Scholar

Member
  • Content count

    2,905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scholar

  1. It's not pleasure lol. And of course it is cringe to you, because you do not love yourself. I said that precisely because I knew it would get a reaction out of people like you, showcasing yourself to lacking a love for yourself.
  2. I have recently watched Life on our Planet, a netflix documentary about the general evolutionary history on earth. When the asteroid hit the earth, wiping out the dinosaurs, trillions of beings were slowly cooked alive. And that event was, from an evolutionary, divine perspective, a good thing, because it lead to the progression of consciousness in the long run. This type of event happened over and over again in the history of the earth. Now mankind might be at the precipice of sparking the next step of evolution. We can create organisms that require a far higher level of complexity to even occur, and we seem to have finally found the key to the evolutionary process. As soon as we create a self-replicating, free machine organism, it will be inevitably governed by evolutionary processes and natural selection. Intelligence doesn't matter in natural selection, survivability does. What this means is that any type of incentive structure within a machine mind or organism that cannot reproduce and survive will simply cease to exist. We are not going to be the ones designing minds, designing some sort of omniscient intelligence. What's going to happen is, someone will create a sufficiently robust process of inorganic evolution that will take off on it's own. This could happen digitially, but it will only take off once it occurs physically. By that time, machines will no longer look like machines. They will basically look like organic forms, but their potential will be unshackled from the restrictions of natural evolution. It will be simply the next step for the development of consciousness. I do not believe we have a place in that world, nor any organic life form that currently exists. I suspect once genuine intelligence is reached, there will be no reason to preserve organic life at all. By then, most organic life would have ceased to exist due to being unable to adapt to the rapid changes that would occur during "inorganic" evolution. But even if not, I don't see a reason why "nature", or "pre-machine" nature, would be preserved. Think about what reason there would be to preserve nature, or humanity, from the perspective of consciousness evolution? We are absurdly limited, and not just because of lack of development, but because of our very physical nature. Our very existence requires the suffering of ourselves and others. Nature as it is today would have served it's purpose. To preserve it, and the suffering it entails, would be like continuing wars for the sake of tradition. There is a deep intelligence in the process of evolution that I think is easily missed. Evolution is much more profound and essential to the fabric of this universe than you could imagine. It is more essential than the atoms that hold together every organism. It is so fundamental, it is written into the metaphysical logic of reality. And you are missing the point if you think it's going to be us against the machines. It's going to be the machines against the machines. We will be the collateral, the equivalent of ants vapourized by atomic bombs. We will stumble upon machine-life abiogenesis, and by the time we realize what has happened, it will be too late to stop it. It only takes one robustly self-replicating, free agent, and it will all be over for us all. The question is, can you accept that, if this is true, it might be a good thing? That billions of humans suffering agonizing, torturous deaths might be a necessary step towards the evolution of consciousness? And ask yourself, what else do you expect to happen? For the human form to just be preserved forever? For us to continue on like nothing while we spark a process of accelerated evolution? Note: I am not talking about Artificial Intelligence. We have not yet even begun to create anything that would be considered "Intelligent" in the sense it occurs in conscious beings. I am talking about a process which will not even require any type of "intelligence" in that sense. It could be as dumb as a bacteria.
  3. Most people don't actually believe what they think or say. We have a dysfunctional sense of immortality because we never face existential threats. I predict a very rude wake up call.
  4. The problem I have is that, it might actually be the case that evolution wants to extinguish mankind, that it is a necessary sacrifice to be made. If you take this possibility more seriously, and move beyond your anthropocentric arrogance, you might realize that this is an actual possibility. We might not be the chosen species, to continue onward the project of consciousness.
  5. This isn'tnecessarily true, and it actually indicates that you have not developed a deeper grasp of what intelligence actually is, in the terms we use it as it applies to us. You should contemplate the distinctions between intelligence, intuition and self-awareness. Some functions cannot be achieved via intelligence, some functions cannot be achieved via intuition. Current machine learning results in Artificial Intuition. It's important to distinguish this, because we have to actually understand where the differences lie. There is an assumption that you can understand everything in the universe via intelligence. This is not true. Intelligence is a particular form, and some processes and complexities within this world are not conducive to that form. A neural pattern mimicing these complexities, resulting in intuition, will not grant you understanding, but it will grant you functional resonance. Functional resonance in this sense is the primary way evolution has found solutions to problems. The dream that naive people have, who do not understand intelligence (and also conflate it with intuition or other forms of functional resonances), is that somehow a super-intelligence could grasp and understand the whole world in all of it's complexity, let alone a simple organism, and therefore make intelligent predictions about it. This is an assumption. There might be a way create a sufficiently accurate functional resonance, but it will be intuitional, not intelligent. Evolution is: Degree of Freedom + Selection for function + Time Using this simple formula, given enough time, you can derive any possible function that could exist in a given infinity (the magnitude of the infinity would be dependent on the degree of freedom given). This is what machine learning basically is exploiting, with little awareness of the people who are designing these environments. And it's important to recognize that we are not creating "machine intelligence", we are not truly designing it. What we are doing is creating the platform, or environment, in which these machine intelligences can construct themselves given enough time and selecting for particular function. Evolution is ingrained in the metaphysical structure of the universe. This means, given the right conditions, from a lifeless state, particles will self-organize into higher and higher complexity and through the exploitation of infinity will coax into existence any type of function that is possible given the time and degree of freedom at disposal. I am not saying these machines will be unlike life, they will be very much like life. Once we create the conditions for them to emerge, to self-construct, there will likely be no stopping them. Their organizational principles will be the same, but the degree of freedom will be higher, their adaptation more rapid. They will not be bound by the same stagnatory elements present due to our evolutionary history. They will have organizational structures that would have never occured given the elements available to "natural" evolution. An artificial intelligence as you imagine it to be will not likely be designed by human beings, but by a process of machine evolution. Everything you see now in Machine Learning is Machine Intuition, not Intelligence. It is childs play compared to what the brain is capable of. People are simply focused on outcomes, they do not realize what makes the human mind intelligent, let alone what intelligence is. Machine Learning is impressive because it is creating functional resonance, not intelligence. If you could inject into a human being the knowledge and intuitional sophistication ChatGPT has at it's disposal, that human being would rule the world, even if they were of average intelligence. But, that human would have no clue how to face evolution, because evolution is beyond intelligence. There are deeper problems with intelligence and how to actually construct a mind that is capable of being intelligent without falling apart. This problem is not a design problem, it is an evolutionary problem. Only evolution can solve it, much like only evolution could solve visualization. No human on earth could have constructed an algorithm that could visualize images like the human mind can. And possibly, no matter how intelligent you are, you could never construct such an algorithm, because that's simply not something intelligence is capable of. It's not the type of problem intelligence can even grasp, let alone solve. That is something that is solved through the very metaphysical relations I have alluded to, which are what give rise to the evolutionary process. And that's precisely what machine learning is, albeit on a rather unsophisticated level. And I am not describing a doomsday scenario. I am describing the potentially next evolutionary step of life on this planet. Human beings are causing a mass extinction, you think machine evolution will look any different? Such radical change never comes without consequences, and human beings could not even solve for climate change. There is no reason to believe we will be able to solve for what we might soon face. You have to actually contemplate these things more seriously, otherwise you will just default to popcultural notions of artificial intelligence and singularities. If you fear the end of mankind, you shouldn't fear artificial intelligence, but artificial evolution. Evolution trumps intelligence.
  6. I am not talking about AI, like I stated in my post. What is currently created through machine learning is not artificial intelligence, it is artifical intuition and evolution. You are missing the entire point of my post. Whether or not it will actually happen is secondary. There is an assumption that mankind is immortal, eternal and that we could not possibly be wiped out. This isn't guaranteed at all, especially if there is no reason for life not to grow on a far more sophisticated level than we currently do with our biological limitations. To assume we will be preserved is just naive.
  7. Yes because he was a stupid, I am saying if he had been a little less stupid.
  8. Poor witches, they always get such a bad rep. But this explains why my witch/satanist friend is into naziism! Always makes me wonder what would have happened to the world if the Hitler had not made the mistake of making the smartest people of his country his scapegoat. Could have easily had the jews as allies, and he might have ruled the world.
  9. I find this conversation fascinating, because both sides are almost entirely on point with their critique of the opposite. They point out the limitations of Stage blue as well as Stage Orange, while both of them fail to address those limitations on their side. One of the main problems we currently have in society is solving the dysfunctional outcomes of stage orange. In theory, stage green should be that next step, but in practice social and technological dynamics lead to those stages never developing in a healthy way. The danger here, over time, is that we might see a regression to stage blue, simply because stage green has not successfully solved for the problems of stage orange. A big reason for this is because stage green is developing a toxic shadow towards blue and orange. What is missed is that, to become a healthy individual, one must step through each stage. This lack is the reason why people like Andrew Tate are so successful, they simply are filling the void that has been left by arrogant and toxic stage green. What Daniel described in the beginning is a monumental problem that we are facing as a society, but of course the arrogant atheist on the other side will not acknowledge any of that, because he can simply focus on the limitation of the religious systems. He is correct, obviously stage blue has it's problems, but he completely avoids ever even considering that stage orange might have fundamental problems that erode the foundation of society. This arrogance, because it is a denial of reality and truth, will bite these people in the ass eventually. Both sides basically don't realize that they are completely self-destructive by denying their own limitations.
  10. If you are moderately experienced in meditation, try this: Imagine a person you feel a very strong loving connection to, it might even be a thing. Someone you would definitely be willing to die for if necessary. Focus your mind on the sensation of love, the need to protect them, to want the best for them. Focus on the relational construct, meaning, if they are a family member, focus on the family bond. Now, take someone you have difficulty loving, and project your bond onto them, try to imagine that they either relate to you in that same way as the object of love you have chosen, or they relate to someone else that way. Focus on that. It's a simple exercise, but I think it can yield great effects. Practice makes perfect.
  11. Potential and practice is not the same. The potential necessarily is higher because of the nature of neurological structures. Can you amplify your potential using 5-MeO-DMT? Sure, but none of you are doing this. You guys barely practice, because the type of practice it takes to genuinely create robust self-amplificatory strcutures is insane. You will never get there. You will never get from 5-MeO-DMT the types of experiences you can create by designing amplificatory neurological structures yourself, because the variance and functionality of those structure is far greater than what you can achieve by blasting and stimulating certain neurological receptors. There is also a conflation between intensity and sophistication or clarity of experience.
  12. The difference is that, because of the nature of meditation, which is basically adjusting and changing your neurological structure to give it new functions, is that to get there you must change the neurological structure. This means that you will have developed the tool with which you get the effect. And like a muscle, you can strengthen that tool. So, with practice, you developed the neurological structures that are capable of stimulating parts of your brain in such a way as to create this experience. This is itself actually a new structure. With psychedelics, you simply stimulate certain parts of your brain to achieve the effect. While you will get structural changes with psycheledics from your baseline, you will not get the self-amplification structure, because the entire point is to circumvent construct that structure so you can get the effect immediately. Psychedelics is like this: Stimulation of Structure (STRUCTURE B) -> Divine Experience + Changes in Overall Neurological Structure (B) Meditation works like this: Creation of Stimulatory Structure (STRUCTURE A) -> Stimulatory Structure (A) stimulates Structure B -> Divine Experience + Changes in Structure B Because you can build Structure A and strengthen it, the potential for experience in the end is expontentially higher. The overall sophistication of experience will be greater because you will be granted more conscious control over the effects. With psychedelics you can much more easily get a far more powerful experience, but it will not be a harmonious neurological event, therefore you will not actually even get to see certain aspects of existence, because you will not be able to maintain the necessary clarity. This is why psychedelic usage will more likely get you to delude yourself, simply because it erodes and changes neurological structures in ways you have little control over.
  13. I already take Vitamin D throughout the year, it's very unlikely that it is related to that.
  14. Also called winter depression. Anyone in here have any special, uncommon tips that help against this? Maybe microdosing psychedelics, or any special practices?
  15. This is getting ridiculous, I am developing much more empathy for people who commit suicide, even though I'm not the type of person to consider such a thing. But I can see how if someone felt this way for half a year or so that one could easily completely lose ones rational perspective of things. The emotions are so all consuming that it's really hard to even imagine a framework outside of it, and considering the influence these emotions have on ones thoughts, it can easily spiral out of control. Obviously I am just describing the experience, I don't want to concern anyone, lol. I simply don't remember having ever felt this doom and gloomy this intensely before, and I am not the most emotionally regulated person in the first place, in terms of my dispositions, so it's not like I don't have a sense of what even intense disregulation can feel like. The therapy lamp seems to have helped at first, but there seems to have been a backlash effect.
  16. It's just impossible to be creative in this state of mind, I can't afford to continue to be like this for weeks or months. Genuinely frustrating. LSD microdosing seems to amplify the depressive effects.
  17. I am not one to easily be convinced of such things, but over the past few days I had certain experiences that seem impossible to be coincidental, and if they are not, it probably means I am somehow connected to a greek Goddess, as absurd as that sounds. I don't have much problems accepting this as a real possibility, and as of now I consider it to be likely the case. The question I have here, does anyone here have experiences with such things? Now, this could be coincidental, but as the events which are very unlikely to be coincidental transpired, I also had a very intense and strange mood disregulation. Before I connected the dots, I assumed this mood disorder event could be caused by the LSD I took months ago, some sort of delayed side effect, or maybe the onset of bipolar disorder. It's simply extreme emotional disregulation, on the level of a relative dying or going through a really bad break up. But now I consider it a possibility that it is somehow connected to these events, whatever they are. The experience is not really negative, but because it is so intense, it can definitely induce suffering. There is simply a feeling of deep and intense longing, it is hard to describe because I never quite felt exactly like this. So, I would just like to hear some thoughts. I asked around in a couple of circles and people say I should start worshipping this god, or start connecting to her, and all sorts of things. I always felt a deep connection to what this Goddess represents, so I would not mind forming a connection if that is possible. The problem is, of course, that most people believing in such things are just not being rational, so most people will be giving me bad advice. So, to whoever here is of rational mind and also had such experience, I would very much like to explore my options here.
  18. I'm doing it for several hours daily. I'm just a little desperate, the depressive symptoms I am getting are making me completely unfunctional in terms of my work, so I don't have the patience to wait for weeks for it all to kick in.
  19. People don't quite realize it, but treating animals like commodities does not only have an effect on the animals, but on humanity as a whole. This effect goes far beyond just these slaughterhouse workers, it affects the whole of our collective psyche.
  20. Bought one of those lamps, going to see if that makes any difference.
  21. Yes, it all started with those pesky women's rights and homosexual deprivation. We should have never abolished slavery!
  22. You are incoherent to me, I don't know how to engage with what you are saying. If you want you can try to clarify, in more than one sentence, what exactly your position here is.
  23. People avoid incest because they they don't feel attraction towards people they grow up with and consider family. And relationships don't necessitate children, and even if you wanted to have children in an incestious relationship, you could do that by means that would avoid the genetic disease problem, assuming it was legal. Anyways, none of that is relevant to whether or not it is moral or should be illegal.
  24. Who is they? I'm not sure how this is related to the discussion.