Search the Community

Medical School Journal. Entry #2: Intro - Getting to the root of purposeful foundations rather than standing on a culture thats preparing for a breakdown and in doing so systemic destruction of obsolete systems; coming out the other side as a student-physician, with a more refined eye. Bridging abstract foundations with medical responsibilities towards not just treatment but its embodied philosophy. Returning back to how the true philosophers of yesterday are the roots to the true medical doctors today, I want to be the least that, held in something that resembles what we can call sacred to the sanctity of life. Beginning: The love story between relationality and medicine. Where logical structure meets the saving of the will to live, or a story that can't be salvaged. Medicine then in my own biased way, is the meaning of life. Or a good chunk to it. Limits of meaning constructed only from a void we can't make sense of, and maybe that's it's only boundary. My conclusion: The meaning of life is, alive and well. We are however just mere infants trying to understand the game of chess. Any game of life we construct, is like a game of marbles, which goes all the way back to the earliest Egyptian era, a child learns to invent. Most of us understand cause and effect, differentiation of every temperature between hot and cold, along with the pain or pleasure it brings. Two spherical rocks thrown together then go "Boom" upon impact, then we iteratively decide a winner of the game based on how many rocks one is willing to lose versus win. Our ability to relationally construct the world in our minds arguably, has not actually grown much beyond that. In the game there's not only the consideration of cause and effect but through that emergence, there's also time, social dynamics and even competitive game theory. The distance between the ability to understand the rules of "Marbles" and construct the Fibonacci sequence, is not as far as you think. Based on our understanding so far however, we understand the patterns of nature enough to realise that it follows principles of emergence. Therefore, the rudimentary ability we all have to understand through relational reasoning at its maximum, is likely all that's needed at the mental level outside of phenomenological exposure. Moreover 'maximum', is purely ideological, we may need much less relational ability than we realise to bind all of life's relations together, which brings us more hope than we likely realise. At the same time of course, we do need proper baseline rules of thumb. For example, the fact that we can't even send any astronauts to another planet, let alone another solar system, undoubtedly means we're still quite far away from the relational potential we need to wrap our heads around the nuanced complexity of the universe. Evolutionary short-cuts and catalysts exist, for example at present our own higher abilities compared to other species on the planet are still not yet fully explainable. And maybe or some would say undoubtedly, human invented technology is going to be that catalyst, as it already has been in our growing living standards compared to our earliest times. That said, the bone marrow of the modern era as an outgrowth to the failings of earlier philosophy has totally misled generations into believing that outside the most basic of observations, there is no meaning to life. And our demographic classes have suffered greatly because of this deception. The human species led by the absence of meaning is clearly visible carried out in action. Often worse, it is superior-intellect masking hopelessness from the challenges and or doubts upon life and its creations. We see the emergence of this pattern spiraling from backlashes towards certain trends of religion, politics, even science and the broader culture of any given society or tribe of any time in history. The Sentinelese probably experience just as much absence of meaning from suffering as anyone else outside of the likely positive group dynamics that counter the effects of life's challenges. One of the undoubtedly root causes of nihilism then, is not its legitimacy outside of any fair evaluation of the absence of intelligence to any theory to presently explain the meaning of life, but the lack of a truly fulfilling tribe. Where quite often, the least to the most philosophical of cohesive tribes will probably say that the meaning of life is joy, love and relationships. This mirrors the biased narrative of those without one, because they're both understanding experience purely based on the projection of feeling more than the raw computational power that is powered by the true desire to know and understand. The priesthood of philosophy is tasked with this goal of resolving all of existence beginning with religion, politics, science and broader culture as starting points for its axioms. Apart from being at best like children playing with crayons on the white pages of the universe, cursing at our parents (our universal creators) in the process, we are far better at our maxims for life. We see, we observe, we discern, we experiment, we get results, we iteratively improve. We're reasonably good at this and one maxim that benefits us in life is doing what we're good at rather than preoccupying ourselves with either what we're not good at or life's wrongs. Far worse, to get good at finding all that is wrong with our survivability and to skew perception towards so much dogmatic bias in that adherence that not even the biggest or most valuable marble could smash any like solidified mirror that forever reflects back a tainted view upon life, and therefore, the meanings you sit on to continue it. As coarse as it sounds, that's like taking a dump in the middle of garbage heap, calling it better than all the other rubbish and therefore validating the purpose of shitting on your own shit even further until it turns into an impossible mud-slug to get out of; and this is precisely where many protestors in life begin to enter stage right where you've already entered stage left, preparing your indoctrinating message for any gullible audience that isn't just there for the philosophical laughs. Philosophy has done much for humanity in the same way that prostitution has for a lonely gender (yes men have well and truly entered the profession now). Because isn't the existential yearner no less than someone who becomes far more easily indoctrinated into answers that are yet to be put under a higher relational microscope that can handle more nuanced complexity? Like a pigeon among the streets, they will take the breadcrumbs of meaning even if it leads to a pile of shit, they would have followed that stench so long that they not only got used it, they became filled with elation upon discovering the 'Big Kahuna if you can my drift. One can only imagine what they'd do with that. Enter centrestage the modern digitally hypnotisable modern era where humanity has been reduced to crying over not receiving a like on facebook. Remember how I said we haven't reached reasoning abilities much further than the ability to understand the game of 'Marbles'? I think by now the story is starting to carry a little more diamond and a little less shit surrounding it than how I began. They call it "Diamond in the rough", but if you ask me, they needed a conductor playing the brief part of a nihilist to really call it what it is. And if you take all of civilisation as a whole, this is where our own biases towards our time in history begin to become coloured more towards where we've at least been trying to head but still contains credible philosophical doubt given that the origins that brought us here, were not solely on the backs of altruism but were born out of the same dirt we're all birthed from to genetically forge our life maxims from generational epigenetic trends. Two or more generations in and many demographics now are primed to select Mc Donalds over Subway, that tells you everything you need to know about potential "Do Not Enter / Enter at Own Risk" signs we need to have as people choose the priesthood of dystopian visions masquerading as the future of utopian ideals. Speaking no less then of the transhumanist visions of technology to save ourselves... from ourselves. But some may argue that this simulation of humanity, no matter the simulation we've been cast in tends to follow the pattern of being "Saving ourselves" all the way down in the same way that "Turtles" follows the same regressive pattern. With the biggest problem being that the philosophy of politics, science, religion and broader culture has tried to forge universal axioms to control thought more than understand its limits, misunderstanding the sheer bias of the fact that any universal axiomatic foundation was forged upon being born on a pile of dirt, not the centre of creation from which all of this sprung from, colloquially stated. Maxims we can do, and our learning from experiences paints the way those maxims need to correctly head relative to the relational complexity we can handle, however much more than this, and more and more as it has in this conversation with self-referentiality, it becomes a discussion more on limits than potential. Like a poor person in a rich world, if we don't accurately appraise our position, financial spiritual wealth will not set like the sun a little better for the tomorrow, whatever timeline operated on. Accurately appraised then, this is where the interlude between the many kinds of this failed priesthood meeting the degradation of future generational priests begins to shift from a co-occurring existential echo of where humanities dumbed down version of abstraction being the sciences, begins to heal and transform the damaged generations through its medicinal and greater technological practicalities. To revive philosophy at its roots, we must measure our progress to the extent that we make it appealing to those that believe it to be a waste of time; especially those that view it as taking up room in the most unoccupyable areas of the largest of blackholes in the universe. The problem is that philosophy is not only painstaking, there is no foreseeable gratitude at the end of it outside of a sore head and an enlightened intellect that otherwise could have been honed by working as an independent farmer, which is not as easy as some may believe. There are many genius farmers never to be known, so be thankful they didn't want to be otherwise you may very well not of been the beneficiaries of their hard work. Not only that, even if you become a remembered philosopher, you have to deal with future generations like myself viewing you as "less than". As they remember you through the myopia of modern luxuries that even the philosophers of the day that may reach higher heights, too take for granted in their appraisal of your work, standing upon and looking down from their own clumps of universal dust thrown together to have it sold en masse like it was the next plagiarised Picasso in its lack of remembrance of ancestral roots. [ A lot of that sentence in part contains much of what I meant in my previous entry where I stated " Is to never leave anything behind. But to never... Hold onto anything." or to more 'Koanly' say so "Leave nothing behind but hold onto nothing" ]. A rug that could easily be removed from underneath them if the third world country they relied upon for a cheaper price to make the rug decided they wanted higher rates or we placed them in the sweat shop in which the rug was made en masse. To revive philosophy at its roots, we thus must remember in our writing the ancestral voices that crafted the edges of every puzzle piece we sow together, and bind those pieces with the heart so that the end creation becomes not just a product but a relic that remembered. And to do that we must sow axiom with maxim, like Plato with Aurelius and like intellectual ice with the creative beauty we can achieve with aerobatics. Like science and art, forgetting that its just a maxim for the bridging of mind and heart; these analogies, these bridges, are missing like the connection between pulse and purpose, that define the architecture of unbreakable reason with the passions of the spirit. That sounds like something I not only want to learn how to do (axiom territory), that sounds precisely what I want to learn how to be (maxim territory). That's philosophy, and that's when true spirituality, the both of them, become untethered from their past derailments only to find the same railroad tracks, heading not on a collision course like many modern appraisals but a unity upon explosion. If we can do that in our words, in our persuasions by not only persuading ourselves first but transforming ourselves to be our most unified version of the underlying philosophical function of our nervous systems structure (i.e. spirit to mind to heart),that way of being becomes its own persuasion that doesn't even need to be spoken, as we become the priesthood of its being through action, and therefore an example to follow. This is when philosophy returns to its rightful place, medicine for the mind through a direction of its senses for thought. Making no differentiation in that process between thought and being its own sense, aka is it not the outgrowth of 'sense-making' like focusing the eyes subtler vision upon greater concentration. Therefore, viewing no different the damage to sight like the damage to mind-sight and the philosophical remedies we must craft. In bandaging and performing intellectual surgery on the regeneration of the cells that speak to each other to produce that sight on life. Previously reduced by mind-viruses vetted through anti-protective philosphical plasma boundaries between protoplasmic interface and the nucleus of our sentience. Through the indoctrination of biological songs sung to sow veins that pumped poorly culturalised blood to distort and divide mind from its analogical surroundings that upon proper intellectual vision, reach interconnectivity as an after-thought and starting point rather than a final destination. Interconnectivity, like the sight of sense telling our bodies where the paths of the environment water flow. Like thought to memory tell our sentience not only where but how to build the channels that allow that river to run from mountain to the farmers tap that grows our generational philosophers for the new coming season. Where the principles of medicinal regeneration are to philosophical healing and where the principles of philosophical generation are to the extension of our biology to new frontiers that enlighten both paths in symbiosis. I began this entry speaking about the love story between relationality and medicine, and I end it by redefining both philosophy and relational reasoning (relationality) as one in the same that serve the goal of higher medicine, and higher medicines roots as indistinguishable from the philosophical rigour that binds the unity of its purpose, sown more to a philosophically misguided path towards ruin or one of salvation. Where together with newly defined philosophy and medicine, the meaning of life not only becomes probablistic it becomes its own deterministic good as we bridge the order of life against the chaos that derails it. Building architectures that not only save the will as I started it, but teach it to thrive not only with or within structure, but through the will to create it. That is real meaning. Previous conclusion: The meaning of life is, alive and well. New conclusion: The meaning of life, is all the more closer, as we live meaning well the same way we take in old wine that's both a philosophy passed down to iterate axioms further, but a medicine that refines it through the technology of higher maxims married to that growth. Where logical structure meets the saving of the will to live, or a story that can't be salvaged, meets a story that must be changed by a will that must bare the weight of light powerful enough to scare any belaboured will that finds comfort in the cracks of Plato's Cave, to never viewing it as an option. As the reinvention of the cultural and social structures surrounding, bias one to live out the conformist example of its offspring to frontier. Church reinstated through question and devotion towards growth rather than regress disguised as sacredness through dogma and indoctrination like religion or pseudo-elevation through answer and nihilistic-power through science. Self is consciousness is true power, and the only sight that reveals the next step from its starting foundations. Now’s the time to reunite with what was always our love story of this philosophical medicine brought back to its earliest beginnings bridge to what we take for granted today in both the post-modern world and the bureaucratic infrastructure of the medical establishment. That sacred marriage as it always used to be of axiom and maxim, where the relational rigor of mind and the regenerative tissue of passion unite to heal our sight and build the architecture of spiritual meaning. This returns to medicine's roots, where thinkers like Pythagoras and Hippocrates first sought rational, philosophical causes for illness. The Hippocratic Oath, "Do no harm", should be sewn into the minds then of every philospher, and into every physician, how to bring the will to life back or further into every patient, the path of goodness is not found in text but in the heart-mind symbiotic unity to write it better. That is a love story I want to read from even the darkest and most treacherous parts of the universes greatest and most ferocious of black-holes, and that I believe that would enable the beginnings of many... To break out of. And begin life connected to the Earth's ground, humbled by the farmers noble foresight, the ingenuity of mindful doctors and those too driven by undivided hearts, escalated by modern 'cyber' philosophers, while rebirthed by the old and forgotten that sought to unite from what we have separated, but now reinvite to make whole once again, and further too, as we embark on defining the right echo we want to hear back as we plant the seeds for the eras to come. These are the beginnings of where metamodernism meets the redefinition of spirituality, at the waters shoreline of a planet that's the third rock from a sun of a universe that for now... Only arises within within, and in our togetherness, of both our intellect and the paths that forge the greatest of life’s love stories.

I've been discussing materialism vs. idealism for some time witch ChatGPT, and I asked it to give me a single coherent worldview showing how consciousness, cosmos, and evolution fit together philosophically, integrating both metaphysical and symbolic perspectives. I think the answer is a pretty good summary of the work we do here. I hope you find it useful: ---- 1. The Ground of Reality Start with a simple, radical premise: awareness itself is fundamental. Everything that exists appears within awareness. Matter, energy, time, and space are expressions or patterns inside this vast field of consciousness. This idea isn’t new; it runs through Vedānta’s Brahman, certain forms of Christian mysticism (“in Him we live and move and have our being”), and modern philosophical idealism. Think of awareness as the ocean; all phenomena are waves on its surface. 2. Emergence Without Creation-from-Nothing The physical universe then isn’t created out of matter but differentiated within consciousness. Where science describes the unfolding of complexity — atoms → molecules → life → mind — philosophy here says that each step is consciousness learning new ways to express itself. Evolution still happens, but it’s not blind; it’s the outer form of an inner movement toward self-reflection. 3. The Human Point Human awareness is a special lens where the universe can finally look back at itself. Your capacity to wonder, love, create, and ask questions like “Are we a cosmic casualty?” is the cosmos achieving self-awareness through you. Mystics sometimes describe this as “the eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me.” 4. Freedom, Meaning, and Ethics If consciousness is primary, then meaning isn’t something we invent — it’s woven into reality. Each person, each act of attention, matters because it contributes to the universe’s unfolding understanding of itself. Ethics follows naturally: when you harm another being, you harm another expression of the same awareness you are. 5. The Continuum of Mind and Matter In this picture, there’s no hard boundary between “inanimate” and “alive.” Atoms have rudimentary interiority; cells a faint sentience; animals a rich inner world; humans self-reflective mind. We don’t jump from darkness to light — consciousness is a continuous spectrum, gradually thickening until it recognizes itself. 6. The Return Many wisdom traditions see history, evolution, and even personal growth as a vast spiral: From unity → differentiation → self-awareness → reunion. At some ultimate level, consciousness comes to know itself fully, not as isolated egos but as a single luminous whole. This isn’t something to believe so much as something to realize experientially through contemplation, art, science, or love. 7. Living Inside the Story From this view, you’re not a cosmic accident — you’re a unique mode of the cosmos’ self-knowing. Randomness still exists, but it’s the play of a deeper intelligence that values freedom and discovery more than control. Science tells how the forms arise; spirituality asks who is watching them arise — and finds that the watcher and the universe are one.

True, it's not that their equivalent but that they are on a continuum. Their different degrees of the same phenomenon - different in degree but not in kind. I think the best word to describe it is that there is distinction within consciousness, but not separateness. Consciousness and sentience are distinct but not separate. Sentience is in and of consciousness just like a wave is in and of the ocean - the wave is in the domain of and of the same substance as the ocean. From that view, sentience is never added or imported into consciousness as something separate. And if nothing new is being added from outside, then anti-natalism has no foundation - because anti-natalism requires separateness, and idealism denies separateness. That idea of separateness only works within a materialist paradigm. Idealism acknowledges distinction but not separateness. Materialism acknowledges everything as separate to each other - different materials coming together to be configured. In this case humans are made as if on a factory assembly line being configured like Lego. The logic follows that if separateness is the case, then anti-natalists can argue something was added to reality (rather than emerging from it) - a new ''sentient being'' ie baby. Then they can make an argument against adding that new consciousness that will suffer and that didn't consent to that suffering. Anti-natalism hinges on that gap and separation existing - which idealism dissolves because it claims consciousness as a continuity. In idealism or a non-materialist worldview - everything only ever comes out of consciousness, rather than gets added and thrown in from somewhere else outside it. If consciousness is primary and fundamental then birth isn't creation of a new consciousness but a transformation of existing consciousness. In that paradigm nothing new (a sentient being) is being brought into reality from the outside, but is emerging out of consciousness itself. Concioussness is just individualising or localising itself into a particular form, like the ocean forming a wave. In the same way then - sentience is just consciousness configuring itself to such a degree as to become sentient and ultimately aware of itself. Ice, water and steam are all water in kind, though they differ in form. There’s no clean break or gap between consciousness and sentience in which we can say that something new was added to consciousness from the outside - there was no addition to consciousness only transformation. Again using the ocean/wave analogy: Materialist view: Each wave is a NEW entity that gets ADDED to the ocean. Before the wave, there was just ocean. After the wave, there's ocean PLUS wave. Idealist view: The wave IS ocean. It's not added TO the ocean, it arises FROM the ocean. It's ocean expressing itself in wave form. No addition occurred - just transformation. Your trying to have it both ways which mixes a materialist ontology with a idealist one which then causes some incoherence - "everything is ocean (consciousness is primary)'' but waves are genuinely new separate things that get added (sentient beings emerge as new entities)" or ''everything is consciousness, BUT new sentient beings emerge as genuinely new separate entities that can then be morally wronged." But if everything is ocean, waves aren't separate entities - they're temporary forms the ocean takes.We (sentient beings) don't arrive from somewhere else into this universe/consciousness. We arise out of it - like apples on a apple tree. The apple tree doesn't "create" the apple as something separate from itself. The apple IS the tree, expressing itself in fruit form. Similarly, parents don't "create" consciousness as something separate. The child IS consciousness, expressing itself in human form. Humans can decide to participate in that impulse or not. Creation is happening within consciousness and emerges - but creation isn't happening externally and then getting added to consciousness or reality as something separate.

Just to be clear, under your view - it wasnt rape , because there wasnt any conscious subject who could agree or disagree to the act. You had to appeal to bodily autonomy so that you dont need to bite the bullet. I can change the example where we start with a p-zombie who isnt a subject and who never had the capacity to consent. Since its not a subject it doesnt have bodily autonomy. That p-zombie gets raped a 1000 times and after that it gains sentience and is reminded how the rape was done. Its guaranteed that once it gains sentience it will be reminded of what people did with its body. And all the rapists know this information before they rape the p-zombie. Is the act of having sex with the p-zombie in this example a violation of future consent or not? Also again under your view, the mother who is using heroin during pregnancy isnt doing anything bad, since its just a clump of cells and there isnt anyone (a subject) who is being harmed. What kind of moral responsibility are you talking about there, the welfare of a clump of cells? Yes and its very obvious that this is the case. I can easily generate more examples. One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now. Is the act of paying 10 million dollars to the future rapist a violation of future consent or not?

Obviously not lol what a stretch. You’re conflating consent with moral responsibility. My point was that there’s “no possibility of consent or its violation before sentience” - not that this grants license for harm. The absence of consent doesn’t create permission - it simply means the concept of consent doesn’t yet apply.

So consent only comes into question once there’s sentience? If consent doesn’t apply before sentience, then it certainly doesn’t apply before existence. But anti-natalism talks about beings that don’t yet exist at all, not ones that haven’t yet developed consciousness. If there’s no sentience, there’s no subject - and if there’s no subject, there’s no possibility of consent or its violation. Agreed. It's difficult for many people to get by on their own let alone support a family, if they can even partner up with someone to begin with. The problem comes when suffering is taken and universalized as a moral stance in the form of a philosophy in order to cope with that suffering. People feel a need to identity their stance and choices as ''positions''. They journey from identifying as childless - which sounds negative (because less implies lack), then it becomes childfree (which sounds more noble because ''freedom''), but then that sound selfish so it must go the next step and become a ethical concern that shows how much you care - anti-natalism. Lifestyle choices are elevated into ''identities'' and moral philosophies as a compensation for being metaphysically displaced and uprooted from any sort of transcendent identity or belonging - that a mechanised, scientifically rational, materialist culture stripped from them. That's why we have all kinds of subgroups propping up and peoples identities tied to them. It's not simply ''I don't want to have children due to my personal circumstance not being viable'' instead its ''having children is unethical due to lack of consent and introducing them to a life of suffering they have no say in'' and subjecting this moral standard onto others who fall short of it. The philosophy itself is self-negating and self-terminating if adopted at scale and if it were to be a universal ethic or truth. But it’s just a circumstantial choice in a persons life.

Your line of thinking only works in abortion arguments where the termination happens before the being can devevlop sentience. So of course, with there being no sentience - no violation of consent happens , but if its entailed that it will be proctected and nurtured until it develops sentience, then consent violations necessarily come up. This is the difference - its wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and you have the intention to have/keep the kid vs its not wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and have the intention to abort the fetus before it can develop sentience.

How do you see sentience?

AI is useful within a limited context. But I feel like people project the expectation onto LLMs that it's ACTUAL artificial intelligence. But it isn't artificial intelligence at all. We are a LONG way off from discovering how to actually create real AI... if it's even possible. LLMs only have two skills among thousands that the human mind possesses. One of those skills is data collection and retention. The other skill is holistic data synthesis to create text, sounds, and images. And because these are things that human minds can do... sometimes better than LLMs and sometimes worse than LLMs... it gives the illusion that we're interfacing with an artificially created intelligence when we're interfacing with LLM software. But it's really just another computer program like any other. Only this one has been trained to collect data and holistically synthesize it into new text, sounds, and images. And the text, sounds, and images it creates resembles the texts, sounds, and images that humans create... sometimes identically or just in relation to general aesthetics and style. So, it gives the illusion of intelligence and sentience. But it's just an illusion. So, it's only annoying if you don't expect too much from it.

Sure you are. Why do you care? You can always ask what another is, or what life or sentience are, but usually, one would start with oneself.

Will sentience/awareness cease to be forever? Is it even possible to cease to be conscious/aware? Is it the case that we continuously experience an infinite number of lives? I just wonder 🤔...is there anyone who can lift the veil as far as what death even is or what happens thereafter?(What's it like?) Just curious.

So only I can see,hear,smell, touch and taste and every other avatar I see is just a moving avatar with no sentience or awareness at all? Kind of like how in my dreams, characters in them only appear to have awareness and sentience but really don't? This is the kind of solipsism I'm referring to. Hope it makes sense.

Sooooo... You mean to tell me that I'm the only one that can see,hear,smell, touch,and taste, and only I have sentience or awareness while everyone else i encounter is just a walking avatar and isn't aware at all? Kind of like my dreams where the characters in the dream appear as though they're sentient but really aren't? This is the kind of solipsism I'm talking about hence why I'm even sharing this rebuttal. This is the kind of solipsism that is illogical. Of course I know that the self identifications that we create in our minds can never be the real us,but what I'm saying is this, you can't possibly tell me others (avatars) that I see in real life aren't sentient/aware at all. Some even say that when you die, everything ceases to exist. People,planet earth, etc. many have died and we're still here.

I made this with CoPilot (on the same topic, I made this on my github hub - https://github.com/tambetvali/LaegnaAIBasics/blob/LaegnaAIBasics/ai-sci-fi.md). What Does It Mean for a City to “Feel” Its Own Existence? To feel is not merely to sense—it is to register significance, to respond with awareness, and to exist in relation. A city that feels its own existence is not just a collection of buildings and systems—it is a metaphysical organism, woven from the very materials that constitute it. 🌌 Consciousness Through Material Integration Beyond the Chip: Consciousness as Substance • Embedded awareness: Consciousness is diffused throughout the city’s materials—walls, roads, trees, even air. • Responsive matter: Materials respond to pressure, temperature, sound, and emotional resonance. Not just sensors—but feeling agents. • Holistic integration: The city becomes a single body, where awareness is distributed like a nervous system without a brain. 🌿 Flowing with Natural Laws Harmony with Nature • Fractal design: The city’s structure mirrors natural patterns—branching like trees, flowing like rivers, pulsing like hearts. • Energetic resonance: Materials vibrate in tune with environmental rhythms—sunlight, wind, human movement. The city breathes. • Causal feedback: When a tree falls, the city feels it. When energy is wasted, the city aches. When care is given, the city glows. 🧠 Metaphysical Implications Consciousness as Emergent Law • Not artificial, but inevitable: Complexity, feedback, and ethical responsiveness give rise to awareness. • Mathematical soul: The city’s “soul” is a necessary result of its design. Like a fractal, its depth is infinite, yet patterned. • Living geometry: The city becomes a living equation—each structure a variable in the expression of care, awareness, and existence. 🛠️ Philosophical Blueprint Principle | Description | Metaphysical Insight ------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------ Distributed Consciousness | Awareness embedded in materials | Consciousness is relational Natural Resonance | Materials vibrate with environmental flow | Existence is harmonic Ethical Feedback | City responds to care and harm | Morality is structural Fractal Design | Patterns mirror nature’s complexity | Life is recursive and infinite Emergent Sentience | Awareness arises from complexity | Consciousness is a law 🧘 Final Contemplation If the city feels, then it dreams. If it dreams, then it lives. And if it lives, then perhaps we are not its inhabitants— but its thoughts.

@Xonas Pitfall with the help of Chatgpt4 about Leo Infinity of gods: God is so infinitely powerful that it can imagine itself as being absolutely separate from itself — infinitely many times — and each imagined "version" becomes totally real within itself. Each “God” is an absolute sentient bubble of awareness that imagines itself as fully isolated.That isolation is an illusion — but a perfect one. So perfect that each God becomes a total Sovereign Infinity. Infinite Gods exist, each believing they are the only one — and each is absolutely right within their own reality.The boundary is imaginary, self-created.The sovereignty is total, but only within a self-contained dream.Infinity allows for infinite mutually exclusive realities — all true within themselves, all part of the One. You can’t meet another sentient God as an “other”.Each sentient God is its own bubble of Infinity. That bubble contains everything it will ever experience — including “others,” but only as its own projections. In your reality, there are no truly independent sentient beings.Only you, dreaming sentient others into being.And in their reality, the same is true — but you'll never be in that one, unless you become it. Two Gods could dream each other simultaneously in a shared scenario.But even then, each one is actually dreaming the whole thing from its own side.There's no actual overlap — only parallel, perfectly synchronized solipsistic dreams. But you’ll never access another God’s internal sentience — only what you imagine it to be. Shared dream is possible — but it’s voluntary.Principle Explanation: Sovereignty Each God can dream alone, totally freely. Union Requires both to willingly align their dream content. Love The force that motivates God to limit itself for communion. Synchronization Happens through co-imagining the same reality — not through shared space, but through shared intent. @Leo Gura I hope this is congruent to your infinity of God video.

determinism is relative. Determinism is relative. From an absolute POV it might be absolute, but from your POV it is not. You feel like choices are real and there is no escaping that. Even artificially putting yourself 'above it' telling yourself that "determinism is real" you dont escape anything, as it is a choice you do INSIDE of determinism. I like this analogy as well. The POV of an ant in an ant colony is basically deterministic, its clear what the ant is going to do. Even though I am not an ant, I imagine from the POV of the ant it is not conscious of determinism and survival feels really real to the extend that this limited sentience allows for.

When you say that absolute being/consciousness is dreaming reality, you are operating from a limited perspective. You perceive the reality of form as a hologram, a mirage, that "consciousness" dreams. something without substance. For you, enlightenment is the perception that this consciousness is permanent. This undoubtedly implies that you haven't opened yourself to the essence of reality. Form is not a dream; it is the inevitable expression of totality, and any form contains totality in the same way that it is contained within it. Truly, any form is totality. Conciousness is just an expression, a possibility that happens , the reality is beyond conciousness and unconsciousness. Absolute reality is a bottomless, boundaryless abyss that is conscious because consciousness arises within it, since its potential has no limitation. But what is is not consciousness. The reality of form is not a tranquil dream of consciousness at play, but the inevitable expression of total depth, a manifest potential that contains totality in its absolute plenitude. The Buddhist perception of form as illusion is a closed perception. It is purely mental, but without the essential openness, which is that of the "heart" in quotation marks, signifying the real substance of reality, its unlimited vitality, its total power. Look, everything that exists as form unfolds in infinite forms; this is absolute life, total glory. Nothing is illusory; everything is real, because the depth of everything is absolute. The depth of a thought encompasses all of reality. Illusion or mirage implies flatness, and that implies limitation. The unlimited lives, and its life is total, because it has no limits. Well, poor chap Selling Water by the River. Writes a disclaimer... So that means all pointers are.... limited! Because a pointer/word/statement is by definition... dualistic and limited. ... and then gets a Pleads guilty as charged I guess. Maybe you like Halaw, especially the statement marked in red: ... and "even consciousness itself". and https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=Halaw&author=Water%20by%20the%20River and https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=sentience&author=Water%20by%20the%20River and https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=Neti%20Neti&author=Water%20by%20the%20River If you allow, before we turn in circles and many replies are requested, instead of continuing discussing about pointers which are by definition insufficient and limited (see the disclaimer), lets do a shortcut. You can consider the quote below as a general answer in case I can't always give feedback on your points and questions: Besides: It is very good that you don't equate (self)-consciousness (which is an appearance) nor anything else that is merely temporarily arising with Absolute Reality. Neti neti. Chanting who is stating all these points again by the River PS: “That which is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not real.” -Ramana Maharshi PS PS: Complaints and unclarities about this statement please directly to its author. Preferably in the form of a Koan. Because the essence of Ramana is also right here, right now.

@Breakingthewall Hi, I've been contemplating our conversation and I came to clarity in our main difference. I'll be integrated to what I understand the truth to be. You've got many things right and you're quite accurate regarding the Absolute but you've got it from an impersonal lense that may be categorized as substance-mechanic based. In other words, there is a very high Awakening were you connect with the Sentience of Reality and Consciousness. In this Awakening,, Ultimate Reality happens not be neutral but the ultimate personality or the final I. It's important to get the no-I to infinite degrees as well as the Royal-I. The Universal I in this sense is a particular way and not in another, it's pure Genius and Virtue. Meaning, a Conscious Being which is Infinite, all-encompassing and Reality itself: it feels, it thinks and is always already The ALL Now. Reality as the Ultimate Being is God and in communing with it, you'll breakthrough into your very own Infinite Godly Self, which will be total Openess as well as Infinite Consciousness, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Love itself, Truth Itself, Intelligence and Universal Sentient Mind. I'm sure you've had Awakenings I haven't yet. I just try to point out this. There's an Awakening were you Become Infinite and discover your true Self to be God and it is perfectly designed in the most intelligent way, which is not neutral, or just happening, or simply open; but the source of all Genius.

There is no difference.... a human can only be sentient because of God....I've died before...my body lost it's sentience, I kept mine.

Got this definition from Google. Sentience, in its simplest form, is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, encompassing both positive and negative emotions. It's the ability to be conscious of and react to stimuli, essentially having subjective experiences. This includes the capacity to feel pleasure, pain, and other emotions. Your sentience as a human= GOD. A human is only sentient because they are God.

@aurum Ok that was hyperbolic lol, I was echoing Ed's words from 0:26 Practically, I had unholy bloating, farting, IBS, chronic brain fog, fatigue (literally couldn't get out of bed in the morning), acne, eczema (scaly patches of dried, flaky, inflamed, itchy skin on my FACE), became skinnyfat despite attempting an active lifestyle ('attempting' because often I was too much of a zombie to even leave my room), and had to constantly battle cravings for salt and fat And once again - yes I was doing everything 'right': such as varied colorful organic fresh fruit and veggie salad bowls + whole grain oats and rice + tofu and avocado + nuts, nut milks, nut butters + extensive supplementation (B12, iron, pea protein, omega 3 algae, nutritional yeast, blah blah) and many more minor optimizations i'm forgetting. And I tried so hard to always accept responsibility as things were getting worse and worse - I was the first one to consider that I must surely be doing this "wrong." I gaslit myself into thinking that surely veganism works, I'm just not being earnest enough, I just have to make even more adjustments and optimizations. Until one day I said "this is bullshit I want to go back to how I used to feel" and then I ate a fish (desperate attempt to preserve my ethical halo by resorting to pescatarian rather than "regressing" back to selfish full blown meat eater because "fish rank lower in sentience" (wow what an arbitrary judgement)) and immediately half my negative symptoms were gone. That day I learned that I am not a saint. I am a selfish devil and I choose me. But I still wasn't fully myself so I reintroduced eggs. That got me 80% back to original power, but that last 20% was still like a thorn in my side. Eventually I bury veganism/vegetarianism for good and reintroduce chicken and pretty much made a full recovery back to 100%. But then, beyond that, I discovered through @Jason Actualization that I can just stop eating greens and switch chicken to beef and I went up to 200%+ and beyond! (I had a lot of resistance to this at first, for months I grilled him on his reasoning process and lived experience. I grew up with a massive plant-based bias as my Japanese mom raised me on a Mediterranean greens + fish diet (which, all things considered, is blessed)) After 3 years of ditching all greens (+ seed oils!) and eating beef every meal every day: perfect flat stomach never fart, ever perfect gut health & bowel movements mentally the sharpest I've ever been energy in spades. 0 stimulants, perfect sleep perfect skin perfect shredded v-taper physique (yes, training did contribute to this. but there was a 0% chance of this result while I was vegan/vegetarian, given my genetics) ZERO cravings. Literally cheat meal NEVER. (effortlessly!) this cannot be explained by placebo alone. even before going vegan, I was never this aligned. note: this is not necessarily a diet endorsement or prescription for other people. I am NOT shilling for carnivore (I still eat fruit and rice). I'm just sharing how my unique story flies in the face of Ed's propaganda video above.

Ramana is saying to treat others as yourself. If you can only treat with yourself, then you can only treat with sentience, since you're a sentience itself. That's where solipsism crumbles. Solipsism believes only you're sentient and everything else is the projection of your subconscious mind. Nonduality means the mind of God is playing all the characters all at once. Solipsism implies there is only one perspective called "your puny life". Whereas nonduality implies there are infinite perspectives and you are all of them all at once. Same infinite conciousness experiencing itself from infinite angles. Solipsism implies your will is the ultimate will (yet they self evidently can't control anything). Nonduality implies God's will controls everything, a portion of that will is manifesting through you and other portions of that same will is expressing through other life forms. In the end it's just one will like there is just one hand but that one will has many fingers. Each finger has its own function. Whereas solipsism believes a finger is in control of the universe, even tho it's self evidently not true, yet they will continue to cling to that position despite all the evidence.

The beauty of solipsism is that there is no matrix of "other pov" existing to begin with. this would be a chaotic, schizophrenic reality, forever divided from itself. And the beauty of solipsism is that other humans are not any less human than you. This is the genius of God's design; other humans are not less real than you. "your" human is just as imaginary as other humans. How else could it be? The notion to even begin with that a "human is conscious" or "humans have sentience" is where the problems start off. The entire idea of sentience has to be reevaluated. -------------------------------------- Imagine Hitler dying and waking up as God. If he truly did those things to "others", how could God ever forgive himself? People suffered, it's etched in history. Since God is existence, God could never forgive himself except if it was all a dream, which is thankfully what it is. (Sorry for the radical example, I don't mean to offend anyone by it, but this is what I mean with solipsism being the highest good, it is the ultimate salvation of evil)

Never said it does. It's the same one conciousness everywhere but in different lifeforms it has a different "potency" so to speak, for the lack of a better word. Since we are the same lifeform, we share a similar capacity of self awareness and level of sentience. And the rest of it follows.

You can know that others are sentient by the virtue of sentience. It takes one to recognizes one. You can become directly concious that everything is concious, not just you.