Scholar

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.

The argument isn't that the high education jobs will go away, but rather that they will be the only jobs left. Combine this with universal access to education, and the value of those jobs will significantly plummet. A large portion of the population will of course be motivated to pursue those jobs, and now they will have access to education basically for free. Obviously this will make that type of labour less valuable in terms of market dynamics.

If we can mass educate people basically for free, won't that kind of destroy academia? One of the main reasons for people studying in academia is the eventual economic incentive. If you can make knowledge and competence virtually free and accessible to everyone, that will significantly inflate the number of people who are competent in any given area, and therefore drive down the market-value of those areas of competency. I feel like we are just shifting towards a world where, we automate most jobs, and now everyone will scram for the few jobs that are available or high pay. There will be a huge overinflation of workers if that is the case, which will essentially just mean: Automation leads to human beings having to study for 10 years just to get the monetary equivalent of working at McDonalds, because of how competitive the market as become. So, we will just have to invest more and more effort to get the same economic rewards. And people will be desperate for those jobs, considering those who do not have jobs will have to subsist on minimal government pay outs to maintain the economy in the first place. We can't give people more money than they will get paid for some shitty job, because they will not do those jobs any longer, especially if a major portion of the population necessarily is without jobs. And remember, the "shitty" jobs of the future will not be working at Mcdonalds, that will be automated. It will be studying 15 years to somehow manage to outcompete AI and everyone else to get a job that will probably have to be subsides by the government just to be economically rewarding enough. From an education standpoint this is good, but from a worker standpoint this seems to just make everything more difficult. All of this assumes we will not create genuine AI that will have average human IQ. If we do that, the only labour people will be able to do is physical labour that has too little economical reward to automate. One of the fundamental problems is this: The more economic reward any given labour has, the more incentive there is to automate it. On a large scale, this means, everything that is high pay will be incentives to be automated, until only low pay jobs subsist, that will actually still be required to have civilization and the economy running. This is a huge problem in my eyes.

Took 20mcg of 1V-LSD, which was my first experience using psychedelics ever. In general, I am pretty sensitive to dopamine and all kinds of substances, like caffeine, alcohol, weed and so forth, and I also don't consume any of them other than in exceptional cases. I am also very sensitive to music. After an hour or so of taking 20mcg 1V-LSD I basically felt light, painless and a kind of inner apathy where I didn't care about anything. As time went on though, the effects were stronger than I expected with such a low dose (I basically was told microdosing LSD basically feels like drinking a cup of coffee). It was slightly above a microdose, which would be from around 10-15mcg. If I were to describe the peak intensity, which was from around 2 1/2 - 4 hours (around 3h is supposed to be when the peak occurs) I would say it was definitely on the level of getting high on weed. It wasn't really that subtle of an experience. Now to what I experienced: As described above, I felt light and had a certain inner apathy. I also did not feel pain or discomfort from for example sitting or laying in a position that otherwise would cause discomfort over a longer period of time. Overall, I felt my meta-cognition remained intact and unaltered, my conceptual and identity cognition was also unaltered from what I could tell. Around the peak I definitely felt a dopaminergic response, a tingling in my brain and a sort of body high I get when I listen to certain music or I write about metaphysics. This kind of tingle wasn't really unpleasant, but I evaluated it as unhealthy, as I relate that feeling to addictive types of behaviours. Considering that this seemed liked a dopaminergic response, some of the other phenomena I experienced seem to fall in line with that. I was very easily absorbed in experiences, and completely absorbed by the experience. I watches this for example: And I was able to fully immerse myself in the visuals. How I would describe it is that I the visuals were much more real than if I had watched it sober. Watching the shapes change and morph, I had a wholistic perception of the entirety of the visual information. In other words, my visual processing was definitely enhanced, which to me was the major benefit. The substance seems shift one to Right Brain Mode Activity in general, and there is an important insight I had about this that I think is worth sharing. The dose I used was very small, yet I perceived the differences in my consciousness to be significant. However, if I had been occupied by Left Brain Mode Activity, I don't think I would have really noticed the benefits of this substance. Linear conceptual processing was kind of subdued and felt sluggish, yet it was easy to kind of get overexcited by it. I have trained myself to notice the difference between R-Mode and L-Mode, which I think might be benefitial for guiding the experience with psychedelics. I do think if someone is not familiar with this distinction, and would be more occupied by L-Mode during the experience, they would not have noticed that much of an effect by the 20mcg I took. Due to the shift to R-Mode, I felt a sort of child-like impressionability. I watched an episode of a TV series to see how much I was immersed, and I definitely liked the amount of immersion the substance granted. It really showed me that I have to shift my mind much more to R-Mode during my regular life, because I am sort of dysfunctionally stuck in L-Mode all the time, as I have these tendencies in general (overthinking, conceptualization and so forth). The substanced allowed me to just be in the moment and absorbed by the moment, instead of kind of sitting in my head and observing the moment from the same frame. It was funny, because an episode of a shitty TV series I would otherwise not have enjoyed was pretty enjoyable because of this, simply because I was so in the experience. I had very deep and good sleep, sort of how it was for me more than a decade ago, which is due the elimination of constant L-Mode activity. The day after the trip I felt mentally drained and sleepy, and even two days after I took the substance and I still feel a major shift in R-Mode. I still am very focused, calm and can immerse myself in things easily. A few things I have kept note of for my future, proper trip are: - You can easily lose track of your initial intention because of how easily you get consumed by anything that you experience, it creates a type of attention-tunnel vision effect. For my proper trip, I will keep the intention loose so I don't have to worry too much about achieving some goal, and I also will keep a reminder around that can refocus me. - If I get into negative thinking due to L-Mode activation, I think I simply need to shift to R-Mode and immerse myself in the experience rather than analysis. - Setting and music make a huge difference, L-Mode activating music I suspect can lead to suffering during a proper trip. - L-Mode leads to hyperactivity and overexcitedness, therefore the mind can easily get caught up in analytic thought-patterns. Probably best to ground oneself in a R-Mode activity during the come-up of the trip. In general, I think L-Mode will lead to resistance in frustration and this substance is definitely more geared toward R-Mode activation. - Having people around can stimulate L-Mode due to wanting to communicate to them what is being experienced, and therefore can also lead to hyeractivity and oxerexcitedness.

Very good talk, once again!

The problem with you guys is that you think God is like, steering evolution through some sort of magical, direct intervention. This is actually an insult to God's intelligence. He doesn't have a need for these types of cheap tricks. You think he is so dumb he cannot construct a perfectly understandable system that will manifest his infinitude through perfectly understandable mechanisms?

Creativity = Free Will Will is the Function, and Free is the Freedom of exploration. So, the universe has a function, yet within it there are degrees of actual freedom, which is what randomness is. This way, the randomness, given enough time, will fulfill the function necessarily, and yet, explore all the possible things that are to be discovered within God's Infinity, given that particular bias. And that's the whole point of the universe. God want's to maximally come to know himself. And this is the process. This is how Infinity is explored, how things within infinity are manifested into any given physical system. And then, this is one of infinite universes, of course. You can apply this to the collective of universes as well, Free Will.

For now, I will simplify it for you guys like this, and I want you to then contemplate the significance of what is being said: Taken a physical system and manifesting atoms randomly: if you are manifesting those atoms in an actually random way, given infinite time, you will manifest every object that could physically exist, including all possible complexity and function. If the way the atoms manifested are not actually random, meaning, there is a bias to how they are manifested, you will not actually manifest all possible complexity and function. The more biased your system is, the less things will get explored, but the less time it will take to explore all those possible complexities within the bias constraints you have created. You should recognize this as a mathematiclal fact, and you need to understand how significant this fact is. The fundamental problem for Creativity is: You do not know the physical objects before they are manifested, so by which means will you possibly get an object that fits your function? You don't know even what the object should look like, let alone how to get there using the manifestation of atoms. Now, if you look at machine learning, we face the same problem: What does a neural pattern that can visualize images look like? How could we possibly even know that, given the complexity that is required for the ability to visualize images? It's impossible to intentionally design such a system, because it is impossible to use linear, logical thought to understand complex systems. It's simply not possible if the complexity is high enough. The only way you could possibly, and this is metaphysical, come to arrive at such complexity, is by selecting for function and giving the system certain freedom of exploration. Given the logic-structure of neurons, you can create an object that will fit your function (visualizing images), if you create the right parameters between free exploration and evolutionary-function selection. You limit the types of things that are explored within the given infinity (because it would take too much time to ever manifest these complexities that way), and bias them towards certain functions. Using this, you will eventually have a complexity emerging that will fit the function you have created. You will not understand that complexity, you will not even understand, truly, how the complexity emerged. Because it cannot be understood in linear terms. True Infinity can only be accessed through a complete lack of bias, which is what randomness is. It has no pattern in it, it will not choose anything for any reason, it is utterly and fully causal-less. That's how you access to infinity, and from infinity you gain all complexity possible, and all objects that could exist. And that's how creativity works, that's how you can basically come up with any idea that could possible exist. You don't construct them from the buttom up by somehow know how they are supposed to be constructed. If you think that's how it works, you don't understand creativity. It is by having a constraint (function constraint) and accessing infinity through freedom. This is the only possible way to arrive at such complexities, and if you contemplate this for long enough, you will realize why it is the case. I don't have time, nor really the motivation, to be hand-holding you guys through the contemplative process especially considering there is this much resistance, so if you are genuinely curious about this, I have faith that you will be able to use what I said and contemplate it in such a way where you will see exactly what I mean.

Sure but that doesn't really help you in any way. That's just a given. By you, you mean existence, and by happens, you mean existence, and by imagine, you mean existence. So, it exists because existences makes it exist. That just doesn't help us with anything. And by the way, you imagine it the same way, you just don't know it yet.

I hope you don't take my comments about being logical too much to heart. You do offer a lot of wisdom that even a mortal like me can appreciate! It could be that what I perceive as logical rigidity is simply your personality style, because of how formal you are in your communication. Anyways, if fate wills it we will be able to discuss the states of being you are referencing on another day, with me being able to relate more deeply to them. As of now, I neatly tuck it into my conceptualization of R-Mode cognition. One of the issues, in my eyes, is that especially written communication is basically entirely L-Mode. So, it is kind of useless to convey R-Mode type of states that way.

You reduce the possibilities through the control for function, which is achieved through the very structure of the universe. These people assume that the process is fully random, which it is not. Randomness is one necessary component for the emergence of functional complexities. But the system overall, much like machine learning, has designed into itself the selection for a certain bias. Now, in the universe, this selection is not as crude as human made evolutionary simulations. Rather, it happens as the result of the unity of physical and metaphysical relationships. You won't be able to point at the selection process, it will escape you, unless you grasp how the whole system operates as a unity.

That's very heartwarming to hear, I feel honored that you would come back and post on this forum to help me like that! For me personally it was a breakthrough in many ways, but it was not focused on spiritual awakening, my focus was mostly around my life purpose, which I actually achieved! I will focus more on spirituality in future trips, I don't feel like there is anything to rush. I hope you are not too disappointed by this, but maybe there will be an opportunity for that in the future. Either way, I am happy to see you back on the forum. I also wish you the best!

When interacting with you, I always get the sense you are very stuck in a particular type of logic, because of how unflexible you seem in your reactions. It does feel like interactions always lead to the same type of conclusion, which to me indicates that there is a certain logic pattern which is very persistent in you. You are always the same Forest to me, and our interactions tend to always take the same flow.

You are not actually explaining how this could evolve anything, or how it could result in machine learning. Why does machine learning work? What kind of pattern? How does the pattern make things change? You are just presupposing different patterns, but where do the new patterns come from? That's what you need to explain. My position gives explanatory power to evolution, machine learning and creativity and unifies all of them into a singular process. And the proof is in the pudding: Evolution uses time and randomness (mutation) to reach function, and machine learning does the same. And, creativity, works also the same, if you pay attention to it.

So, I took 1V-LSD 5 days ago, and half an hour ago I started to get weird visual phenomena happening in my field of vision. It was very subtle at first, as if I stared too long at something bright, then it stated increasing and I could kind of see it having a psychedelic, fractal type effect. It was like a fractal tear in my vision,it moved into the periphery of my vision, and now it seems mostly gone. It lasted for 15 minutes or so. Any of you guys know what this is about? It is a little worrying, and makes me question whether or not taking psychedelics is safe for me.

Well I already try to simplify it, I don't see where exactly people are having a hard time following what I am describing. To me it seems like people simply are not interested enough to genuinely read it and have sort of knee-jerk reactions to certain keywords I use. For example, I was asked a question, and clarified it, but then, there was no response to my clarification at all. Instead, a whole new argument was opened which is different from the intitial statements I was making. In the end, I will not be able to provide a mathematical proof, which if we get into the details is going to be required to logically justify what I am saying. Also, it is a little frustrating to argue with people who seemingly are not even understanding my point, and instead try to go into counter-argumentation before grasping what is even being said.

If you follow a set of rules, you will be restricted to whatever the outcome of that set of rules is. You would just, over and over again, get the same outcomes. The more degrees of freedom you have, the more potential for novel information there is. How could this not be the case? Patterns are necessarily stable, meaning the outcomes will also be stable. Animal cognition, and most of human cognition, does function this way. But there are some degrees of freedom, even in animal cognition, and more so in human cognition. My brain is getting foggy so I can't think as clearly any longer, I will have to illustrate the problem more clearly because I can see you guys don't understand the challenge you face in terms of creativity and creation, so you don't understand the relevance of the solution I have provided.