PolyPeter

Are you making a distinction between existence and consciousness? can you elaborate?

😶 haha

You're right that language creates equivalences that may not map perfectly to actuality. Fair point. but about this: "Appearances just exist without support from anything else" Who's aware of the appearances? You say "appearances have the capacity to be aware of themselves". But awareness itself is what I'm calling Consciousness. If there's no watcher and no screen, just appearances... what makes them appearances at all? An appearance requires appearing TO something. Otherwise it's just... what? Undefined existence? You can't have multiplicity without unity. Yes, appearances are plural and changing. But the fact that you can recognize them as distinct means there's something unifying them in awareness. Otherwise how would you know appearance A is different from appearance B? The Mona Lisa analogy: Is it one thing or many brushstrokes? Both. Depends on your frame of reference. From one level: many brushstrokes (relative/appearances) From another: one painting (absolute/consciousness) You're saying "it's all just brushstrokes." I'm saying the canvas is consciousness, and yes, the brushstrokes are real too. Not either/or. Both/and. Appearances exist. And there's an aware substrate in which they appear. Otherwise you're left with "multiplicity with no principle of unity", which is just another belief, isn't it?

Ok, but then what? Let's analize the case in which this belief happens to "be false" (which i disagree bc it's not belief in the first place) the belief: "Consciousness is the only thing that actually exists, everything else exists within it" If this belief is not true then: - consciousness is not the only thing that actually exists - there is something outside of it, that exists too. - but then, for it to exist you must be able to verify its existence. - the only tool for verifying that something exists is consciousness. - crap, now you have to use consciousness to verify if that thing ACTUALLY exists. if S happens to exists, and you verified it, then you became conscious of its existence, then it was all the time something within consciousness reach. if S never gets verifed, then you are just believing something might exist.

just that in this case, this are the exact lego brick

can you elaborate?

In the relative domain, I still make functional assumptions, I assume the laws of physics will hold, I assume my body needs food, I assume language can communicate meaning. But I hold these lightly. They're tools for navigating this particular dream, not beliefs I'm emotionally attached to. Like a car, you use it to go somewhere, not as a part of your identity.

I consider Truth to be true. Truth is Consciousness. Consciousness is God. God is Absolute Infinity. Absolute Infinity, is different from Infinity alone, because It contains all possible infinites within it. Absolute Infinite is the source from which all other possible infinite universes come from. In a way, that this resonates with the Everet multiverse theory, but with a catch, in this case, all this infinite universes are connected to each other by the imagination of the Absolute Infinity, meaning, the distinction between this lower level infinities, is made by God. There is only one Truth. Out of which, all sorts of flavors of "trueness" get imagined. I think this answer the question of what I consider to be true All possible states of Consciousness are not absolutley true, they are true relative to the density levels of that particular consciousness localization. Dogs take their context as their source of true, and their instincts lead the way. A human might expand this source of true into a more abstract and conceptual domain. I think that there is an interesting distinction that a human can make after awakening, which is, Absolute Truth vs Relative Truth. Absolute Truth = God = Absolute Infinity Relative truth = realm of appearances = feeling great = feeling sad = thinking about food = thinking about rent = going for a run = sleeping = breathing Absolute means ever present Relative means at some point it ends

The words experience and existence are pointing to the same, so I don't really understand what you mean when you say one is more direct and tangible than the other. You exist, that's the main reason you can type all your ideas on a computer to begin with. You are experiencing being a human who is thinking that there is a way out of Consciousness as the fundamental and ultimate reality. Thanks for taking the time to explain and share your thinking process, interesting!, I have many more things to say, but I'll take the time to think them through, and then reply.

The ultimate remembering of what you are Consciousness plays the game of forgetting itself as God dreaming reality, getting lost within its own creations

Consciousness IS existence the question of wether one is inside of the other makes no sense if they are identical. it would be similar to asking "Is 2 + 2 strictly greater or strictly lower than 4?" we know that 2+2 is 4, so the answer to the question is: neither, it is the same number. Where it gets difficult here, I think, it is when there is no clear conceptual distinction between human metacognition or human consciousness and actual Consciousness. Saying that Existence is identical to human consciousness is silly Saying that Existence is identical to Consciousness itself, is absolutley true.

Everything else is the only thing that exists in the relative domain. Consciousness is the Universe itself, everything else is imagined.

Remeber that mhe mind has many tricks to fool itself! I think not that many people recognize the untrue nature of their beliefs, primarily because they are useful to them. Recognizing that the beliefs you hold as true, are not true, leaves you nowhere. Can you stand being nowhere?

I understand the point you made, but when you use the word think, do you mean thinking in the rational way? because that's what I usually refere when I say "thinking" Believing is not a rational process, instead of "we think we know" I would say something like "we imagine we know" or "we create an unreal story and take it as true"

Indeed

Consciousness is One. Any field that exists is imagined by Consciousness. I would love to discuss this deeper, I'll start another topic True! very amazing

Great question, difficult to answer simply. I think that considering a belief as something separate is a mistake. Maybe, as stated in the early chapters of the metarationality book, we could think in terms of "The believing" instead of a "Belief" alone. And in this case, believing is something humans do, they believe what they don't know, because of the previously mentioned discomfort. If your arm starts to itch, with the other one you go and scratch it if you decide to do so. In a similar manner, if a human encounters the unknown, or at least their unknown, many things can happen, but usually when a narrative goes inside the mind of that human, and the narrative has holes, like, explanatory holes, then the human could start believing in things that are there to patch this holes. Let's take very religious people. The have it complicated here, because they truly believe in God. And no matter what goes on in life, everything is an expression of God, which is absolutley true, but in this case, they are choosing to believe in something that is true, not because they are silly, but because swimming in the sea of their own believing feels much better for the optimization machine that we call our brain. There are no beliefs out there alone in the universe, rather, people creating stories to explain things they don't know. People are afraid of saying "I don't know", which is understandable since the egomind will always try to stick to a worldview where it feels safe.

Toxic gurus are the best at spiritual bypassing It's been hard for me to find someone talking about this matters, other than Leo, that I can actually listen to for hours on end. Do you know someone online I could listen to talking about this topic of belief systems? Btw I'm starting to read this work https://metarationality.com/, and it its very good, is something Leo reccomended not long ago

"Sorry sir, I do not want to go insane tonight!" This is the kind of replies I get when I ask this questions

Yes, it is even weird to say that you had any real certainty from the act of believing in the first place, and I mean, why would you choose to believe in something if you were sure it is a certain way? Beliefs will arise when a certain logical narrative cannot fulfill the explanation a human is looking for Becuase it is easier to believe in something that you are not certain, rather than to just say "I don't know" The comfort of believing is what destroys the curiosity towards the unknown

Just like when you observe any particular thing for a long period of time No appearance is ultimatley True The only thing (not a thing) that always remains the same is Consciousness

Yes. Dog's do not have the need to understand because their biology does not allow them. On the other hand, humans can go insane out of believing or imagining things that exist only within the conceptual domain.

Yes inded, I can see that. Beliefs can be useful for survival or practical things. But that does not mean Beliefs should not be modified over time or that the act of believing itself should not be observed. I mean, a dog walks around, takes a nap, barks at a bird, sleeps. A dog acts instinctivley, influenced by the context, and the biological needs, but they never go around believing if it's gonna rain or be sunny. When you say this Why nearly and not 100%?

What about a possible us intervention soon? trump tweeted something about "help is on its way"

Yeah, there's a real risk Iran just swaps one authoritarianism for another. History shows that pattern. But: Even if that happens, it's still an upgrade when women can walk outside without being arrested for their hair. When you can criticize the government without being executed. When LGBTQ people aren't hanged. Imperfect freedom > theocratic brutality. And dismissing Iranian women burning pictures of the Ayatollah as 'TV spectacle for the West' misses the point. That's a human being risking her life to reject oppression. Whether or not the system that replaces the regime is perfect doesn't erase the legitimacy of her resistance. You're right that power structures persist. But South Korea went from military dictatorship to functional democracy. Eastern Europe post-USSR isn't perfect but it's freer than under communism. Panama post-Noriega is more prosperous and free, please check this. I'm not naive about what might come next. But I'm also not going to be so cynical that I can't recognize people fighting for their life as meaningful, regardless of geopolitical outcomes.