Carl-Richard

@ZeroZeroes Feel free to rewrite all of that while dropping the unnecessary abbreviation of terms. When the words abbreviated are already short and you use many abbreviations, it can reduce comprehension rather than increase it.

Turquoise is a conspiracy by culturally homogeneous empirical samples misappropriating a domain of experience as an ontogenetic level. If you want to know what anything of that means:

So your notion of awakening is intrinsically intellectual; it involves the mind reflecting on something. That's kinda what I've been hinting at. Let me rephrase the question: can a baby have an "experience" of pure being and love/bliss/energy? I think yes. But then, can they have an "experience" (does that even make sense?) of "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God"? I don't think so. Why? Because those are intrinsically conceptual/intellectual, the former is not. I call the two categories awakening because they're intrinsically non-conceptual. They most fundamentally happen prior to and independent of any reflection. You can reflect on them, but it's not relevant to whether it's an awakening or not, it's not important. Why you choose to make reflection on an experience an important part of the definition, could mean you highly value the conceptual.

I will quote Davino and I might be putting his words in your mouth, but just for demonstration: So first, I would propose a baby can awaken to consciousness and also love/bliss/energy. It doesn't depend on their intellect or ability to think rational thoughts; it's either pure being or energy moving throughout their body or tapping into such energy in the external sensory world. Then the question is: can a baby awaken to "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God", as in these being separate and clearly defined awakenings? Or does it require an intellect and rational thoughts?

How much did you know about these topics and what was your position on them before learning about them from Leo? Try to go point by point. What topics or points do you disagree or differ with Leo on somehow?

And now imagine that people use this as a source of information.

I've done some testing with GPT-6 Astra now for suggesting improvements for written text. It still has marked contextual issues. For example, I asked it to reword a paper that was initially conceptualized as a validation of a questionnaire into a "preliminary validation" and scale development study because it has a low sample size and lacks some useful analyses, and it becomes very self-critical and also more verbose than I would like. I also caught it (twice) essentially mistaking or disregarding a theoretical claim for an empirical one (which was also a problem of context). It's still good for getting some suggestions and a dialectic going, but yeah, far from human-passing in this sense. Honestly, for me at this point, the problem is not that the models are not "smart enough" but that they just fail at context and relevance. It's like having a very verbose autist on your team (no disrespect to autists, you go).

https://philosophyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Flat_Ontology https://scalar.usc.edu/works/material_philosophy/flat-ontology It's like consciousness itself, AND sense perceptions, AND concepts, are equally imagined. You don't seem to have an own "reality category" for each, unlike say most idealists worth listening to (who are not pure subjective idealists, skeptics, solipsists) who have a distinction between for example Consciousness/Truth and Maya/illusion (referring to sense perceptions, and perhaps concepts). And there is a hierarchy there; one is more real than the other. You don't seem to have that. "Whatever you imagine, that's reality". It's like kinda you're just floating out there, not very grounded in the everyday reality of stuff or human things. The reason I only have two categories of "awakening" is because one of them is consciousness, the other is "sense perceptions" (energy, phenomena, a.k.a. illusion, Maya), and then I of course distinguish that from conceptual understanding (which is not awakening, but rather indeed conceptual understanding of reality). On the other hand, the way you seem to multiply the kinds of awakenings into essentially infinity, it just seems like you've collapsed awakening into the conceptual. Any distinction you can make, you can "awaken" to. Even my stinky shoes. And why are consciousness vs sense perceptions vs concepts salient distinctions? Because they are central to how humans operate. And of course they have been salient to how people have described awakenings up until today. Awakening to consciousness (pure "knowing", which is ultimately formless), vs awakening to energy/phenomena/form/bliss, etc., they are quite distinguishable. One of them is very fundamental but also abstract, the other is more concrete and embodied (you can literally track it as movements of energy in the body, or how you relate with objects, the love you feel for them, their feeling of fullness and depth). Meanwhile awakening to something like "perfection" or "authority", you're now truly dividing the pie in a way that is seemingly indistinguishable from conceptual divisions. Which again, the conceptual mind can reflect on and use these concepts to inquire into the nature of consciousness, and use them to have an experience of consciousness, but I would again posit these are entry-points into the experience rather than "the" experience itself. Like self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is a process of the mind using concepts to look places, and at times, it can unravel the mind into consciousness. But the thoughts during self-inquiry are not the consciousness that seems to be unraveled.

You have what is called a flat ontology and it's as far as standard philosophy is concerned — for a lack of a better word — "impotent" (It doesn't attempt to deal with human affairs like illusion / sense phenomena, concepts / cognitive representations, or explaining multiple minds; it's quite "alien"). But you probably don't care about that.

You will tend to play more consonant than dissonant, hence it will limit you in that way. You're not necessarily limited in what you are able to play, but you are limited in what you will be most inclined to play.

@Lucasxp64 Interesting how if this is true, AI tech will be forced to abandon LLMs not because it will be limited in domains that organic systems are more efficient or superior, but because it will be limited in its own domain. And that the answer there also seems to be to recreate or engineer organic systems. I wonder if we will eventually conclude that building sensory-cognitive systems from scratch will be too much of a hassle and that we instead go the cyborg or mutant route trying to create a superintelligent human.

Omni-impotence.

*Me, a non-dual rat, watching a fellow rodent about to be devoured by horny felines*

A nurse giving you the wrong medicine, gg. My physiology and anatomy books when I studied biology were meant for nurse students. It's serious education. You need some way to certify whether they know the basics of things like the human body. A bachelor degree for a nurse is probably reasonable, although I don't know the full curriculum. What are people suggesting, 1-2 year education?

Hmm.