Scholar

It absolutely is different. But even if it was the same, just because some people don't react the same to your provocation does not mean you should be surprised when eventually someone does. You, similar to Kastrup, are way too logical about this, and you are just missing how human beings work, it's just completely obvious if you are not so stuck in your mind. The hypocrisy is, if you are going to be so logic brained as to not admit to the obvious thing that is happening here, then you can't also at the same time be an emotional cry baby whose voice shakes from anger because the other person reacted in an arrogant manner. If you want to be the hyperrational robot then at least be consistent about it, otherwise you just seem childish. Leo is also provocative with his speech, but imagine if Leo were to debate someone, make the statements he usually does, and then get completely furious at his opponent at the first glance of hostility. That would be mindblowingly immature. What Kastrup did was socially clumsy even if nothing had happened. Kastrup, if he had sufficient emotional maturity, could have easily laughed the arrogant response off, and cheekily apologizes to calling his opponents position groteqsue and moved on. If the other person were still this upset, he could have at some point said "Okay we clearly are not able to have a conversation here anymore, I don't know if it makes sense to continue.". But his ego got so riled up he immediately locked up and even refused any sort of explanation or attempt of reconciliation, even though the other person attempted to do so once he realized how absurdly upset Kastrup got, trying to explain himself "I only did this because you started it with the insulting language!". The mature thing at that point is to recognize the miscommunication and try to move on, instead of being a stubborn crybaby. The reality is, Kastrup takes himself way too seriously, he has a huge ego, and the sad thing is people even encourage it in him, praising him in conversation as if he was the second coming of Christ. The guy is not that special, he is arguing against an untenable position. This isn't the type of thing that requires genius.

I don't think this is true. Divine Intelligence is far more sophisticated than Leo seems to assume here. He believes that because it's so sophisticated, that it could not possibly be through lucky concidence. But, the intelligence and ingenuity of the universe is so sophisticated, that it actually is lucky concidence and random mutation. The very metaphysics of the universe, and math itself, is designed such that through put freedom, pure random chance, all of this will self-construct itself into existence. That is the genius of creation. There is nobody guiding it, all of that is already embued in the very nature of math itself. This is why MLA work and give such sophisticated results, through simple evolutionary chance mechanism. Divine Intelligence is so genius, it's intelligence works through dumb and random chance. Imagine coming up with a system where all of life on this planet and everything beyond will necessarily happen as the result of simple mechanisms and random chance. That's the miracle of existence.

To be fair though, Bernardo has a passive aggressive arrogance about him that can be more infuriating than someone being openly mocking. It's mockery veiled as civility, pretending to be noble when it is just as demeaning.

This does not surprise me considering your main cognitive mode.

Right, and say this does not increase murders overall, and by locking people up you will also not decrease murders.

Your understanding of randomness, and therefore freedom, is the problem here. This comparison is not even worth engaging in. In your world, there are no degrees of freedom, there is no potential in anything. Infinity cannot possibly express itself other than in a rigid crystallized manner. That's not how life works, life is free and organic. Just because your ego doesn't like the idea of it doesn't make it untrue. You are just scared of lack of control, which is precisely what freedom is.

Well, of course, it's free to imagine itself confined. I don't think the symbolism is misleading. Consciousness is another word for existence, and anything that exists constitutes existence.

I never called the whole process random, I am saying randomness/freedom is a necessary component to the overall dynamic. The nature of self-discovery is a maximization of variety, and this is only achieved through degrees of ontological freedom.

An interesting question to pose here: Say we reduce criminality to a certain point where we no longer see any signs of it ever getting even lower. And say that we have a system where basically, if you murder someone, you go take therapy for two weeks and you can leave and be free. Say that by increasing sentencing or locking murderers up we would not decrease criminality at all, there would be not benefit in that regard ata ll. Would you be in favour or against locking murderers up to penalize them?

Because mathematicians are not as intelligent as god. The genius of the universe is that it is constructed such that freedom and function can both prosper, and in fact, as I pointed out, this is the only way it could work. So, the odds of it happening are actually 100%, that's how the universe is designed. The fact that mathematicians do not know this just shows how little they understand about reality. A stupid person will think "Oh, no way randomness could allow for something like life to self-construct!", but that is because of a lack of imagination. They cannot fathom that the system is so sophisticated, that it is not just construct life despite randomness, but using randomness in it's favour to achieve completeness.

If you do that long enough, it will happen.

Imagine playing a tabletop game without dice. Without dice, reality would not look the way it currently does.

What i am describing is a relative perspective. Randomness doesn't really "cause" Infinity, rather, Randomness is what infinity looks like from the perspective of manifest existence. Imagine infinity as a branching tree, an infinite branching tree, each branch being one possible way reality could be. Now, from the point of view of infinity, there is no time, no casuality, it all simply is, a singularity, and complete oneness. However, to be truly infinite, each branch has to have it's own existence. It's not seperate from the Infinte, not really. However, from the perspective of any given branch, at each next point of potential, manifestation can only continue on one of the branches, or in other words, to be a branch means to be only that one branch. So, in physicalist terms, as the universe unfolds, from the manifest perspective of a singular universe, the potential at any given degree of freedom will manifest randomly. This is how the infinite is manifested, how potential is crystalized into particularity. So, this question is misguided, it is using a linearlistic framework, but reality is not linearlistic. The bottom is always the Causeless Cause. Conscious selection is not the source of structure and intelligence, it is what structure and intelligence is, and vice versa. You are applying a linearlistic framework to notions that go into the post-rational. This is why you are having problems understanding. The incompatibility you speak of is illusiory, a result of logical rigidity. Reality is not bound by logical rigidities as your mind is. See my answer for point 1. Randomness is what Completeness looks like from the perspective of the partial. There is no unit of randomness, randomness is what infinity looks like from the perspective of the manifest. The infinite is the tree, the manifest the branches, and randomness is what it the junctions look like from the perspective of the branch. There is no "cause" to why a branch is one or the other branch. It is simply is Freedom. You cannot reduce it, and it certainly is not contained in the branch itself. It is deeper than that. I don't know what you mean by "fundamental" here. You will not get an answer to how Freedom/Randomness works, that would defeat it's own nature. This is as absurd as asking what color the sound of a barking dog has. I don't see how these questions are even relevant. You can just look at and study nature and find out, because nature contains degrees of freedom. You are creating problems where no problems exist. There is no such thing as a random state, that doesn't even make sense. Do you mean an unmanifested potential? When a potential state is not yet collapsed, from the perspective of manifest existence, then all it means is that it did not yet reach the junction point where the degree of freedom is present. Once it reaches that point, it will simply collapse into one of the potentials, and this collapse will be Free. From the perspective of the Infinite, all the branches always simply exist, they are never collapsed, they just exist as the potentials, eternally.

Then you deny Freedom. What noise, or freedom, actually destroys is bias. Noise is simply degree of freedom. So, given an ultimate degree of freedom, of course any structure will dissipate. Now, if you look at reality, you will recognize that there is a constant force of entropy, a degree of freedom in all things. This is actually the only reason why life is so miracilous, precisely because of the entropy which should make it impossible. Given total Freedom, things will dissipate into Nothingness, into Infinity. This is actually an important hint, and shows you how randomness is connected to Infinity. The fact that it does destroy bias, destroys "information", is the ultimate hint to what I am pointing at. I actually did demonstrate to you how noise is a necessary component in the exploration of infinity complexity. It's not noise in and of itself that will generate new information, it is a component required to manifest infinite complexity. It is Free Will that will achieve this, not merely Freedom, nor pure Will. Although, Total Freedom necessarily contains all possible Will. The more biased you are, the less creative potential you have. Without randomness, potential cannot exist. Say you have an atom. And now, this atom can move in any direction. You are saying this is an illusion. That the atom can actually simply go in one direction, and the direction it will go in, is the only possible direction it could have gone. Interestingly, you seem to fail to recognize how this is restricting Infinity. You are putting some nonsense boundary of Infinity, which everything nature tells you does not exist. Everything in nature is prove that this is not the case. Yet, you still deny it. You say it could only be one way, that all things are so biased, they cannot help but do only one particular thing. This means, reality is not infinite, instead of infinite potential, you only have one potential. How can you say this if you have experience Infinity. In one way you are correct. A rigid system will not gain anything from in addition of noise. A neurological system which is intelligently designed, however, given noise and control for function, will generate impossible complexities. There is no one mechanism that "generates" novelty, what a silly notion. You need both a degree of freedom and a function, this is what I have been describing, and what you can verify for yourself. I already showed you that you can generate all possible information given freedom and infinite time. You should immediately recognize that this is what Infinity is, because you know this. Infinity is timeless, that's how it contains all things, and therefore is no thing at all. The only means by which you could possibly explore infinity is Absolute Freedom, because you have to explore all pathways of the infinite, to actually manifest the infinite completely. And that's just another word for complete lack of bias, or randomness. Lack of bias is the way by which existence is manifested, manifest infinity requires lack of bias to exist. If you were to say "No, the atom can only move in this way, it has no potential!", you would restrict your own creation, you would not love all the possible ways the atoms could have been, you only love on particular way! How petty can you be? From the perspective of Infinity, there is no randomness, because there is no manifestation. Everything exists at once, which means nothing exists, from that perspective. When you are in the perspective of manifestation, there needs to be choice, because you cannot have all of infinity at once. To see all of infinity, you must explore all the different positions that could be taken within the infinite. The true choices you make, as Divinity, cannot have bias. You have no preference, your love is ultimate. What this means is that Freedom is necessary for Love, really, it just is what Love looks like from a physical perspective. Boundless Freedom in a constraint of function. Randomness is what unbound freedom looks like. An atom can move in all directions, but to manifest, to actually explore infinity, it must choose. It must decide, and take one pathway over all the infinite pathways it could take. It must take one step into the infinite. And the way it does this is through pure love, through lack of bias. This is what freedom is, and the universe was imbued with it. How can you deny this, it's so obvious! God wants to know all of Infinity, and the only way to be able to do is via randomness, via freedom. Once there is an ounce of bias, it is no longer possible, unless the bias itself is part of the freedom, part of the chaos. You reject Randomness, you reject Infinity, you Reject love. Given Total Freedom, all structures will exist. All possible biases, all possible forms of existences, all possible complexities, all possible restrictions, all possible laws of nature. All of infinity will exist given Total Ontological Freedom. This is the only way it could possibly exist. Infinity, from the perspective of Leo, must be manifested through actual randomness. That's what Infinity looks like from your human perspective. I mean, really, this is such a no brainer, only the rotten mind of a rationalist could fail to recognize this. Nature unfolds, before your eyes, in this precise way. Boundless Freedom. You have patterns, you have lack of patterns, it's all everywhere, by design. And yet, you still are blind to it!

Timestamped. This is the perfect example. Kastrup thinks that, because it's basically impossible to create randomness artificially, and that we actually have to exploit direct randomness in nature itself, that this means that it is unlikely that the randomness is nature is actually random. This is mindblowing, because it is the opposite of the correct conclusion. Because it means randomness is so ontologically unique that you cannot simulate it. Yet, does he believe that nature uses algorithms so things appear to be random and patternless, but are actually not random and patternless? This is a failure of imagination, and a failure of consciousness. He has no awareness of Free Will as I described it, if he did have it, he would immediately realize that, the reason why computers cannot simulate randomness in a true sense, and how profoundly difficult it is to even make someone appear to be random, is that randomness is it's own ontological category, it cannot be "created" through manifest "artifical" means. But nature is actually random and chaotic, this element does exist, it exists in your own consciousness! You are just too blind to see it. Kastrup is truly a hypocrite here in that, he will go for simplicity in his idealism, but then somehow posit that nature is constructed in such a way that it somehow creates apparently random patterns when in fact he knows it is exceptionally difficult to create such random patterns, and that they will not occur unless we specifically design algorithms to achieve them, and even then, they fail to reach the patternlessness that is found all over nature, everywhere. The truth is, Kastrup is a deluded rationalist, he cannot see past his small rational constructs. And I can relate to this, because over a decade ago I came to the same conclusions in regards to free will and randomness. Now I can recognize how profoundly blind and ignorant I was, and how utterly obvious the truth is.

The right question to ask Leo in regards to what I said is whether he thinks noise, patternlessness or entropy, is an essential aspect of evolution. I made the case that it is, and that it is also essential in regards to creativity and machine learning. Whether or not the noise, or patternlessness, is truly ontologically random is a different question, but that would be a secondary disagreement we would have, as I see randomness as a result of the Causeless Cause. The way to realize this is to realize the ontological impossibility, in terms of linear logic, of different aspects of consciousness, like vision and color, sound and so forth. If you recognize the Causeless Cause in them, I think you can investigate "Free Will" and recognize it's nature as I described it, but not necessarily have the same conceptual framework I provided. This realization I had years ago now, it just took me time to find the linearlistic language to specifically describe what I had realized. There is a sense of impossibility or incomprehensibility within existence that is absolute, but yet part of that is the fact that things are interconnected in such a way that reality is comprehensible. And by comprehensible, I do not mean "understandable in linear logical terms". This is part of comprehension, but even math I think cannot be truly understood only in strictly linear logical terms, even though it is an attempt to do so. I think this goes into the territory of post-rationality. To a rationalist, randomness is irrational. It makes no sense, how could it make sense. But to me it's not irrational at all. It is a specific thing, like colors, and it is an aspect of infinity. And it is connected to the absence of bias. What I realized and explained in this thread is how this aspect relates to evolution, creativity and machine learning. There is also an interesting question to ask yourself, and that is: How do you create actual random numbers? This is a profound question. In nature you find, what you will see as illusory, unpredictability and entropy, patternlessness, randomness. How do you even get there? How is reality designed in such a way that this type of entropy is everywhere, and what deeper function does this have? I can tell you, it's not random or abritrary that randomness is everywhere to be found in nature. You guys want to handwave this away and say "Oh we just haven't found all the physical laws that show you how all of this works!", not realizing that the very physical laws partake in the emergence of this aspect, of this intrinsic patternlessness. Now, I am not entirely sure whether or not you can get the level of patternlessness without ontological randomness, but I am certain that, whether or not it is the case, that actual ontological randomness is the case. If you do understand all the physical laws of nature, you will understand the importance of randomness. Again, it's a tricky question. Where does the asymmetry of nature come from? Where does all the complex variety come from? This is not an easy task at all, especially if you don't have actual randomness. And of course, the Divine being efficient and all, it will just create actual randomness. It sees the benefits of this, so why wouldn't it? This question of randomness has been fascinating me for more than 12 years, so I understand how unfathomable what I say can seem. Here is what you cannot deny, and I want you to grasp how significant this is: If you have a physical system, and you create random patterns within that system, given infinite time, all possible complexities within that system will be created. If you do not have ABSOLUTE randomness, you will not get all possible complexities within the system. Grasp this! If there is even a slight amount of bias, it is not possible that all complexities will be manifested. You will have a partial view of infinity, necessarily. There is a magnitude of significance to this that if you grasp, you will realize immediately how reality obviously has this ingrained within it. This is part of Self-Discovery, this is a necessary part of Infinity, this is Freedom, true boundlessness. This is how Infinity manifests itself, necessarily. There are no ifs and buts about this. And really, you should recognize the genius of this, the utter brilliance of it. That alone should humble you and make you realize that, of course this is how reality works. Freedom is equivalent to Infinity. Randomness is equivalent to Infinity. You can also flip it: Randomness is what Infinity looks like from the perspective of a manifest being. This is what randomness is, you are just too blind to see Infinity within it. Without randomness, there is no Potential. Potential is an openness, an ontological degree of freedom, to the Infinite. So, when you have atoms moving randomly, they have the ontological potential to move in all directions. The actualization of one of those potentials necessarily is random, because it necessarily must be free for the ontological potential to exists. This is what you are too blind to recognize as necessary truth. The actualization of all potential is complete and abstract infinity. The actualization of singular potentials is manifest existence, and from that perspective, freedom is necessarily random, actually and completely random. From the perspective of the Infinity, it is all just a unity of all potential.

I have no time to babysit you guys through something that I have explained in a perfectly coherent and understandable way. This language game you are playing is so irrelevant to me. I don't care. From what I have gathered, Leo does disagree with me on this, in the specific way I have been describing. If Leo is not disagreeing with me he can come here and tell me that I misinterpreted his position (specifically on evolution), he is not doing that. There is a substantive disagreement which you cannot see because I think you understand neither of our positions. You are like, understanding this on the most surface level possible, comparing individual words and their meaning. Try to put yourself in my shoes and think of how much of a waste of time it feels to me to continue trying to explain this to you. My language isn't inprecise, I have defined every single word I was using in a very specific manner. I'm not vague whatsoever. You guys are just refusing to actually read what is being said. If you actually were good faith in this, you would quote specific sentences where you are confused about what I am saying and ask me to clarify specific words. But you are not interested in doing that, and it makes no sense because I literally explained how I use the words multiple times.

Okay I feel like I am literally going crazy. That's what I said! I said he was pointing to metaphysical bedrock, how are you now thinking I am saying the opposite. Precisely. I am saying, randomness is a feature of existence, it is freedom, and I am explaining to you how freedom relates to will (function), how that happens in your own consciousness when you are being creative (having an intention (= Selection for Function) and having the mind roam/explore freely (ACTUALLY RANDOMLY/PATTERNLESSNESS)), how creating functional complexity in machine learning happens the same way and how evolution does it also the same way, and how it all relates to abstract infinity by access it through free exploration (which is patternless) and how the degree of freedom (patternlessness/randomness) actually relates to the type of complexities you can arrive at and how much time it will take to arrive at them. This is significant, how can you not see this? Stop engaging in these meaningless word games. I am giving you something very specific here, that is different from what you heard before. Why can't you just admit that? So no, it's not just human ignorance. It's not just "Oh we don't see the pattern but actually, there is a pattern!". You are missing the whole point of what I am saying. I am saying that the randomness/freedom is essential, it is actually it's own dynamic and property. And it is present even in a determinstic system, that's how deeply ingrained this is into the nature of reality. Set aside how counter-intutive this appears. What Leo is saying is of course true, that scientists kind of take it all as random in almost moralistic sense. That there is no function to it. But actually, it is random, and there is a function, and the randomness is a necessary component to achieve the function. That's the beauty of the system. If you replace the word "random" with freedom, and you actually grasp what total freedom, then you will see how this interrelates. The freedom is the lack of bias, and the lack of bias is necessarily patternless. And of course, not the whole system it free and lacks bias, but there are components that contain this freedom and lack of bias, and they are relevant and important for how reality manifests complexity and function.

What else would I call them?

I have never seen you talk about this. When did you make these points?

Parroting who? So you disagree that functional complexity is manifested into existence through Free Will/Creativity?

No, Leo was making specific claims about evolution, this isn't about the deepest metaphysical truth in the sense you are referencing. It's about how actual reality constructs complexity. In a sense, I agree with the scientists that it is "random" to some degree, which to me just means there are degrees of freedom in the system. But the scientist fundamentally underestimates this truth. They don't understand how significant it is, that from this degree of freedom, complexity emerges. And they do not understand that the degree of freedom is necessary for complexity and variety as we see it in evolution. They also don't understand that reality is constructed in such a way to select for function, which they take for granted. Leo is saying it's not random because the universe is intelligent. But he misses the point that, the randomness, the degree of freedom, is actually how functional complexity is manifested. That is the most central point of what I am communicating. I am telling you specifically how functional complexity is manifested, and you can actually use that knowledge in practice. Leo never said this, at least I am not aware of it, because he has not made this specific connection. Now, you can always water everything down into complete insignificance by saying "Oh it's all the same thing anyways", but this doesn't help you understand anything. I am giving you extremely practical advice that also has significant, deep metaphysical implications. Now, how I frame the issue is relative. You can frame it in a different way, sure, but you are not doing that, and Leo has not been doing that. He has not been touched this specific aspect.

Okay, considering you are basically stubborn mules, let's reverse this exercise: Why is it that through trial and error, given enough time, one can arrive at the correct "solution" or correct "pathway" to a certain level of complexity? Why is it that in machine learning, we can create a certain neuralnet environment, and using trial and error mechanisms, over time arrive at a neural network that can solve a certain problem, therefore have a specific set of complexity within it? And don't give me some surface level answer. It will seem self evident that this has to be the case "Of course, because over time you will explore all possible avenues!". But contemplate this on a deeper level, how is any of this possible, how is this even an aspect of reality and existence? What does this truly mean, in terms of metaphysics and math? What does this mean for there to be "possible avenues"? What happens when I do this trial and error randomly? What happens if I have a certain pattern that I do this by? What happens if my pattern is too rigid, or too lose? Why? What does that mean in relationship to freedom? What is freedom? What is Will? What is function? How does function relate to complexity? This is the last advice I will give you guys, you can either engage with this properly, or not. The major problem is that you guys are actually lazy. You don't even bother to truly grasp what I am communicating, all you do is, at the first point of resistance where your own conceptual framework disagrees with mine (or seems to disagrees considering you don't grasp what Is being said), you will interject and point out how wrong that is and how your viewpoint is correct. There is no humility whatsoever in the engagement. So, do the contemplation yourself, because what you have been providing me so far tells me you have not been doing very much thinking in this regard at all.

You don't understand the problem. It's not about true novelty, there is no such thing as true novelty. It's about how to pull complexity out of infinity. And again, it doesn't have to be truly random (even though it absolutely is, you can verify the nature of Free Will in your own experience) to be functionally random and fully explorative. To can still be functionally free, despite being predeterministic, which it is not, but I will not bother to even try to communicate this to you. You severely underestimate the problem of complexity, and you are actually not explaining anything mechanistically. i could not use your explanations for anything, whereas what I am pointed out is and will be used to create complexity in machien learning. And someone will get a noble prize for it eventually. You are not grasping what I am saying. I never said the system is completely random, have you actually read anything I said? I said a certain degree of randomness is necessitated to explore infinity and manifest complexity, in other words, a certain amount of freedom in relationship to function-limitation. This is how machine learning works, this is how evolution works and how creativity works. The point of randomness in computation is specifically to lack pattern. That's the point, it doesn't matter whether it is predeterministic or not. The whole point is to allow for degrees of free exploration, which, the more patternless it is, the more free it is, and the longer it requires to arrive at any given form of complexity. No, the randomness is not contigent on the patterns, they all are contigent on the source of existence in a complete unity. While Leo dismisses physicalism too much and throws the baby out with the bathwater, you are way to stuck in physicalist metaphysics. Randomness is infinity, that's what you are not seeing. Absolute Nothingness, Absolute Freedom. That's what Infinity is. I can see you guys have not done the prequisite contemplative work to even engage with what I am saying, so it's a waste of time for all of us to continue to do so. Come back after hundreds of hours of thinking deeply about all of this. You have the most laughable, simplistic understanding imaginable. Actually, knowing that both of you are stuck in rationalist type of cognition, I wager that you do not even have the requisitive cognitive capacities to properly engage with this topic. You are way to linearlistic, which the entire point of this is to showcase how reality is not linearlistic. You cannot see how the potential, the "possible future" as you would look at it, actually manifests and informs that which is "prior". To you this idea is unfathomable, but reality isn't as simple and silly as you deem it to be. It doesn't care about your notions of linearity. If you try to imagine this outside of your logic you will have much easier time grasping it. The problem is, when I put it in terms of logic, you will not understand what is being said. You could frame it this way: Freedom is necessary to pull complex forms from abstract infinity, meaning, abstract infinity is what informs (manifests) complexity in concrete reality. How that is the case I have explained to you already. And this is just a conceptual framework. This is one way of looking at it, but the problem is, it will be difficult to even grasp how the concepts relates if you don't see the actual unity of what is transpiring. For people like you, sadly, it will take actual mathematical proof to make this undeniable. You will still not get it, but you won't be able to deny it any longer, at least the core principle of it. You will probably still try to deny it's relationship to concrete reality. We will have this employed in machine learning, creating structures with biological complexity (as we already are doing), and you will still deny this is how reality works, and you will still deny this is what creativity is.

This is why I can't take you seriously on anything regarding politics. "Putin makes Russia stronk!" Putin is completely delusional, almost Xi level of isolationist, and everything that has transpired over the last 2 years is proof of that. Russia, like China before Xi, was on a good pathway before Putin came along and ruined everything.