Carl-Richard

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    16,219

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Carl-Richard

  1. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    15 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

    You believe in matter/space/time ? 

    If not then when and where would other minds be ???

    Matter/space/time are ways of describing appearances. If there are no appearances, there is no matter/space/time, but there are also no people. So if you claim that "other people don't have a mind", you're the one that thinks that matter/space/time exists, because you assume other people exist.

  4. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    2 hours ago, Loveeee said:

    Does he believe people in his dreams are conscious too

    People with multiple personality disorder report seeing their multiple personalities as characters in dreams, and when awake, the multiple personalities report experiencing events in that dream from their own perspective. So it's definitely plausible.

    Quote

    So what do we know about the dream life of a human DID patient? Can the patient’s different alters share a dream, taking different co-conscious points of view within the dream, just like you and I share a world? Can they perceive and interact with one another within their shared dream, just as people can perceive and interact with one another within their shared environment? As it turns out, there is evidence that this is precisely what happens, as research has shown (Barrett 1994: 170-171). Here is an illustrative case from the literature:

    The host personality, Sarah, remembered only that her dream from the previous night involved hearing a girl screaming for help. Alter Annie, age four, remembered a nightmare of being tied down naked and unable to cry out as a man began to cut her vagina. Ann, age nine, dreamed of watching this scene and screaming desperately for help (apparently the voice in the host’s dream). Teenage Jo dreamed of coming upon this scene and clubbing the little girl’s attacker over the head; in her dream he fell to the ground dead and she left. In the dreams of Ann and Annie, the teenager with the club appeared, struck the man to the ground but he arose and renewed his attack again. Four year old Sally dreamed of playing with her dolls happily and nothing else. Both Annie and Ann reported a little girl playing obliviously in the corner of the room in their dreams. Although there was no definite abuser-identified alter manifesting at this time, the presence at times of a hallucinated voice similar to Sarah’s uncle suggested there might be yet another alter experiencing the dream from the attacker’s vantage. (Barrett 1994: 171)

    Taking this at face value, what it shows is that, while dreaming, a dissociated human mind can manifest multiple, concurrently conscious alters that experience each other from second- and third-person perspectives, just as you and I can shake hands with one another in ordinary waking life. The alters’ experiences are also mutually consistent, in the sense that the alters all seem to perceive the same series of events, each alter from its own individual subjective perspective. The correspondences with the experiences of individual people sharing an outside world are self-evident and require no further commentary.

    https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/10/the-many-in-our-dreams.html

     

    This is a really interesting video suggesting other people are dream characters (and bases it on scientific research):

     

  11. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Bluevinn said:

    So true. But I still don’t understand why Leo did that exactly.

    In his earlier videos, from about 3 or 4 years ago, he clearly distinguished between self with a lowercase s and Self with an uppercase S. He made a clear separation between absolute truth and relative truth when explaining these concepts.

    However, around the time his solipsism video came out, he communicated it as if only the lowercase self exists, without making a distinction between absolute and relative truth.

    Why did he do that? I’ve seen some comments suggesting he does it intentionally to break your ego. Could that be the reason?

    The real question is why did he after that make "Infinity of Gods", which presents the idea of multiple Gods existing separately from each other, when that is seemingly antithetical solipsism? And I can hear Leo answering something like "no, you just multiply the solipsisms", but that really just negates the term. I also think "Infinity of Gods" is flat out redundant, as God is infinite, so Infinity of Infinities is redundant. You just put up an arbitrary boundary when there are already infinite boundaries.

    The problem is complicating something which is really simple: God, Infinity, Oneness. But maybe I'm just simple-minded.

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, OBEler said:

    Leo was on his first trips already on his level.

    However Leo went far beyond. If you just watch what Martin says , what Leo says you can clearly see that Leo went insanely more deeper. 

    Martin ball may be deeper in some areas like energy healing etc. but in terms of reality/god/consciousness Leo is way deeper.

    What happened is that Leo started using the word solipsism and people became confused. It's his biggest pedagogic blunder.

  13. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    On 25.5.2025 at 11:08 AM, Thought Art said:

    @Carl-Richard Explain

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

    Quote

    Maya (/ˈmɑːjə/; Devanagari: माया, IAST: māyā), literally "illusion" or "magic",[1][2][3] has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context. In later Vedic texts, māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem";[2][4] the principle which shows "attributeless Absolute" as having "attributes".[3] Māyā also connotes that which "is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal" (in opposition to an unchanging Absolute, or Brahman), and therefore "conceals the true character of spiritual reality".[5][6]

    When you are referring to attributes, things that are changing, or the magic show of form, you are referring to Maya.

     

    Quote

    In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, māyā, "appearance",[7] is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real".[8] In this nondualist school, māyā at the individual level appears as the lack of knowledge (avidyā) of the real Self, Atman-Brahman, mistakenly identifying with the body-mind complex and its entanglements.

    When you talk about appearances, e.g. "other people" (mind-body complexes), you are talking about Maya.

     

    Quote

    In Buddhist philosophy, māyā is one of twenty subsidiary unwholesome mental factors, responsible for deceit or concealment about the illusionary nature of things.[9][10]

    When you talk about Maya, you are talking about that which is illusory and obscures Absolute Truth. Solipsism (the way it is most often conceived) relates to that which obscures Absolute Truth.

  19. Posted

    11 minutes ago, zurew said:

    "You are just having religious feelings" - what are we talking about there, Mike? The fact that the way you deal with your cognitive dissonance and the complete uncertainty of the future and with the dangers of life is by treating AI as an all powerful ,all good God who will solve all of our problems and can guide us to a better life?

    😂

    There are actually so many times he has had this super confrontational and reductionistic attitude of like "no, it's actually just this, and if you disagree, you're just being ignorant and unreasonable, and that's fine, we're all human sometimes" about a wide range of topics, it's like a character trait at this point.

  20. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    No joke:


    As for "there is nothing magical in your brain, just the same neural network throughputs; [...] anything that is happening in a human brain can be replicated in a machine", try replicating

    • electrochemical gradients that create a graded response of neural signals (instead of the "yes/no" signals of neural networks)
    • backwards and even "sideways" propagation of signals (instead of strictly unidirectional signals)
    • on average 860 trillion connections (instead of 1.7-1.8 trillion of GPT-4)

    And this is still assuming that "neuronal signals" is the salient level of computation. Why not the ion channels along the axon that drive the signal, or generally the rich flow of activity across the cell membrane (e.g. transporters, neurotransmitters, general enzymes, nutrients)? And what about the cellular interior (and where for example microtubules have been hypothesized to exert quantum effects)?
     

    And just look at what ChatGPT (an LLM) is. It pumps out letters on a screen. Unlike an organism, it doesn't have agency. It doesn't actively seek out new information. It doesn't tap you on the shoulder and ask you a question out of curiosity. It doesn't give you unsolicited advice when you are just minding your own business. It doesn't have concerns, self-concern, homeostasis, senses, relevance realization. It doesn't care, because it's not a living thing.

    Also, when we get wowed into thoughts of it being conscious because it simulates language very well, what about dogs, cats, chickens, fish? Why do we extend consciousness to these things while they have no impressive human language presentations? Like, is it not obvious that an LLM is a machine simulating human language based on some inputs? Why is not the Google algorithm or Google Translate conscious (which also employ neural networks)? Why do we not extend the same type of downward scaling to them like with dogs and cats? Is it maybe because we're not being wowed by them pulling on our heart strings?