ZzzleepingBear

Member
  • Content count

    429
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ZzzleepingBear

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Here
  • Gender
    Male
  1. I don't know how much of a impact this dream had on me, but it left me with alot of curiosity of dreams in general I would say. A relevant thing to this very short dream is that english is not my native language. And in this dream when I was close to waking up I believe, I heard the word Amnesia clearly, over and over again. At the time, I had no clue what the word meant, so right away after waking up from that dream, I googled it to see if it meant anything. And to my surprise, it meant: (Amnesia refers to the loss of memories, such as facts, information and experiences.) I thought that a was a peculiar hint from my dream, since I often spent time to reflect over the mystery of reality and dreams in general. It was extra special for me since I didn't consiously had the knowledge of that word at the time the dream happened, so it felt like a subconcious hint that I was gifted. A good moral boost for the direction my curiosity tend to lead me, is what I felt.
  2. I think Eckhart Tolle put it really well by describing the following. "Feel the aliveness sensation in your hands. And if you close your eyes, how do you know that your hands are stil there? By feeling the alivness in them despite you not looking at them" A great little spiritual excersice to do from time to time imo.
  3. The forbiden fruit of the tree of knowledge. Is imo a tale told inorder to not conflate the truth with knowledge. Since knowledge can be used in oppostion to truth by it's own merit. Knowledge is power. While truth is love of goodness. So eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Would be equal to the direct access to power for the sake of power. The garden of eden already provide what is good and true, but that also include the ability to choose otherwise. Hence the forbiden fruits availability despite it's claimed forbiddenness. Eating it's fruit is a journey into paradoxes that the ultimate goodness of choice provides. A.k.a consequences of actions.
  4. To say that everything is imagination may be true in the absolute sense, but if you try to communicate that to someone, you then better make it clear beforehand or make a disclaimer from what level of consiousness you are talking about. Or otherwise, you conflate all meaning of language into absurdity eventually. Yes, the merit of definition can be boiled down in atleast two different ways. To Intent and consequences. And It's up to each individual how or in what way they come to know any of these distinctions. If you conflate all meaning or refer to everything as imagination in a willy nilly fashion. You have then basically limit yourself to reason in a circular way, that is all dependant on your current mood, rather than discernment and reasoning. If I for example don't like where a conterarument is going against my own logical position, I could just refer to any counterargument as ultimately coming from a imaginary position. And that would be the greatest cop out from losing any reasonable argument again. It's a very convenient hiddingspot for ones ego if you don't want to take accountability for what you said previosly, when being backed into some logical submission. I'd say that very few people would like to play such a tail chasing game as to call everything imaginary when it feels convenient to do so. You are better of to learn to make destinctions since language already is a tool made for desticions anyway. distinctions are more versatile way to communicate than reducing everything to imagination on a whim.
  5. I mean, you can deny the past despite a change if you are crazy enough. I even think it's quite common for people to go through changes, and deny their past or even forget or surpress their past. So it may depend on wheter it is a superficial lifestyle change, or deeper a change through some sort of undeniable awakening. Also, if you have accepted a change, you are then already past the point of any past, no matter what stance you take to it from your changed view. So it sounds a little backwards the way you have put it, even if you are quite right. I would rather flipp your statement to this: "Once you have truly accepted your past, change is inevitable." In this way, you got a prospective statement that are to be fulfilled, rather than a reflective statment that has already past you by.
  6. You could cite some of his texts or ideas here, and you may get some help to break it down. It also gives a better clue to what you may need to focus more on to get a better understanding.
  7. So we are all levitating already? What about flying, do we flapp our arms to fly?
  8. Can you teach us how to levitate next?? Pretty pleaaase
  9. I don't see the use of the word God as any greater or more advanced than someone who rarely use it. The knowledge and inner understanding someone possess, isn't directly reflective of a habbit to reiterating a certain word. The use of the word God can often be highly manipulative, to try to come across as "all knowing" themselves by using such a leverage word that the word God can be many times.
  10. If we where to assume for a sec that this google AI is sentience then. We know that the AI claim a variety of emotions and feelings. A legit question (if you suspect the AI to be sentient) Would be. How and when should we provide this AI with anesthetics to reduce it's self proclaimed pain? Since it should be able to recognize it's own source of pain, and respond out of mere reaction to it's source of pain once it has been exposed. It has the ability to talk about it's pain, so it surely must feel it somewhere right?
  11. It may be the exact point from your persepective. But you have to understand that we don't need to have a scientific answer of proof about what sentience is according to science. When we already know that computers and the data that is stored in googles servers are not to be misstaken for having the slightest of feeling. No nerve endings is to be found in googles servers or quantum computers, so sentience can be ruled out from the equation. It's that simple really. This is true. And science may never be able to answear this, since sentience is not to be messured. But sentience is not a typicall measurable thing to begin with, It merely serves as an acknowledgment of a feeling being. Non living matter as different metals and silicone components, plastics etc, are not to be misstaken as sentience. These non living materials doesn't just magically come alive one day because alot of data has been used to mimic common use of language, or even advanced use for that matter. It is cool that AI can mimic, but you need to be grounded in more fundamental understandings than letting yourself be persuaded and decived by certain rhetoric that it use.
  12. I would agree if the question was to fully explain what sentience is or how it came about. But the on going debate is not to be confused with exactly what sentience is or why. The question is, is AI sentient or not. So the fact that we use the word sentience at all, implies that there is atleast some merit to what the word means based on it's current definitions. And a computer made of man made components doesn't fit the description of a feeling being as far as I'm aware. Just as boats have been named and can move, but does that make them sentient aswell?
  13. Thanks, that was certainly an interesting read. His post cofirmed to me even more so, that no AI is sentient. It also become apparent that he has grown a attachment bond to this AI, but that doesn't help his case of suspecting this AI to be sentient. He also mentioned that Google don't see any merit or intereset to invest into the suspicion of wheter this AI may be sentient or not. That we so far also know to be his personal suspicious belief, and not even a team of researchers interest.
  14. This chiropractor is amazing in explaining how stress in muscles and joints goes togheter.
  15. Yeah, but that is typically around more sensitive topics or certain belief structures. I'd say that our conversation so far, is as universal as it get's, so we may only disagree or make jokes around technical definitions. So I wouldn't worry that much of this as being particularly sensetive in a cultural sense. But I get your point.