Carl-Richard

There it is

It's probably not very dangerous, but if you want to be 100% sure about everything, turn off your wifi and don't use your phone.

I don't understand the question.

I would initially experience some internal conflict, but I would quickly think it's a man, because like it or not, female genitalia is very central to womanhood, and it's why people are so inclined to equate it with biological sex. It also conflicts deeply with what I want in a woman. I don't know what that means. Is there an objective definition of man/woman? We can move towards more inclusive definitions over time, but in our current society, I think respecting people's preferred pronouns is the standard to go by.

Ok. But pure linguistic utility aside, if we look at social utility and within our current society, I think respecting people's preferred pronouns is sufficient. You're not going to change your intuitive understanding of the words man/woman unless you undergo severe re-conditioning, which factors into the utility calculation. But yes, you can still consciously choose to call somebody by their preferred pronouns, and sometimes that is the intuitive response (as with the Ben Shapiro example).

@DrugsBunny If you want a practical example of the utility in action, I will use pickup as an example (people seem to be familiar with that here): You say to your buddies "I want to find me a woman tonight!", and they know exactly what you mean. Now, what does that entail? It entails going up to somebody who looks like a woman, talking to them and then sleeping with them. So you do that: you talk to someone who looks like a woman, you take them home and you think "ah, I found myself a woman tonight ". But then you find out they don't have female genitalia, which surprises you. "Oh, I didn't find myself a woman after all " It's painfully simple, but this is what we're dealing with.

You're placing a kind of teatime social situation frame on the whole thing. When I'm talking about immediate appearance, I'm talking about what you will see when looking at a person period (with or without clothes, it doesn't matter). There are times where you will see people naked, and that factors into you thinking they're a man/woman or not. There is utility lost, because female genitals tend to go together with other female things, and we call that statistically likely combination of things "woman". That is why I say the words don't fit neatly into either a social or biological category. If you see a pretty person in a dress with makeup and with curves, you will probably think it's a woman. If you happen to find out they have female genitals, you would again probably think it's a woman. If you're really concerned about linguistic utility, you should find a new name for the purely social genders.

Welcome to reality. The psychedelic world is much bigger than the non-duality world. Don't get them mixed up

Sense organs (although anything is possible)

You stop compulsively talking to yourself for most of the day.

I'm only talking about correlations on the screen of perception. If I perceive that poking myself in what I perceive as my eye leads to a change in my perception, then that tells me something about my perception.

In that case, it seems like your concept of a boundary is almost indistinguishable from the concept of locality or form (that something can be located within transpersonal consciousness and be distinguished from something else). I would just put that like this: everything is occuring within transpersonal consciousness, and every "boundary" is just form. My idea of a personalized boundary is different. For example, there is a difference between placing a "camera of pure consciousness" so to speak in one place in a room and then me standing in that place and perceiving the room from my perspective. That difference seems to have to do with things like my sense organs and how they function (their limits, etc.). If I poke myself in the eye, my perception of the room changes.

Make a transcript of it. It's just Leo speaking after all.

What about genitalia? Is that gender expression?

Does a car have a feeling of its boundaries? Why draw the boundaries around the car and not the components of the car? Why not draw it around each individual atom or each subatomic particle popping in and out of existence?

I would say that if you deactivate your senses (or dissociate from them), you'll become a void without any boundaries. I've experienced this myself. The vibration of course exists as a part of the transpersonal field of consciousness (reality itself), and it will vibrate the rock, but there is no solid indication that the rock will have a personalized perspective of the vibration entering its body. Then why will the rock be in "total darkness"?

What about genitalia? Is that gender expression? That is true. I edited my unnecessarily complicated response right before you responded to it:

I think the words man/woman don't fit neatly into either category, and that you can't change how people intuitively understand those words, and that you can also request somebody to call you something that you want to be called without anyone having to treat you badly for it (but also, don't expect the world to revolve around you).

Presumably, the reason you think it won't see anything is because it doesn't have eyes, but then why should it feel anything if it doesn't have any sensory receptors at all?

He didn't say whether or not it would be fun to be a rock. That was your projection, and now you're spreading it.

I haven't even heard about it. I stopped smoking years ago, and it's illegal over here, so I just got the usual gravel that my contacts had available.

Whatever you can get your hands on that has THC in it.

So the whole of reality is just a huge orgy then

Compared to an elephant even. ChatGPT isn't curious about the world. To me, that makes it very dumb.

I honestly think the GPT bots are pretty stupid still.