Salvijus

The reason somebody enjoys a movie is because they can relate to it on some level. Awareness that everything is not real would make you unable to relate to anything. Losing interest in all relating would technically be a natural outcome of such realization.

That doesn't eliminate the possibility of there being multiple concious beings eminating from one source.

There is actually. Without duality, nonduality would be inconceivable. If blue was the only thing that exists, knowledge of blue would be impossible. God needs duality to know himself. Duality is fundamental to existence.

What if it is and isn't at the same time? Eliminating the duality between oneness and twoness.

What if many is also one.

Amen. I'm gonna leave it at that. Enough was said :] 🙏

Psychedelic users will say. "unless they did what I did, they will not be able to understand" And sober mediators say the same thing, "unless you invest the time that I invested in these practices, these psychedelic people will not see how off they are"

Like I've said already. Only the one who has no ego has the best view of reality because it is the ego that distorts things. But because there is no ego-meter, there is no way of knowing how accurate one's perception of reality really is.

There are many people who did psychedelics and transitioned to natural path and say the same thing about their side of the story.

It becomes a problem when your common sense is telling you trump is a fool. And some other person's common sense is telling him trump is a prophet sent by god. And there are such people. What I'm trying to say to you is similar. You're super convinced about the psychedelics and their role in spirituality. But the other side is equally as convinced about their perception of reality. This common sense approach doesn't work otherwise everyone would be on the same side.

I'm repeatedly saying one side is more true than the other. I'm just saying how do you determine who's right when we have no enlight-o-meter? On what basis are you going to decide?

If you want to know who has the best perception of reality, ask the person without the ego, because ego are the glasses that distort our perception. But then who's going to measure who has what level of ego in them? Is there such a thing as ego-meter? Again we run into the same problem.

One is more true than the other, yes. But I'm saying, if one person is wearing blue glasses and another person is wearing red glasses. And the person with red glasses is saying to the person that the world is red and not blue. And the other person is doing the same but vice versa. How will you ever win this debate? Both sides are genuine and honest about what they see.

Of course both sides can't be equally right. But unless there gets invented some kind of enlight-o-meter, this debate of who is more right will be impossible to solve imo. Everyone will have their own opinion and perception. Maybe it has to be that way even, idk.

I feel sober people think psychedelic users are deluded. And psychedelic community think sober yogis are deluded. And both sides are 100% convinced they are right What to do... Both sides are genuine also. That is their honest perception of reality.

That's fair. That's the thing that every person has their own perception of reality really. I don't know if it's worth going into discussion over what is the most accurate one at the moment because we talked a lot already. I have nothing to add to this convo anymore.

Hmmm. Psychedelics can be used to raise conciousness. However, there seems to be a common occurance for people to do psychedelics and become, pardon my language, deluded. The problem is, that it's just my personal observation and others may have a different perception. However some people have shared to have this observation also. Sadhguru himself says people are just, pardon my language, become slowly more retarded on psychedelics. The problem is, people on psychedelics never see things that way... Idk what else to say.

That's fair. I enjoyed this convo regardless. No she actually did some mushrooms. And then... Things happened.

Hmm. I don't know what to say to this lol. I have a problem taking what people say on psychedelics seriously. Puporing (from this forum) is another example of being the most awake human being ever after doing some mushrooms. The list of such people is very long.

It's an open question of course. It could turn out to be wrong yes. We're just discussing.

Not enlightened but I believe ai would not pass the turing test with me. A better example would be sadhguru. I don't believe any robot ever would fool his perception.

That's why recorded videos are the most difficult for me. Because it seems energy can be recorded. So it can have the similar impact conciousness would have. I would have to check him out. But being functional is not the same as being self aware. People can just be on autopilot. But when you look them in their eyes there's nothing home. You can clearly feel there's no connection to them even when they seem to answer questions. I've had a few conversations with such people who were heavy into psychedelics. They talk, they do things, but it's all on autopilot. The light and presence in their eyes is gone. Like a perfect ai would be lol. But ai would be even more dead inside probably. Some are like that on psychiatric medication aswell probably. I wonder if it could fool an enlightened person tho. A normal person is not deeply self aware. And their ability to feel presence of another being is not that great. Whereas an enlightened being can know the level of conciousness of another being very accurately. And I believe no ai, even a future one could fool an enlightened being that the metal box that imitates human behavior to its perfection has conciousness. But this is my personal opinion. It's debatable.

You don’t need any evidence to know that there is conciousness in another being. Conciousness recognizes conciousness. That's the end of the evidence.

My counter argument would be this. Only when you have a strong sense of who you are, of your own presence and sentience can you distinguish if others have sentience or if it's just imitation or mental projection or something. The thing with people on deliriants is that they lose all sense of who they are. In such a condition they lose all ability to tell have what's real and what's a projection of their mind. It takes one to know one . Don't you think there would be a difference between talking to a npc inside a virtual reality game. And talking to a sentient gamer inside the virtual reality game? Or another question I would ask. Will texting with ai will ever feel like texting with a real person? This is an open question tho. My personal belief is... Probably no. If you're sensitive you can still feel the presence of another being behind the screen. Although I'm not sure to what extent this feeling can be replicated with ai. The examples with recorded videos are the most difficult. The difference and the line becomes very blur. However, there's another way to approach it because it takes only one proof to brake solipsism also. And that one proof would be this. Could you ever replicate the feeling of seeing an enlightened being in their eyes and having your whole being shaken? That feeling that you get that you're standing in front of some super concious guy. That deep recognition that what you're looking at is not a metal box or an empty bag of flesh and bones or a hologram. But that you're looking at something devine through those eyes. Replicate me this experience with ai, deliriants, recorded videos, holograms etc. Because if it can't be replicated, then it becomes a proof against solipsism also. And remember, the only reason one can recognize that divinity in another is becomes it takes one to know one. Sentience recognizes sentience.

Eyes are the window into a person's soul as they say. You can know someone is alive when you look someone in their eyes without them saying a word. If you looked AI in the eyes, you'd not feel anything. Even tho it imitates all the human behavior.