once the ego dies all that is left is pure truth. Lol

I totally understand that. And that's exactly my point!! Without having a frame of reference to contrast the two different perspectives how could you know that? You have to first experience what's it's like to be ignorant deluded rational person in order to be able to transcend. The first thing that a blind man does after he gets healed from his blindness is throwing away the stick that guided him for lots of years

I'm not. I'm pointing out that both need each other. You can't have something without it's opposite. Look at the yin Yang symbol. Without people like Sam Harris you can't have people like Leo lol.!

Without rationality you couldn't even coin the term (Arationality or post-rationality). They go together. They need each other. Open your mind to the possibility that rationality and post-rationality both contain some facet of the "truth" (if such a thing can even exist).

Oh my bad. I misunderstood the way you phrased it was a bit confusing.

Even when you are pointing out the limits of rationality you are using rationality. Because =causality. You are stuck.

Is it rational that rationality have limits or is it irrational?

Update : I think I'm making some progress. In the last week I smoked just three packs. My goal is reduce it with time until I stop completely.

Ouch dude! Wtf She was way more intelligent than you here!

LOL that proves my point

It's just a fact of life. We (men) are more talented in the intellectual and spiritual aspects. Just deal with it ladies!

Thanks Leo I have a better idea now.

You can type that for yourself and read it ten times a day. Don't give me lessons. I didn't ask for your opinion anyways. And you are unfunny as hell btw. I feel like I want to vomit tbh.

I think the difference between you and what science thinks of Consciousness is that you think it's all Consciousness. Even apparently unconscious matter is Consciousness. Whereas scientists think that there is the dumb unconscious stuff on one side and then you have the Consciousness stuff on the other side which arises from the unconsciousness stuff. The conflict is because your definition of Consciousness is "existence itself" whereas scientists define it as "perception of existence".

That's indeed a very serious epistemological problem. We can't step outside what we already know. You can't even conceive of something outside of your own perceptions because no matter what you do you are still inside it. Only after you wake up from the dream you can discover something beyond the dream phenomenon itself. It only happens in retrospect. You don't know what you don't know untill you know lol. That's how knowledge works!

@Leo Gura I get that Consciousness already exists and it doesn't need to be created in the sense it's gonna be created for the first time! I mean in the sense being rendered or produced. If i understood you correct you mean they actually can make Conscious robots using Consciousness itself. They will use Consciousness to create just more Consciousness.! A scientist might disagree because they think "brains and neurons" are not themselves Consciousness but rather Consciousness is just a byproduct of unconscious dumb matter. Like water is a liquid that is emerging from nonliquid components (hydrogen and oxygen).

Wouldn't that be contradicting your perspective of " Consciousness is irreducibly mystical and it's not an emergent phenomenon from neurology and chemical reactions"? Because if that's true I think it must follow that science can't ever create consciousness by playing with matter and arranging it together in specific ways (because the assumption is that Consciousness doesn't arise from matter anyways). So I would say if they managed to create such robots that would be evidence that Consciousness is in fact just a byproduct of matter even if we don't totally understand how this happenes,