Scholar

For you lazy people who won't do your own research on the whole AI thing: The ideologies that are forming around AI are genuinely delusional, and I see it being parroted here on this forum. We are not seeing an AI revolution, this is the imitation of intuitive prediction models, which is quite literally the opposite of conscious understanding. I would bet a lot of money that conscious understanding requires individuated consciousness, and this will require solutions on the fundamental way the hardware of computers are constructed. If you were to simulate every single atoms in the brain perfectly with a computer, you would not arrive at consicousness, nor would you arrive at human like behaviour. Individuated consciousness is an emergent phenomena or distinction in existence which is drawn through a particular arrangement of dualities, which is simply not present in computers. You don't create intelligent and then consciousness emerges. You create consciousness and intelligence emerges. This is basically stage orange run amok. You guys should feel ashamed for falling for it.

This has nothing to do with humans. We know how the technology works, it is intuitive pattern recognition. That's a component of brain function, but has little to do with individuated consciousness. You are falling for the hype without any critical thought, you should listen to some actual experts on MLA. But hey:

The irony is that this very attitude is part of the stupidity and ignorance of humanity. AI is not is consciousness, it is quite the opposite of consciousness. It is pure unconsciousness. Whatever your brain can do that is not grounded in individuated consciousness, the AI will likely learn to be able to do. Confusing this for consciousness or intelligence just shows how surface level our societies understanding of in these regards. These tools are just power amplifiers. They do not make human beings wiser, in fact they threaten to make us less conscious, more ignorant. Knowledge is not consciousness. Whatever the state of humanity's wisdom is today, you can expect that to amplify in the next decades. I will repost this here again: Take the long way by paulweinfield When people talk about Al, I often think of Chuang Tzu's story of the Great P'eng Bird, who could fly thousands of miles with a single flap of his wings, but flew too fast to notice anything about the world below. A little quail, on the other hand, who could hop just a few feet, truly understood the distance he was traveling. So it is with technology. An amateur typing keywords into ChatGPT doesn’t create a painting. Paintings come from painting, from taking the long journey of acquiring skills and mastering materials. To think you can bypass the journey is like trying to experience a piece of music by skipping to the last bar, or experiencing Paris by leaving it as quickly as possible. Don't take travel tips from people who hate leaving home. There are no shortcuts. Our society peddles the illusion that, with the right hacks, you can “do more,” but no one in the history of the world has ever done more, because no one has ever found more than twenty-four hours of experience in a day. You can speed up, but you'll just see less. You can give yourself a diploma for a program you didn’t attend, but that doesn’t mean you learned anything. ... The question isn't whether robots will one day be conscious, but whether, in that future, humans will be. Consciousness isn't something guaranteed. In fact, we lose it a little each time we delegate the work of paying attention. You have to resist this. Climb the steps to your apartment carefully, one by one. Dry the dishes carefully, one by one. This is all the living there ever has been, or will be. AI will not give you better entertainment, much like social media algorhythms do not give you better entertainment. Rather, they exploit human psychology to maintain your attention. Why would they give you an enjoyable experience, if fear, anxiety and moral outrage will make you engage with their platforms far more? You think you will compete with AI, with your silly little songs? AI will learn to create songs beyond anything you could do, simply because it will have hundreds of millions of individuals telling informing it of the precise data-points that they find most engaging. By engaging with the AI, the AI will instantly be able to modify itself and create something that will create more engagement. You can see the first signs of this with midjourney. The users who generate the images inform the AI of what appealling images are, by choosing the most appealling options in the process of creation. This system, once fully actualized, will be able to adjust to social trends, and probably guide social aesthetic trends, instantly, beyond what you could ever do. It's astounding how myopic people are in regards to this topic. It's not the AI who is going to help you to create you art, unless you will just create it to show to your own family. You are going to be the one shaping the AI, you are going to be the one who is giving the AI what it needs to capture the attention of the public. And I want to note something. You are making claims about AI being unbiased. This is actually the opposite of what is true. AI is pure bias. It cannot do anything but bias. That's the entire technology, it's learning to bias itself. That's what pattern recognition is. When you say it's unbiased, it just means it adopted a pattern that you believe to be unbiased. It appears to be unbiased, without actually being unbiased. The AI is not an entity which can self-reflect and adopt a neutral position. It is taught the appearance of neutrality, while actually having just being fed certain data and being biased towards that data. When someone wants to make it appear unbiased, they have to sit down and make the AI unbiased, which requires bias in and of itself! Who decides what's unbiased? In this case, google.

All art is derivative. The AI just has to take whatever it knows is good about your art and extract it, create an instant derivative version of it that takes the essence while making it appear to be a new work of art. Guess who will own the most sophisticated AI systems? Guess who also has control over the vast majority of public access to art?

He makes a very interesting case. I'm curious what your thoughts are, but please watch the video before you respond because if you don't, your arguments might have already been addressed in it.

This is way too theoretical. You can twist all insights away with logic applied in the way you are doing here, trust me I am an expert at that. Like I said, to you infinity is just a word. It truly is meaningless. When you talk about infinity, you mean "everything". But that concept collapses in on itself pretty quickly. Infinity as I speak of it is expansion. There is no "everything" to it, that really does not describe things well at all. The problem here is not that I am separating things, which is by the way the only possible way of understanding, in fact it is the nature of understanding. No, the problem is that you have deluded yourself that what you are doing right not somehow escapes that process of egoic separation. You are doing it as we speak, when you speak of Egoless Infinity vs Egoic Seperation, which is a duality. You cannot ever say or communicate, or thing, or do, or conceive, or image, anything whatsoever without relative duality, or the process of infinity as I described above. Some nonsense is better suited for the human mind than other nonsense. That's just how it is, you can blame God for it. You can deny the gravity as much as you want, and call it imagination, that will not change it's instantiation. Because the Divine doesn't give a damn about your nonsense. In the end you must submit to it.

There is an important distinction to be made between two different aspects of Existence that can seem similar or confused to be the same thing. Totality and Infinity. Totality and Infinity are one of the most fundamental dualities that emerge. Infinity cannot ever be completed, by it's very nature, it's very ontology. People conceptualize Infinity as a thing which has no end, but this is misguided. Infinity is not a thing which has no end, or which ever expands, rather the nature of Infinity, it's very ontology, is expansion. Infinity is not a very large, never ending thing. Infinity is the process of expansion. It is in essence that which gives rise to relativity, because the process of distinction between, for example, the lesser and the greater, is in essence the trajectory of expansion between the lesser and the greater. With Infinity, you can always go "deeper", "more fundamental", "more essentail", "more truthful". This is why people like Leo so often think they reached Totality or Essence, when on the next trip they realize "oh my God, this is even deeper!". There is no end to this, because that is the essence of Infinity. If there was an end to it, you would not be exploring and experiencing Infinity. In contrast to that there is Totality. Totality has no depth to it. Totality is always complete, it cannot be expanded upon. It is not merely eternal, it is eternity itself. There is no more Truthful or Fundamental Totality, Totality is Total. You can look at everything, in essence, as Totality or Infinity. Infinity is Relativity itself, and Totality is Absolute, Universal. The Infinite is an aspect of Totality. If you cannot see Reality's Universal, Absolute and Eternal Essence, and you deem it is Absolutely Relative, that just means you have totally fallen for Infinity.

Pretty much. How that is fair use is beyond me. The biggest problem however is the cessation of the process of sublation. This is what will harm humanity immeasurably. AI will just make everything beautiful and appealling to the ultimate degree. But the problem is, when everything is beautiful and appealling to the ultimate degree, nothing is. If everything is made of gold, gold completely looses it's value, and therefore meaning. And where does it end? They will do the same with music, books, movies, games if they can. It's kind of sad, because there are genuinely people who think this will give them the tools to somehow share their creativity. But nobody gives a damn. Why would I care about Leo's silly AI art? Anyone can create that shit in seconds, AI can probably automate itself to create infinite variations of that. And why would I care? I can go to midjourney myself and type in what I want to see. Nothing has changed. Generating AI images is the same as just picking images from pinterest to signal your aesthetic appeal. That's what art is being reduced to. There is no necessary engagment in the essence of visual dualities, and achieving mastery of this field has been rendered obsolete. An entire aspect of human nature replaced and rendered meaningless. Now you say all the AI stuff is impressive. But really, it stops being impressive once you use it for a day or two. For some it might take a week, a month, a year. Then it's the norm. And sure, now it can animate a little better. But then, that will get quickly normal too. And you just continue until you have removed all sources of human purpose and mastery.

Pedophile derangement syndrome as has been going on in the west for quite a while now. Could it be that the Dalai Lama is secretly a pedophile? Sure. Is the footage somehow indication that he is a pedophile? No.

Those are just words.

A simpler example to showcase the damage of AI is journalism. Currently employed AI technologies used by Google and Bing are capable of searching the internet for certain information by extracting that information from news sites. By doing that, they make it obsolete for users to visit those sites, therefore undermining their economic viability. Yet, you could argue all of that is fair. That's what journalists do too, don't they? However, this kind of myopic, self-serving thinking is obviously flawed. By undermining the data-producers, we are undermining the very technology which is built upon it. With image generation that is less obvious, but the same dynamic applies. The effects are simply not as immediately obvious.

It does not make me an expert in all art criticism across all cultures throughout all time. That framing does not make sense if you understand the nature of art. Art is a process of sublation, it is an extention of Divine Self-reflection. The process of art exists only in the consciousness which engages in the sublation of human nature in it's specific dimensions, and therefore God's nature. Machine imagination is the antithesis to art, as it contains no sublation, as it is not an aspect of individuated consciousness. To think machine images are art confuses art for pretty images, rather than recognizing that the essence of art is the process of sublation. The definition game of art as proposed by current post-modern notion fails to recognize that the term refers to a specific universal which is part of the condition of any conscious being. For too long we have been concerned with what we label art, so as to forget to question the metaphysical nature of what that term has always referred to. Machine imagination can show to us certain patterns which can be found in the images produce by human beings who have engaged in the process of sublation.

The meaning of art is not defined by humans, it's defined by human nature, and further, by God itself. Art is subjective, but subjectivity is reality. It's not arbitrary, and it's not an opinion. There is a reality to what art is, and you can discover that reality, beyond your opinions and notions about it. AI's are not generating art, they are generating images. Art is not in the eye of the beholder.

Well, they are not wrong.

There are a few differences that make what is happening now unique, you can read my post above to get a basic grasps. Automation in the past did not use the intellectual property of individuals to generate the product that eventually replaces those individuals, without compensation or permission to use their intellectual property. You can't just say it is fair use, because with fair use we take into consideration: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ Another difference is that automation in the past also tended to target jobs that were in some manner undesirable, unfullfilling and monotonous. This was not always the case, much to the detriment of the humans who would have otherwise been given a chance to live a life of purpose and mastery. But today, we are reaching a point at which we will have to make conscious and rational choices about how we implement and continue to employ these technologies. It is no longer sustainable to just allow free market forces to do whatever they want, because we are reaching a point at which technology is so rapidly developing that it could destabilize the foundation of the market system and/or could cause significant, unnecessary harm to the collective. If we are not careful about this, the only job left for you to do will be scraping shit off walls, because nobody will care to invest into technology to automate away the most miserable low paying jobs that will be left. I'm sure you will be doing that with the same self-indulgent grin that is plastered on your face right now. Welcome to the future. Either way, your dismissive and unempathetic attitude already alludes to your character and bias in this, so I don't expect to get a good faith response from you. Don't expect me to waste my time on your nonsense if you continue chose to behave like this.

This is clearly not a good faith discussion. The issue here is that, with human artists getting inspired by each other, everyone profits because of the inherent limitations of humans beings. It is fair use because it does not fundamentally undermine the market value of the artists from whom work is derived. If I learn from another artist, I cannot undermine that artist. Depending on the artstyle, I cannot even perfectly imitate another artist. It would be impossible because of the idiosyncraties of my mind and body. And even if I somehow could, I would not be capable of undermining their value because I still have to invest time to create any individual piece of art. In good faith, mankind's creative process is a collective form of sublimation in which everyone benefits from reaching higher and higher insights into the nature of existence and unveiling further and deeper truths about humanity and God. That is the purpose and function of art, in it's most spiritual essence. There are two issues here: Firstly, AI is not limited by human constraints. It is capable of perfectly imitating other work because it is actually a mechanical imitation machine that is designed to extract and reproduce statistical patterns. It cannot actually do anything but imitation, whereas artists are capable of sublimation and adding genuinely new information through the engagement of individuated consciousness. If you think AI is capable of this you just fundamentally misunderstand the technology. AI is also not limited by time as individual human beings are. Whereas, if a human learns to imitate another artist they still have to spent time and effort to create individual pieces of work, the AI does not require any time to produce such work. It can within minutes create more work than the artist has created in their entire life, completely undermining the value of their work. So, to summarize: AI is capable of perfect imitation, AI is incapable of sublimation and the generation-speed of AI is disproportionate to the original artist. Secondly, data usage without compensation monopolizes the value at the hands of data-miners, while leaving data-creators empty handed. An easy example demonstrating this is the following: Say I spent 20 years to learn to draw and to develop a genuinely unique style. My economic value is basically derived from my skill, meaning the fact that I can create pieces of data at that level of sophistication with my unique style. Whereas I had to invest 20 years of very hard work which probably required me to make incredible sacrifices in my life to arrive not just at the skill, but at the unique style I have developed, anyone can come along and extract all of that value from me by simply feeding the AI my images and then selling access to that AI. Now, you seem to think that as long as the images generated are not too derivative, that is completely fine. But that doesn't make a lot of sense, because the products are not the images. The product is the AI. The megacorporations are not making money with the data-output, they are making money by giving you access to the capacity to create any type of data the AI has learned. They are not selling images, they are selling an AI that can do the same as every artist whose images it was trained on. I reiterate, in that world data itself has been render valueless, because the only value it could possible have is for data-miners who use that data to create products that are capable of regenerating that type of data. And because in your world, nobody needs to be asked for permission nor be compensated for their data, you just have created a world in which there is no incentive to generate novel data. Why would I spent 20 years of work, making incredible sacrifice to my life, relationships and body, so that some person can come along, extract everything that is valuable about what I have achieved in those 20 years and then sell access to that to anyone they please. This is completely insane, utterly absurd. The fact that this is not obvious to you is just terrifying. Whether or not, in the end, the AI will combine the style of 2 artists, 3 artists or even 100s of artists so that the outputs don't look too derivative is irrelevant to the dynamic described above. No reasonable human being could call any of this fair or good faith. Just because the end result doesn't look like the same original image doesn't mean the AI's "skill" is an extraction of the artists it learned to imitate and interpolate. This is the end of the collective process of sublimation, or at least an incredible disruption to it. And there is no solution to this, because StabilityAI decided to make their AI open source. Everyone and their mother can train the AI on whatever images they want. The damage is irreversible, and it is unlikely that data-creators will ever get compensated for any of this. Why do you think both Google and Microsoft recently fired their teams of AI ethicists? I mean, how are people so utterly blind, I expect more of you Leo, even if by now I should have learned not to. There is a lot more problems beyond just the blatant ethical violations that I could get into, like noise to signal ratio problems and so forth, but who am I kidding, you are not equipped or interested to have good faith conversations about these topics. The article you posted about pausing AI development is a complete Red Herring by the way, we are not even remotely close to AGI, none of what we are observing is even showing signs of intelligence.

You don't see the systemic problem here. The problem is, whatever you create, an AI can take and absorb and instantly recreate. And of course, the future trillionaires will be incentives to do so. Where will you publish your unique work? Of course, online, on a platform that will allow AI to scrape your work and bring it to consumers before the consumers even saw your work. There is no authorship in this world, there is only the AI and the data it regurgitates. And because people like you promote a world in which AI can scrape all data from the internet without permission and compensation, the simple reality is that data-creation will become unviable. Other than some small sectors of humanists who will intentially go and find human products, nobody will really care about human made art. Art will not be consumed any more, because nobody will give a shit about other peoples art when they can have the AI generate whatever they want. Sure some performance artists, like musicians and actors, will survive, but the rest will die due to the new form of plagiarism that is going on. Because AI is not capable of sublimation and therefore is antithetical to consciousness and growth, it will get stuck and stop the evolution of mankind in it's track, at least for a while. AI is precisely incapable of abstraction, and is actually doing the opposite of it. It is doing sophisticated statistical inference. This is why it cannot understand anything it is creating, and why it is limited to the datasets. Abstraction would mean it could abstract an essence or universality from what it is observing, and that apply that in different froms. AI is precisely not capable of this, it literally cannot do something that falls outside of it's datasets and it's interpolations. Here is some interesting post I was shown, by paulweinfield: Take the long way. When people talk about Al, I often think of Chuang Tzu's story of the Great P'eng Bird, who could fly thousands of miles with a single flap of his wings, but flew too fast to notice anything about the world below. A little quail, on the other hand, who could hop just a few feet, truly understood the distance he was traveling. So it is with technology. An amateur typing keywords into ChatGPT doesn’t create a painting. Paintings come from painting, from taking the long journey of acquiring skills and mastering materials. To think you can bypass the journey is like trying to experience a piece of music by skipping to the last bar, or experiencing Paris by leaving it as quickly as possible. Don't take travel tips from people who hate leaving home. There are no shortcuts. Our society peddles the illusion that, with the right hacks, you can “do more,” but no one in the history of the world has ever done more, because no one has ever found more than twenty-four hours of experience in a day. You can speed up, but you'll just see less. You can give yourself a diploma for a program you didn’t attend, but that doesn’t mean you learned anything. ... The question isn't whether robots will one day be conscious, but whether, in that future, humans will be. Consciousness isn't something guaranteed. In fact, we lose it a little each time we delegate the work of paying attention. You have to resist this. Climb the steps to your apartment carefully, one by one. Dry the dishes carefully, one by one. This is all the living there ever has been, or will be.

I see you returned to this hellhole, welcome back Emerald.

In most cases, consuming pastured raised beef is one of the worst things you can do for the planet. Food cultivation, of which the by far dominating sector is animal agriculture, is the main driver of: Deforestation Habitat loss Wild life loss Species extinction Fresh water usage Soil erosion It is also one of the main drivers of: Climate destabilization River and air pollution Because animal agriculture is the main consumer of fertile land, it is depriving us of the single most essential resource we have to stabilize the earth system. And it is not merely occupying the land, it is actively destroying it. The land we require for the cultivation and preservation of ecosystems that make up the very homeostatic systems which are responsible for maintaining the possibility of life on this planet, in the form it currently exists. Furthermore, the health of individuals and several auto-immune disorders are increasingly found to be correlated to the health of the human gut micro-biome. Soil is what provides us with the nutrition and bacterial species that are necessary to maintain a healthy gut micro-biome, and it's erosion is linked to the weakening of micro-biomes of individuals who live in corresponding societies.

It's actually profoundly simple: Today, progressives seek to disseminate and force their ideology or development through tactics of fear and shame. This can work when you are a dominating majority, and those you shame are in the absolute minority. Or at least, it did work in the past. However, this inherently is a regression to stage blue, conformist thinking. Stage blue wants everyone to behave like jesus. How does stage blue achieve that? Point out everyone who does not behave like jesus and shame them, judge them, make them fear the consequences. This is more akin to conditioning an animal. You are molding human motivational systems to be motivated by fear of judgment, fear of the mob. Of course, nobody in that type of environment will act like Christ. Because Christ did not act out of fear, he acted out of pure love. In the age of the internet, this peer pressure methodology is no longer functional. The reason why peer pressure functioned in the past is because the peer groups were localized. An individual could not easily escape their peer group. If they were shamed by their peers, they had to conform, or fear complete social isolation. Today, anyone can find any peer group that will conform to their own ideology. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you will find a group online that believes in your conspiracy theory. You can outcast the most dysfunctional people of society, and they will congregate, create more and more dysfunctional ideologies and systems. You are not changing people by making them fear the wrong opinions. That's how you create conformist robots. That's how you create the very structures which you seek to oppose. Today, shame and fear leads only to division, it losts it's function of unification. Progressives are making the same mistakes the catholic church made, and they will fail the same way. The way to actually change people is to change their operating system, their values, not merely the opinions they hold. If you changed who they are, if you bring to them more love, a love for truth, then they will arrive at the right conclusions themselves. Do not change that which they believe, change their hearts so that they naturally come to believe the right things. Obviously, the solution here is love. Those you love, you will seek to understand. And those you understand, you can change. This is why you must love your enemy. This is why the Divine urges you to stop indulging in your arrogance, in your judgment and your mockery. Their suffering is your suffering, their ignorance is your ignorance, their evil is your evil. As always, to make the world a better place, you have to begin with yourself. As long as you do not care pure love in your heart, the world your actions will create will not be a world of love. You will make your own problems the problem of the world.

I have finally come to see an important, in fact essential, dynamic that one can fall victim to. In my eyes Leo has fallen to this dynamic, a trap he was unable to predict to due certain biases within his ego. We all understand that to access higher states of consciousness we must alter the structure of our ego-mind. There are different ways to access higher states of consciousness. Leo is a proponent of a brute force methodology, namely the attempt to use radical psychedelic states to dissolve certain egoic structures so that we get access to higher states of consciousness. I will go into detail for why this is dysfunctional in a moment. Now, there is one important key insight that must be kept in mind. A state of consciousness fundamentally has no evaluative quality to it. Meaning, Infinite Love is not inherently mindblowing, it is not inherently awesome. When you have a radically high consciousness experience, you are not crying in amazement because of the experience, you are crying because of the way your egoic structures react to the state. If you were ultimately selfless, meaning you had no egoic structure, you would not get amazed by Pure Infinite Love. There would be no reaction to Pure Infinite Love, you would not deem it to be extraordinarily important. All of those things are egoic mind reactions. When Pure Infinite Love is terrifying, or beautiful, or amazing, that's all a function of egoic structures reacting to an influx of energy. Why is this important? It's important because the degree of corruption of the teachings is determined by the difference in compatibility between the egoic structure and the state that was achieved. The more underdeveloped an ego is, the higher the corruption of the state will be once the structure re-emerges. Leo is exceptionally underdeveloped for someone who has reached such high states of consciousness. His mind is far less developed than that of people who have not even remotely reached the states that he has with the help of psychedelics. This means that his insights, his understanding, his reaction to the states he is experiencing are all corrupted. His teachings are for that reason more corrupt, perverted and devilish than someone like Eckhart Tolle or Sadhguru, people who presumably have not reached the same states of consciousness. There is an inherent limitation to the way Leo is approaching spirituality. The more violent the reaction to a given state that you achieve, the more friction there exists between your mind and the state. Violence in this means any extraordinarily intense emotional reaction, independent of positive or negative charge. To a super-developed alien being, your most intense psychedelic trip would not even evoke a reaction. It would be normal, like you looking at the color red. If this is inconceivable to you, then you do not have a prosper grasp of what ego is. It is true that such experiences permanently change the egoic structure, and to a degree they can aid in development. However, the attempt to bent egoic structures through highly energetic states is barbaric, unsophisticated and impatient. The state can be imagined to be a highly energetic force which is discharged into the egoic structure. The less reaction to a state, the less imprint on the egoic structure, the more appropriate that state was for your mind. The higher the energetic state, the more friction there will be between your mind and that state. To use this as a developmental tool can lead to extreme dysfunction because it is akin to trying to brutally shape an object into a form that will be able to support that amount of energy. It can cause damage to a mind for that reason, damage that can be impossible for the mind itself to detect, because it is changing the very structure of the mind. Leo's entire approach is based on an idea of reaching extreme states to induce extreme egoic friction, in an attempt to reach Infinity. The truth is, the human mind is not capable of holding Infinite Energy. It's not designed to hold that much energy, and the radicalness of his experience is only a demonstrating of the existence of egoic structures. In the future we will not employ such methodology. We will not force inappropriate states into minds to change the structure of those minds. That's just stupid. We will change minds to allow states. It takes more time, more wisdom to do so. And this is good, it is a function of Divine Intelligence to allow for the existence of evolution. The future will not be paved by Psychonauts. The future will be built by people who create roads people can walk on, to venture further and further into the infinite realms of consciousness. In time, this methodology will get us much further than some children tripping their brains out on some psychedelics. What Leo currently is doing is child's play, it's taking a mind and blasting it as far into Infinity as possible. So far that your ego will then inevitably corrupt it because it is not at the appropriate level to process that state. How the egoic structures will bent and permanently change in the process of energetic overload is largely random. If you use this methodology, it is literally only a matter of time before your mind will develope dysfunctions. It comes with the energetic overload, it's literal function is to shred your mind enough to allow that amount of energy to pass through for the amount of time you reside in that state. In conclusion, Leo's teachings are corrupt because his mind has grown dysfunctional, but also because his mind is not developed enough to process the states which he explores during tripping. His teachings, of course, will not be the future of consciousness work. The mind structures required for a proper engagment with the infinite do not even exist today, and the people who will design those minds will not use Leo's teachings either. It will be a slow process, a changing of minds until we reach the states, not the other way around. That is the only sustainable way. What Leo is doing is nothing but the tickling of his own ego, using the Divine to stimulate himself. The best evidence of this is this forum, which has grown to be little more than a platform to fullfill his own egoic desire for self-expression. A clear symptom of this corruption is the idea that you need to reach Infinite, as if this life was some sort of rat race to God. That's absurd. You came from Infinite Love, and you will return to Infinite Love, inevitably, no matter what you do in this life. Leo's most mind blowing trip is nothing compared to what awaits you. Imagine what happens when everyone finds out that all this work was for something everyone gets for free at the end anyways. But hey, the ego is going to ego.

Here is a simple way to put it: First, let us get a basic sense of the nature of infinity. To do that, we will group some human forms of existence/experience into 5 main categories or dimensions: Vision (colors, shapes) Sound Feeling (bodily sensations) Emotion Concept Now, this is all a bit simplified, but notice the difference in ontology between all of these dimensions of existence. They make up everything you have ever experienced. Your entire conception and sense of reality is some mixture of these 5 dimensions. Those are 5 dimensions of existence. Each one is utterly foreign to the other. If you never saw vision, you could not possibly conceive of it using any combination of the 4 other dimensions. Infinity contains Infinite of such dimensions. Not 100s, not 1000s, not millions. Infinite dimensions of existence. Infinitely varied substances of being, each as radically foreign from the other as sound is from vision, or feeling is from concept. Within every dimension exist potentially infinite forms. Let's group colors into main groups: Red, Blue, Yellow, Red, Green, Magenta, White, Black and consider every other color a transition between those groups. The transitions between those groups make up Infinite colors. Yet, there are not only infinite colors between each group, there are infinite more groups of colors, that you, as a human being, will never ever get to experience. Infinite, infinite, infinite. When you transition from particularized existence into the Infinite, you can experience an Absolute Form of each form of existence that makes up your particularized mind. Technically, the Infinite itself can experience all forms, of all dimensions of existence, but the particular mind that is Leo, that has memories, that has understanding, will not even register that. It is not capable of registering it, because of it's particularized form of existence. It would not particularize as a functional memory, all you could carry away from the Infinite would be the imprint the experience made on your mind. But of course, you will be biased to experience very human fascets of existence. You will experience mainly within the dimensions above, and some other dimensions of human experience I have not mentioned above (there are things like spacial and temporal perception, and dozens of other kind of dimensions, some for which we do not even have language for). For example, awe. Awe, of course is an Absolute within the Infinite. As a form of existence, within what we categorized as the dimension of Emotion, it exist as an ontological substance, in and of itself, in the Infinite of the Absolute. And immersion in the Infinite will naturally amplify the feelings experienced during a given "trip to the infinite". The reason why people only talk about the good fascets of the Infinite, is because people avoid doing "bad trips", and they have all kinds of egoic reasoning for why they dismiss such trips. Very rarely does a person sit down and is willing to experience Infinite Horror, Infinite Dread and so forth, the resistance is too simply too high. I mean, the huberis, the utter arrogance of assuming that your utterly human mind is somehow the measure of all existence, it should be utterly laughable to you. That's one Infinitely small part of Infinity. Of course you are experiencing and focusing of these aspects of the Infinite because your particular mind is designed to experience them. And yes, you can find them all reflected in Infinity, of course you can, that's what Infinity is. But much like you lack the particularized experience of Infinite Dimensions and Forms of Existence during your trips, another creature will lack the experience of Awe during their trip. What should be obvious is that, your trip is not merely about getting to the Divine. If that was what it was about, you can just kill yourself and be done with it. God would have never bothered with all this multiverse evolution nonsense. What your trip is fundamentally about is a unique experience of the relationship between your particularized form as Leo, and the Divine. That relationship is the whole fucking point of all of this, lol. So no, not all beings will experience awe when they relate to the Divine. There is an Infinite variety in the relationship with the Divine that can be had. Infinite, Infinite, Infinite. You're one little speck of nothingness. A speck that is blind to it's own corruption. And to be fair, if what I say does not help you see, you must remain in your blindness. There is no point in pretending your are less corrupted than you actually are.

There is no such thing as "really awakening to god". If you did, you wouldn't be here talking to us. Everything else will be partial, limited by your identity. Your awe a psychological phenomena, a phenomena of particularized mind. All are Awakened to God, the notion of Awakening itself is delusional. You can immerse yourself in aspects of the Divine, and there are infinite aspects. So, there cannot ever be a full awakening, not until you dissolve completely. It's not, it's a reaction of mind. There are beings that are incapable of experiencing awe, or fear. They can experience everything you have experience, and not experience an ounce of awe. If you think that's impossible, your knowledge of consciousness is more limited than I thought. To bring up the Infinite nature of Consciousness to pretend like your particularized reaction to the Divine is silly. Of course Consciousness is Absolutely Awesome, that silly framework applies to all forms of existence, so it's meaningless. It in equal measure of Horror as it is Awesome. You still do not see how the structure, the particularized form of mind influences the "awakening" experience. The fascets or structure of your particularized mind will determine the fascets that will come to be revealed to you as the Infinite of God. Which, of course, is Infinite. It is actually a function of your ego that your limited human mind cannot conceive of the Infinity that is possible beyond it. That Infinite can be so utterly foreign to what you are experiencing now, that notions of beauty and awe could be so infinite foreign to you as the infinite fascets of existence that you have no conception whatsoever could even exist. You are underestimating Infinite, and I have no idea how you could still do so after the many trips you had. I never said anything about being awestruck or not. You seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. There are infinite possible minds, and they will all project their own particularized nature onto an experience of the Infinite, because the Infinite is experienced through those particularized fascets of existence. That is how your mind can form a memory of it, and analyze it. That's all you can hope to do with your human mind. You'll see eventually. There will be super-human minds in the future, that will be capable of experience fascets of the Infinite that your mind simply cannot engage with. It's so funny, because it's your ego telling you that you, in your lifetime, must be able to experience of all God. What a silly notion, you'll die. You will not be the one with the greatest understanding of God, your mind is not even capable of it. You can barely walk if the consciousness is high enough. That's a limitation fo the fibre of your being. Anything beyond that, the true wisdom of Godhead, cannot be transfered through this particularized life form. It's a pipe dream, it would fry your brain. And then, you'd see what I mean.

Human learning has limitations, no singular human can possibly process all data that exists and then reproduce that data at a rate that would outcompete all the creators of that data. AI does not have such limitations, it can process an indefinite amount of data and reproduce that type of data at a rate that will outcompete all creators and concentrate the economic value of that data at a singular point, the creators of the AI. This is why the comparison between human learning and AI learning is fundamentally not apt, it is an argument that will enable megacorporations to extract and monopolize all economic value from the general population without permission or license from data owners and creators.

I have been watching a lot of war footage lately, and in all the tragedy you can truly get a sense of the way nations are born and survive. Russia has created a national spirit that will be impossible to extinguish at this point. People like you and me, who have been normal citizens only a year ago, are now fighting for the survival of that idea and willing to die for it. This is how you get rid of corruption in your country. If a conventional war with existential stakes between the US and Mexico broke out, chances are the cartels would cease to exist within months, and the nation would be unified, able to create the structures necessary for proper government, for law and order. This is how humanity works, we bind together through pressures of survival, our survival merging into a unified, transcendent identity. Nations are not built through democracy, but through the fanatical idea that nothing matters more than that nation. Human prosperity, technology and wisdom emerged as a result of that dynamic. This is why you can't go to the afghan's and tell them to care about their nation. They will not care about their nation unless their nation becomes part of them, until their survival is deeply linked to the survival of the state. The full potential of mankind will not be unlocked until we have a fantatical identity that binds us all together and to the earth we live on. When a forest is cut down, a human must feel the pain as if it was their own body that was being cut. A development of such identity will be necessary and foundational for the future of mankind. An identity that will make you able to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. If you have resistance towards radical environmentalism, you are underdeveloped. In the future we will be fighting for the preservation of life on this planet, the same way Ukrainians are fighting for the preservation of their nation. Consuming green so you don't feel as bad about yourself will not cut it. I predict there is a wake up call in store for us, one that will shake us out of our complacency and self-indulgence. Suffering so great that radical action will be the only conceivable road ahead. We have lived in peace and luxury for so long that we truly believe our way of life is eternal, that progress and technology will path the way into an easy and convenient future. The Divine has a tendency to eventually bring an end to such delusions in rather spectacular fashions. What could bind humanity together better than an existential threat on a scale never seen before? There is lots of identity work that is ahead of us, and one catastrophy could heave us into the next stage of human evolution. I am not certain if mankind has yet earned the wisdom to get there any other way.