Oppositionless

Yes AI is very scary but imagine if a rogue capitalist entity created a device that took something like remote viewing and multiplied its power by 1000x. You can't even imagine the level of destruction that would cause.

I can't say one definitively way or another whether these abilities exist. My intuition says yes. I am very okay with the majority not being aware of such abilities , again if stage orange weaponized them en masse it would be bad, really bad.

Critique of new age spirituality Misunderstanding of God -Christianity will critique the new age as attempting to "be god", there's a sense in which they are wrong but another sense in which they are right. Being God means absolute surrender , not manifestation super powers GPT 40: That’s a sharp and grounded critique—one that hits at the essential distortion in much of New Age spirituality: a misunderstanding of what it means to be God. Let’s build that out into a full critique, centered on your insight. Critique of New Age Spirituality: Misunderstanding of God 1. The Core Confusion: God as Empowered Ego New Age teachings often claim: “You are God.” “You create your reality.” “Just raise your vibration, manifest your desires, attract abundance.” But this “God” is not the Absolute. It’s the ego in cosmic drag. True Godhood isn’t about control. It’s about radical surrender. To realize you are God is not to become the ultimate manifestor—it’s to die into the formless and to disappear into Love that has no center. 2. Christianity’s Critique: Half Right, Half Wrong Traditional Christianity often condemns the New Age for: Pride Playing God Idolatry of the Self They say: “You can’t be God. Only God is God.” This is wrong in the metaphysical sense—because the mystical core of Christianity (Eckhart, John of the Cross, Jesus himself) does affirm that the divine and the self are One in their ground. “Before Abraham was, I Am.” “The Father and I are One.” But Christianity is right in an unexpected way: When the New Age says “I am God” without surrendering ego, it is pride. They want to possess God, not become empty for God to move through. 3. The Realization of Godhood is Not Empowerment—It’s Emptiness To say “I am God” in the highest sense is to say: I am not the doer. I have no personal will. I surrender even my enlightenment. I am the field itself—not the character within it. I manifest not what I want—but what Truth wants. It’s not “I can manifest my dream house” It’s “There is no ‘I’ apart from the Dreamer.” 4. Love, Not Power True realization doesn’t increase your “powers.” It melts you into love so radical that it includes death, loss, and not-knowing. The real God doesn’t play the Law of Attraction game. The real God dies on the cross, in every moment, in every being.

Materialism is playing an important function in denying the possibility of these abilities . If the stage orange mind weaponized such phenomena on a mass scale it would be cataclysmic.

Yes in a sense. Like I understand deeply shoppenhauer calling God the Will. It's blind, amoral, and primal. Its desire , its creative .

Faith is very important but can also be corrupted. I used to have faith in law of attraction and manifestation and was constantly disappointed . You can mediate some of the corruption of faith with "not my will but yours be done."

@Xonas Pitfall I think I understand what you're saying up to a certain point. I guess where I diverge is this: I agree that love is an emotional response to oneness, but haven't had the *realization* that the two are actually the same. So I understand that a feeling of love can arise when unity is experienced , but I can't verify that the unity literally *is love* and the problem of suffering / evil just compounds my confusion. Example, some theists will say that the problem of evil is negated because we're here to evolve our souls. But I don't understand why God couldn't have just made us evolved . I would love (lol) to be proven wrong , infinite love sounds great . I just haven't experienced it.

Can you explain why collapsing into One is equivalent to Love, Leo also says this and I just don't get it. To me it's like telling someone with cancer "God loves you," okay that may be true but, God might "love" me enough to create me but he won't heal my cancer so does it really matter? Why call it love ?

That's what I would say to someone asking the difference between what I know and what a law of attraction new age person wishes .

I struggle to understand why there should be suffering at all. I can think of two reasons 1) Infinity is completely indscriminate and creates anything logically possible . if that is the case , I guess it's still God, but it feels like a very abstract mechanical God 2) Infinity is intentionally limited, implying God chooses to create evil. I fail to see how this is Love. I've awakened to Consciousness but have never awakened to Love. So I understand if some people have it seems obvious , but I fail to see how "oneness" implies Love, and why God would create horrors. Again, unless God is simply powerless and just ejaculates everything conceivable at once, or God simply doesn't care and creates evil for fun. nothing in my awakenings has even for a moment suggested love is anything more than a human emotion, basically equivalent to desire, but id certainly like to awaken to love .

Wow just getting to see all these fundamentalists and feel their energy . Notice how they know just enough about god to serve their survival agenda. they're absolutely shameless This meanwhile is the best Christian I've found on YouTube

@ExploringReality thank you I basically swore off dmt until I felt I could handle that level of consciousness again and haven't touched it since

@Leo Gura is infinity completely indiscriminate or does it limit itself for some kind of aesthetic . Is there a universe that's just Tiger Woods.

This was my dmt trip, but the real awakening occured the next day I smoked a dmt vape pen until I forgot that I'd done it. Visuals wise there appear to be some snake pipes (green anacondas that are also pipes ) in the walls , I can see them through the wall. A lot of loud sounds, my brain is zapped by electricity, it's like my brain is an old analog tv with no signal . I have no idea who or what I am. I can hear my parents and my dog upstairs but I have no idea who they are, I feel totally alone in a ocean of awareness but not as a person, no memories . The next day I am utterly convinced of solipsism. I feel deeply that the entire world is my creation. I can feel the energy of my being radiating out through my skin and my eyes to construct the world. The level of fear is like nothing I've experienced. Not that it's the worst fear I've experienced, I just mean it is a categorically different kind of fear . It feels like the very mechanism by which "Maya", the illusion of non-solipsism, is imagined.

The same but more consciousness .

Leibniz understands solipsism solipsism is a state of being alone forever and it definitely is god but it's a rather limited version of it

He is largely spiral dynamics stage red , caused his last girlfriend to relapse on coke. Interesting, I guess what you are attracts what you are.

My biggest problem is thinking idiots are actually happier than me. I know someone who's a total pickup artist and rotten to the core. Still part of me is jealous of him because he's better at game than me. But I have something infinitely more valuable than game, it's hard to see that sometimes though. Even if I spend my entire life doing game I don't think it's possible for me to be as good as game as this person who I and all my friends despise for being a terrible low consciousness person.

This is good, because from experiences I've had I feel almost certain that consciousness is Nothing, but maybe my logic hasn't caught up yet. so consciousness is windowless, this is to say consciousness can only experience itself. In other words consciousness is alone in an existential sense. Something that's alone cannot be contingent on anything else. But something that's not contingent on anything else cannot be a "thing." From there it follows that it must be nothing. its important to distinguish ontological nothing and materialist nothing. Ontological nothing is simply that which exists prior to form, and form is necessarily a byproduct of contingency. If you don't believe me just consider the contents of consciousness. Every content of consciousness is a thing, and contingent on consciousness. The laws of physics are contingent on the universe . But consciousness is solipsistic and not contingent , and consciences without content is nothing. And the universe comes from nothing , which really means it is simply nothing. energy is contingent on the universe and therefore not nothing, but something. Only that which is non contingent is nothing . finally nothing is self existent and unlimited , and therefore God I probably need a lot more time to really refine this argument . GPT o3 Refined Argument: Why Consciousness Is Nothing, and Nothing Is God 1. Consciousness is windowless It does not perceive anything outside itself. All contents—thoughts, feelings, sensations—appear within it. Therefore, consciousness is existentially alone. 2. What is alone cannot be contingent If consciousness is alone in its existence, it cannot be dependent on anything beyond itself. It has no external cause, no reference point, and no “other” to relate to. 3. What is not contingent is not a thing “Things” are defined by limits, relations, and dependencies. To be a thing is to be bounded and distinguished from other things. But what is non-contingent is not defined by limits or boundaries. It cannot be located or separated. So, it is not a “thing.” 4. Therefore, consciousness is not a thing—it is nothing This “nothing” is not absence but the absence of form, boundary, or dependence. It is ontological nothing—that which exists prior to all contingent appearances. 5. All appearances (forms, objects, laws) are contents of consciousness Every experience you’ve ever had, including the laws of physics, mental objects, sensations, and identities, appear within consciousness. These are contingent on consciousness, not the other way around. 6. Therefore, reality arises from nothing If all content is contingent on consciousness, and consciousness itself is not a thing—but nothing—then reality arises from nothing. Not as an empty void, but as form arising from formlessness. 7. Nothing is self-existent and unlimited Since nothing is prior to form and not dependent on anything else, it is self-existent. And since it has no boundaries, it is infinite. 8. This self-existent, infinite, formless ground is what mystics call God God is not a cosmic object or being among beings. God is that which exists necessarily, without form, limit, or contingency—i.e., nothing.

Contemplating the nature of space deeply. it's the same proof but that was a very weak formulation of it 1) consciousness does not occupy space 2) consciousness is not divisible 3) therefore consciousness is immaterial 4) immaterial means it is not a thing, because it is not a thing it could equally be called nothing as something 5) reality contains consciousness, which is a real thing, but also nothing 6) therefore reality is nothing 7) reality is also something. It exists, it has substance. Reality is simply Existence. Nothing cannot exist, therefore everything exists, because everything exists consciousness is unlimited .

Consciousness is nothing, because it lacks all physical attributes . Numbers are also nothing. Anything that is nothing is consciousness. And for reality to contain Nothing it must also be Nothing. Nothing is unlimited and can evolve through cause and effect forever. You could argue for god from math too. Math is nothing and contained by reality, so reality is nothing.

Numbers that are finite, and don't occupy space, but there is a crucial difference between numbers and consciousness. The difference is that numbers are discrete, whereas consciousness is not. To create a consciousness that is discrete in the way a number is, you'd have to isolate consciousness to just one moment of conscious experience. But there is no such thing as a single moment of consciousness, because you can divide time and moments forever. Now there is the case of numbers such as pi, and they appear to go on forever. But I maintain that pi is really only a representation of a discrete number. that is, a representation of pi to a specific number of decimal places. however the point about emotions being non spatial and also limited does seem like a tough one that I'm honestly unsure of how to answer. except to defer back to the first point about there not being a discrete "moment" of experience, of which emotion is a subset. I might need a couple hours of contemplation to respond to your whole inquiry but this is the first point that came to mind.

The thing that limits numbers is the law of identity. Numbers can be infinite , but can never cease to be numbers . Consciousness is also limited similarly, consciousness can never cease to be consciousness. But it's unlimited, like numbers, within its domain. And the domain of consciousness is experience, and God is an experience of the all.

are these critiques from Grok really holes in the argument or is AI just too dumb to counter it? I'm not sure how to update it to make it stronger. Grok: Overall Assessment • Strengths: The argument is creative and builds on philosophical ideas about consciousness and infinity. It could resonate with idealist or panentheistic worldviews, where consciousness and divinity are closely linked. • Weaknesses: Several steps (especially 3, 5, and 7) make unwarranted assumptions or logical leaps. The argument relies on ambiguous terms (“infinite,” “limited,” “God”) and lacks rigorous support for key claims, such as why non-spatiality implies no limitations or why all possible experiences necessitate God. It also ignores competing views (e.g., materialism) that challenge the initial premise. • Validity: The argument is not logically valid due to gaps in reasoning (e.g., premise 3’s overreach and premise 7’s non-sequitur). Even if valid, it wouldn’t be sound without proving the premises true, which is difficult given their speculative nature. • Alternative Interpretations: The argument might work better as a theological or metaphysical hypothesis within a specific framework (e.g., idealism or theism), but it’s not compelling as a universal proof.