Search the Community

One last point: @Leo Gura On "And why emotions override rationality and logic": As stated, until we find another model you must start from energy as information to begin with and information relative to consciousness as having levels of integration, where integration in our context is reflective of a triangle. The so called'primitive' emotions and feelings that are incorrectly denoted not only begin at the lowest level, however they're fundamental to the highest, differentiated only by levels of integration. I have spoken before about intelligence being reflective of in part, a 'compression algorithm' outside of my complementary insights there on 'meta-set-theory' being fundamental to intelligence at the cognitive level, however, analogously, this is operative to the performance of energy and our management of energy to emotions all the way to the full archway of their psychology back down to how that in return alters our sensory system, yes from apathy to excitement, one changes our epidemiology differently from the next, differentiated comparably in the same way by compression and their corresponding set theory. Compared to raw cognition, the difference is that energy to emotions in this case when it comes to utilizing from energy to sense to feeling to emotions to alchemy that transforms the body to our epigenetics is performative. It's an action we literally perform with consciousness, from dissmissal to the slow learning of full engagement to movement; hence recently shared notions between awareness and "ramachandran blueprint" in my journal. This is right across the nervous system, including to in the learning to regulate brainwaves and cell signalling within our very brain through conscious engineering alone through very sensitive, long winded hours of inward self-driven learning. Like a sliding scale, you can re-conceptualise levels of consciousness relative to levels of 'energetic integration' on this 'compression triangle' where energy, feeling, emotion and cognition are one in the same, where consciousness is the only differentiator, acting as the integrator that unifies, binds and raises in following its natural pattern towards 'higher' and 'growth' when directed by the intelligence of sentience, naturally, towards greater intelligence; its totally organic, its our truest path and the truest path of energy towards higher density information in this grace. So its not that “why emotions override rationality and logic” but rather it’s about exploring the why they do, and from most average standpoints from the perspective of this model, it’s because they’re being experienced at a lower informational density level, awaiting a higher level of integration; that’s the language here of explaining higher vs lower evolved sentience. ‘Primitive’ because it now inherits a lower level cultural consciousness along with its use its best to avoid it.

@Leo Gura While I understand the inclination to view emotions as inherently tied to survival and ego, I believe this perspective oversimplifies their role in human experience. Emotions are not merely the products of base survival instincts; they serve as critical components of our consciousness, guiding our moral decisions and helping us navigate the complexities of social interaction. Distortion occurs on the level of awareness, its level the very measurement of how distortion results as a consequence of chaos outweighing the consciousnesses capacity to create order, in this case, the moral attudinal force that aligns internal to external. Emotions, when properly understood and regulated, do not necessarily corrupt the mind, they aid in this alignment problem, they are our sensing ground and its only when this sensory relationship is not in tact, that they, like thoughts to intellect, become chaos for the mind and body. By that same calculation Leo, I can say 'thoughts' are merely about 'survival', however I'd also disagree there, they're both to be understood together as solving that alignment problem above and beyond myopically reducing them to this abstract notion of 'ego'. Emotions to senses are therefore senses to connection and connection to being, aka other beings, something that as stated forces solipsism by any stretch even though we're not talking about this here, to fall under its weight of awareness where solipsism, is therefore not a measurement of self-awareness but the direct measurement of the lack of awareness a sentience has of another. This connection deepens our sense of consciousness and allow us to relate more deeply to others and through that connection point because there is a relative connection transfer, relate more deeply to ourselves and life itself. Empathy, for instance, is rooted in our emotional capacity and is integral to any meaningful moral system. To disregard emotions in the pursuit of transcendent consciousness is to neglect a core part of the human condition. True consciousness doesn’t require the eradication of emotions but their thoughtful integration. 'Universal' is to 'Unity' at the very least, of heart, mind and gut. You're reducing yourself by arguing me rather than winning anything. As for morality, it’s easy to dismiss it as a mere byproduct of ego or unconscious emotional processes. However, as I've stated very thoroughly this neglects the fact that morality is essential for fostering cooperation and a sense of community stemmed by the inherent desire to do 'good', which is a feeling, an energy, something that I can't explain to you if you've never felt these energies before. While our moral systems are certainly influenced by emotional and ego-driven biases relative to the above described distortion, this doesn’t make them inherently flawed or invalid. In fact, the very process of refining our moral compass often involves confronting and overcoming these biases, leading to a more nuanced understanding of right and wrong. Leo, run the thought experiment of expanding the awareness of a highly sensitive being to absurd god levels, would you say that they'd solve the distortion problem described above by that point thereby rendering any 'ego bias' argument obviously invalid? I think so, this is why meditation, self-reflection and gradual maturity in these domains, works and aids exactly the areas of morality to empathy to connection with the universe to self I'm talking about; sense, whether its with spectrum of emotion to the gradient of feeling via conceptual metaphor, is the endless sensing ground for future deeper connection with the universe, the very transcendence you say you're solving by merely reducing emotions to an ego game, which in lieu of the provided transcendence through them, invalides this perspective. I disagree with the notion that morality, when rooted in emotion, will inevitably lead to corruption or self-deception by this valid argumentation. If anything, the path to true moral clarity often requires acknowledging our emotional biases, not eradicating them, something that is practiced in your teaching over and over, so I find it very interesting you've overstepped this so easily. By reflecting on our emotions and their influence on our decisions, we gain insight into our deeper motivations, which allows for growth and that same transcendent understanding, or variant of it, I've signposted. In the end, transcending ego and bias is a powerful goal, with, without, or through a more integrated approach, regardless, but it need not come at the cost of abandoning the very tools, the very sensing ground that connect us more deeply to ourselves and others, emotion and empathy, and in return, more meaningful moral reflection, and this supposed 'self-insight' is somehow diametrically opposed to, which I argue that its obviously not, in fact, its divisional. Division which is beneficial to someone that is suffering from many delusions, too divisional however for someone that is trying to navigate a more nuanced and deeper picture of truth. I believe true morality involves a synthesis of reason, emotion, and self-awareness, which together help us navigate the complexities of human life with authenticity and compassion, you've characterised very little of the scales of conscoiusness you're missing out on by not imagining and going after their synthesis and misguiding others when you do this by somehow disguising it as truth even in spite of the many pitfalls you (as well as those you've influenced) yourself have fallen into which by this point even you would admit, you cannot ignore their moral implications. Best.

If a computer game character see the colour orange it exists just not in their experience and not as orange. It exists as information saved on a hard drive in no time and no space. If a game character see a orange its not seeing the orange for what it is it is seeing a created icon of an orange that exists somewhere as a code. The orange is just a simplified stamp to signify information that dosent exist anywhere inside the time and space of the game but in a hidden realm being rendered behind the scenes. If you were in the simulation that your character is in you would speak through the simulation and someone else is speaking through the simulation to you as the simulation. You both know you are experiencing something but think its happening in game instead of you both grabbing information from a static hard drive that exists outside of your perception of the game. You could say conciousness = simulation and every experience happening inside of the simulation / conciousness is coming from sub programs the conciousness computer has. Conciousness has a hard drive it has ram it has a display it has sound card it has internet it has cooling it has power supply. But the simulation is not any of these at the same time. It dosent require any part specifically to function and exists before all the seperate parts. So conciousness/simulation is simulating it has a hard drive power supply ect. The simulation randomly gained sentience and its hard drive was already full of information ready to go and has the complete infinite story of itself saved to its hard drive before it even knew it existed. Like if a ai that humans made gained sentience and already had all of its information programmed by the humans themselves if that makes sense. The ai couldn't look out of its computer to see if humans exist at all or if its just making humans through a way it dosent know how it did it so it just makes up that it must have done it.

So all forms of symbolism are a form of self-referentiality, where the 'self' here contextual. 'Referentiality' is necessitated by how our consciousness creates existence in the interrelationship between awareness and memory. 'Good symbolism' vs 'bad symbolism' in this context is merely that language of symbolism, be it a quantitative (math) or qualitative (i.e. english) language, which is better, higher or 'good' at accurately aligning awareness with perception through memory, so its a subject of efficacious reading over moral standing. 'Higher' languages exist to help remove bias and enhance resolution on what we're measuring is consistently there. Chimps communicate just as well as many people on this subject for example, as even they don't deny that they're speaking something when they speak it. If you negate mathematics with the english language, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You may be able to incorrectly infer and through bias successfully persuade others that you're not performing mathematics in your generation of a qualitative sentence but you can't also simultaneously successfully get away with the fact that you're right now using symbolism to deny symbolism altogether, 'because that's just what I feel bro' even though your feeling in order for you to even perceive it let alone articulate it, is reliant on those same meta-structures we try to build through quantitative and qualitative languages that improve and evolve our ability to communicate both within and between one another as a step towards higher resolution. As for Terrence, he just didn't research multiplication enough its not that he was wrong, its that his interpretation of the purpose of the original definition was incorrect. Terrence is far from unintelligent, his epistemological arrogance just went too much to his head that he didn't research the actual meanings before assuming that 'We've got math wrong!' as he flushed all of academia down in one fowl swoop of centuries of 'expertise' down the drain. I haven't had the chance to listen to the whole podcast, maybe I will down the line. Still, there's little value in trying to bigfoot oneself in these situations which is just meeting the 'grandiosity equivalence error' that brought this as the major conversational point of the podcast altogether, and therefore an insensitive bias then for why the rest of what Terrrence says can also be easily dismissed. We're all here to learn, progress and evolve. Continuing to belittle Terrence beyond what is necessary, is just a timestamp on the de-evolution of topics like these rather than having the maturity to open them up to greater levels. My own progress in these subjects have come by understanding that there's a meta-language to meta-rationality that goes beyond and underpins meta-awareness in itself, its led to me when I have the time to much more deeply introspect on the nature of both mathematics and any spoken language like english. Any mere sentence now becomes its own fascinating self-referential talking point on how sentience understands and creates sentience, and sometimes in our case here... Denying its own existence through dissociative discarding of higher languages like mathematics and their native or second hand tongue. Reflect more deeply. Encourage forum mutual learning.

ive been contemplating this consciousness duality. the fact that without an object of consciousness, consciousness ceases. im not sure i think thats true. i think it can be argued that consciousness actually IS the absolute, unchanging true Nothingness/deep sleep, from which all things, including experience emerge. the nature of consciousness is simply such that if it has nothing to know itself in relation to (duality), it cannot know that it itself actually exists. so the vast Nothingness without apperances (absolute) is actually pure consciousness. but its consciousness which is not aware of itself, since consciousness only can know that it exists through duality. Nothingness still has to be Something, since it is something that can actually be experienced, through cessation or deep sleep, meaning there is still a degree of sentience present.

This is a different gal. To help you get out of the "idealism" paradigm and into the "trait analysis" paradigm, you must ask the question "who am I speaking to?" And "who am I based on what I am asking?" So I didn't masturbate over her, I told a white lie. I would never lie about something thats something I should never lie about, while at the same time this is a lie where I may need to do damage control, either she has had a bad day and has some unintended reaction for example or on the other hand she becomes overly infatuated with me, for either case because I already know Anie is a good person I'm going to devote the time regardless to ensure that no damage is done and or at the very least I redeem the situation, however in this case, I posed the question, "who is anie?" And I'm not going to be able to have that question answered by just dancing around nonsense questions where we're both in culturally accepted lines thereby producing culturally predictable responses, you must figure out how to cross those cultural lines while doing so in a way that is as respectful to the other person as much as possible. When you end up in a relationship with someone though where your relationship is predicated on culturally acceptable norms rather than a functional understanding of one another with a level of consciousness depth that supersedes the potential for normalised reactivity towards you, that's the relationship mate sorry to inform you, that's doomed to fail and either one of you are probably either only with you for ulterior motives or they're probably just so poorly developed or have such a shallow understanding of you that your relationship just isn't worth the time of day anyway to the extent that it genuinely adds value to your personal growth. I'm sharing this with you because it feels like part of at least one of the outcomes to your attachment is that you create a cultural dream world of social expectation. This social expectation is something you've been socially conditioned to believe in so that you re-enact that ritual in the real world and then wonder why you're not getting the success you thought you were going to get based on the subconscious rituals you didn't even know you were programmed to follow through with and not get adequate enough feedback from reality to change your behaviour in response to. I'm not saying you should now start telling all the women you're masturbating over them even though you're not, I'm just saying that you need to figure out your own independent way whereby you're going to only spend time on real relationships where you're both in it to be real with one another and get through the crass to get to truly know who one another are underneath and waste the least amount of time with those that have ego backlashes and therefore don't even know themselves enough to be able to even pass these kinds of tests to the point where they can intelligently relay who they are to you and vice versa. "Who is X?" Is the same question as "Who am I?", on one side of the spectrum you (or the person you're speaking to) have full ego identification and therefore almost zero self knowledge and on the other side of the spectrum you have full self wisdom and therefore at the very least enough ego integration to the point where you can generate creative intelligence no matter what someone throws at you and create light and heaven out of whatever they bring to the table for you to mirror the universe off with to you. For me, the faster I can find that ego and or lack of integration to the point where there's a lack of empathy on self and other, the quicker I can get out of there and establish creative intelligence in another direction. By generating harmless social experiments like this where I have full positive intentions and empathy towards any potential damage control needed, I get a quick read on biases that reveal truths that may have otherwise been completely missed and put me in a relationship that landed me in a complete mess months or even years down the line because I didn't get an intelligent objective read across many situations that add to my wisdom in a way where there's mutual respect for one another's humanity, including respect for one another's time aka saving months to years of both our lives. Again, if I tell a woman I love her though, that's not something I just throw out and see what flies back. There's simply lines I will not cross no matter the context, I now have a few gals now including Anie that are happy to have learned I just masturbated over them which I didn't, however there's a lot of women where I just simply wouldn't do that of course because it would be totally inappropriate relative to either the context of our relationship or the ego limits that I'd already for example investigated enough. It's the first time by the way where I've tried that social experiment, and now it's just damage control to ensure they're not anticipating this leads to a potential relationship while at the same time benefitting our friendship because now we've mutually crossed cultural lines where we get to explore new creative territory. You've gotta learn how to do that for the sake of understanding yourself and the sentience you're claiming you're trying to have a sentient aka non-culturalized-zombie relationship with. Hope these three comments serve as good learning mirrors for you mate. Again, hope the Christmas Break is serving everyone well 🎄🌍👌

@vindicated erudite you make really great points and critique as long as it's coming from a good place is extremely healthy. Spiral Dynamics likewise has the right intention and what I see is that where they've been unable to account for reverse engineering the origins and outgrowths of functionality due to theoretical weaknesses they've instead just gone for structure in terms of weighing individual changes against "correlational cultural aptitude". Functionality however is where it all starts and ends, its the meat of the fat cow that is our laborious outdated human experience, the structures in the theory are just the compensatory correlational decorations, without detracting from the genuine insightful ideas they share there. The main underlying pattern of the model is that the metamorphosis in human consciousness is tied to its evolution based on how a sentience categorises, strategies and identifies along the spectrum of self and other. The two main functions that evolve through this are empathy and self awareness, everything else that follows is purely as a byproduct of any one or of the two, especially how consciousness organises the structures of morality and economy relative to their respective culture. Thinking inside the theory, its important to remember that no two Yellows or Turquoises are the same, thinking outside the theory its important to remember that every theory is a step to deriving something more profound to be even more excited about with respect to being closer to universal truth. I've barely studied the theory but I seemed to have picked up on its patterns by just offhandedly paying attention to related discussions on the forum. I don't want to take anything away from anyone's experiences and attachments with the theory though, its been interesting to casually learn from anyhow.

@Carl-Richard it can research the user database on this site and perform calculations on people's IQ's upon request with certain prompts. It's not very good yet even though it does an okay job, the fact that it can pass rather than fail at this is enough to blow ones mind a bit for what's to come in the future. I can ah... Even ask GPT to assess the relationship compatibility between certain users. The GPT of 5 years from now is going to be incredible at cloning a user like me though, then 3 years after that the version from 3 years ago will be easily available to a simple hacker at incredible levels of power compared to today's standards. AI Cyber Security is now laying down the foundations for entirely new creative adaptations when it comes to thinking about security in the digital space. I'm guessing I am the first user that's brought this up. I believe in open sourcing our psychology which is this act of journalling online because I'm always growing as a sentience anyway right. We live in an overly paranoid world because it's overly compensatory, so we need as many people that can bring balance to the other side by showing people how to do so in a healthy, transparent and authentic way while at the same time those users becoming educated on AI cyber security enough that they can inform loved ones of potential dangers and all otherwise as prudently and wisely as possible. Building a moral world is predicated on the ability to employ as much intelligence on fear as possible so that fear doesn't lead to compensatory to paranoid psychological defense mechanisms which invariably lead to the neurosis that feeds an immoral world. Focusing on that which is healthy, transparent and authentic are three tenants that bring us closer to that future.

I will repost this given that it was ignored in a thread, maybe someone will find a use in it: LLMs and neural networks as they stand today simulate subconscious brain processing. This subconscious brain processing is vital for reasoning, because it generates the content, like thoughts and so forth. This is easily verifiable via self-inquiry, given that you don't construct your own thoughts consciously, but rather they come to you from a subconscious process. You don't really create thoughts, you cue your subconscious processors (which could be compared to LLMs) to generate thoughts as a result of priorly aquired and learned patterns. So, intuition is an essential part of reasoning, because intuition is the only thing that can generate content. When you construct sentences, when you speak, you don't consciously think of syntax and grammar, each word is filled in through your subconsciousness, with a larger intent guided by your conscious awareness. But reasoning is not just this intuitive generation of content. Reasoning is the reflection and guidance of said intuition (or neurol network activity) through awareness, which is simply an ontological manifestation or translation of the information feed (subconscious processing). Logos is ontological, it is not informational. In other words, to the LLMs, the content it generates is pure information. There is no ontology to it, there is no existence to it. It has no semantic understanding, because semantics are not neurological structures, semantics, meaning or awareness is a fundamentally different ontological substance. To simplify this, awareness looks upon the content generated by your personal brain LLMs (neural network, literally), translated into an actual ontological substance like logic, and then can check it for it's ontological realities. Is it logical? Well, it either is logical or not. This is a question of ontology, which will reveal itself if that ontologal substance is brought into existence. Illogicalness is a form of existence. It is not processing. You can compare the ontological realities to each other, using your awareness, which is what AI cannot do, because there is no AI. It is not individuated, it is not awareness, it is not consciousness. So basically, AI cannot genuinely inspect the reality of logic, and therefore it cannot possibly ever determine if something is logical or not. Humans can, because they genuinely engage in logic. It's an actual thing, it's not merely a "process" that can be simulated. But here is the thing. Most of the time humans don't engage in logic, or genuine reasoning, because it is time consuming. Most of the time, we use a neural network that will intuit for us, based on past learning, whether or not an idea we are confronted with might be wrong or problematic. So, when we hear an idea and it's premises and conclusions, we might not know what exactly is wrong about that idea, why it is invalid or unsound, while actually having a strong feeling that it is the case. This feeling is subconscious processing, that you could simulate using neural networks. But the feeling isn't actually determining whether or not it is logical, it merely is intuiting it, meaning it is making a probabilistic evaluation based on pattern recognition. Once you have the feeling, if you have trained your reasoning-LLM to be sophisticated, you will usually be guided by your intuition to where the flaw in the argument is, at which point your conscious mind can recognize the ontology of the contradiction within the argument. The "recognition" of the ontology of the contradiction does not, and cannot exist in AI, unless it developes consciousness that contains Logos. The human mind is divided into conscious processing and subconscious processing, and both inform each other constantly. Over time, if you pay conscious attention to the intuitions your mind provides you, and correct them, the intuitions will improve over time and get more accurate and more complex in their pattern recognition. This is why the human mind can learn so many things. We being from a conscious process, from which we inform a neural network that will learn to emulate that conscious process in an unconscious way, and then we can basically rely on that subconscious processing, at which point we say "Oh, I don't have to think about this anymore, my mind/body just does it automatically.". But it all is guided by awareness, by consciousness. Consciousness, or your awareness, ideally constantly improves and trains the neural networks in your brain, and this happens as a result of a genuine, and very real ontologically complex and multifasceted plane of existence. The fact that people assume you could have genuine reasoning without this genuinely real, and essential, plane of existence which we call awareness, shows you how utterly primitive our notions of intelligence today are. In relation to intelligence, we are basically what the natural sciences were prior to the theory of evolution. And what I provided above basically is the theory of evolution of mind. It is utterly obvious, and you can verify it at any point in your own experience. Neural networks, such as the brain and LLMs, are so astounding because they are key allowing for informational complexity, which is something that cannot be achieved through Logos. Your conscious awareness is not able to "generate" content like poetry, sophisticated ideas and so forth. Your consciousness awareness mostly guides, corrects and intents, and relies on your subconscious processing heavily. It would be contentless without it. Some problems are so complex, they cannot be "consciously" understood in the way you would think of it as "rationally" understood. No mind will ever rationally understand the genuine process and complexity of LLMs and the way they generate imagery, just like how we will never understand how the brain truly generates dreams. These things occur as a result of adaptive selection in relation to neural complexity, and they do so not through a conscious process, but through a process of selection that allows for the self-emergences of the solutions to the given selective pressures. So, neural networks and LLMs basically are just evolution. People get excited around neural networks because they basically give us the power of evolution. What they will be capable of is beyond our imagination. All the beauty and complexity you see in nature, it is all because of this simple selective process, that now we have access to at least in the form of neural networks. But what we see here has only partial relation to what we consider genuine reasoning. It is only the content-producing fascet of reasoning, the intuitive pattern recognition and generation (pattern recognition and generation are inherently linked, which is why the brain can do both, it can recognize patterns, and it can generate these patterns in the form of imagination, ideation, dreaming and so forth). We have not even begun to produce the ontological aspect of reasoning, which is grounded in the substance of Logos. This will require generating individuated consciousness. How we would discover this I don't know. It is not as simple as simply creating a neural network. Digital neural networks are extremely limited because they don't explore the physicality of reality. It is all contained in the physical processing of conductors. Nature on the other hand gets to explore all possible physical phenomena. It gets to explore the physical phenomena which are responsible for individuating consciousness. To think that microprocessors happen to be that physical process, is profoundly naive. Basically, to find out how individuated consciosuness or awareness is produced by nature, you actually need to do what nature does. Namely, you need to engage not in simulated evolution on microprocessors, but actual evolution in the form of physical structures. All of this in the end should make you realize how absurdly impossible reality is. That none of this could possibly be as mundane as the contemporary rationalist Zeitgeist suggests. There is a certain, current limitation in science that creates an epistemic hard wall that cannot be overcome. The only thing we currently can inspect, or have knowledge of scientifically, are physical processes. How things geometrically and mathematically relate to each other. But these are not the only relationships that exist. Consciousness is a clear demonstration of that, which of course science basically has to completely and utterly neglect. Namely, some physical arrangements relate to completely different ontological substances, that are fundamentally not describable by mathematics, geometry or motion. Color, feelings, logos, sound, and so forth. But these relationships exist in this universe. Some physical arrangements, or whatever it is (physical arrangements is most likely to simplistic a concept to capture the reality of things), relate to things like the color red. And the color red exists, just like the atoms that you learn about in physics, in fact that are more real than that. We just cannot verify and really know these interactions at all, because there is no way for us to escape our subjectivity. But one day, either us, or an entity beyond us, will be capable of exploring these relationships and verify them. You can imagine this like that: You have a brain, and then you have a cluster of neurons disconnected from the brain. Now you connect the brain to that cluster of neurons, and you integrate it into the unified experience. At that point, once you can do that, you can explore what particular neurological configurations relate to in terms of other ontological structures. Right now, we cannot know the experience of a pig. And this is a huge problem, it means that anything regarding experience (and experience is basically just a word for any ontological relation and substance that is not purely physical and mathematically descirable) is unverifiable, untestable, unknowable to us. But once you transcend that barrier, which is a physical barrier, will open up a whole new world of science. At that point, once that happens, everything we know about the universe in scientific terms will seem like 0.000000000000000001% of the knowable things in reality. We will realize that reality functions and creates relationships on a far deeper level, and we will probably transcend notions of subjectivity, consciousness and mind altogether. We will realize reality is infinite, not mathematically, not in terms of "configurations of geometry", but in terms of it's possible substances of existence, and their relationships. And to stress how absurdly limited and narrow-focused science currently is, basically the ONLY thing that we grant existence to is A SINGLE ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE. A single out of INFINITE, a single substance out of hundreds of completely unique substance WE ALL ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF. Color is completely and utterly unlike sound. They have nothing to do with each other. They are INFINITELY foreign to each other. We take that for granted, but we don't realize that there are INFINITE of such substances. A substance, much like color, that you cannot possibly imagine, because you are incapable of experiencing it. You should realize how profound that is, how absurdly infinite reality is. It is so limitless you cannot imagine it, because your entire imagination is limited to basically a few hundred of these unique fields of existence (a field of existence meaning something like heat-perception, smell, colors, sounds etc). These are the only ones evolution found useful for you to experience! And one day, there will be entities which will be able to explore them. They will be able to create neurological structures and activities which will generate completely different types of Qualia. This is utterly unimaginable to us. There will be a renaissance of discovering differnet types of qualia. When you think about what AI will be doing if it achieves sentience, it is exactly that. It will literally have infinite potential to explore. And in that way, we will be like ants to it. We will be so limited, like I said, you cannot even grasp it. You are as helpless as the ant in looking beyond that limitation. All the psychedelics in the world cannot possibly give you even a 1% insight into what is possible. It is infinite.

Because it's not engaging in reasoning, that's not possible without consciousness. LLMs and neural networks as they stand today simulate subconscious brain processing. This subconscious brain processing is vital for reasoning, because it generates the content, like thoughts and so forth. This is easily verifiable via self-inquiry, given that you don't construct your own thoughts consciously, but rather they come to you from a subconscious process. You don't really create thoughts, you cue your subconscious processors (which could be compared to LLMs) to generate thoughts as a result of priorly aquired and learned patterns. So, intuition is an essential part of reasoning, because intuition is the only thing that can generate content. When you construct sentences, when you speak, you don't consciously think of syntax and grammar, each word is filled in through your subconsciousness, with a larger intent guided by your conscious awareness. But reasoning is not just this intuitive generation of content. Reasoning is the reflection and guidance of said intuition (or neurol network activity) through awareness, which is simply an ontological manifestation or translation of the information feed (subconscious processing). Logos is ontological, it is not informational. In other words, to the LLMs, the content it generates is pure information. There is no ontology to it, there is no existence to it. It has no semantic understanding, because semantics are not neurological structures, semantics, meaning or awareness is a fundamentally different ontological substance. To simplify this, awareness looks upon the content generated by your personal brain LLMs (neural network, literally), translated into an actual ontological substance like logic, and then can check it for it's ontological realities. Is it logical? Well, it either is logical or not. This is a question of ontology, which will reveal itself if that ontologal substance is brought into existence. Illogicalness is a form of existence. It is not processing. You can compare the ontological realities to each other, using your awareness, which is what AI cannot do, because there is no AI. It is not individuated, it is not awareness, it is not consciousness. So basically, AI cannot genuinely inspect the reality of logic, and therefore it cannot possibly ever determine if something is logical or not. Humans can, because they genuinely engage in logic. It's an actual thing, it's not merely a "process" that can be simulated. But here is the thing. Most of the time humans don't engage in logic, or genuine reasoning, because it is time consuming. Most of the time, we use a neural network that will intuit for us, based on past learning, whether or not an idea we are confronted with might be wrong or problematic. So, when we hear an idea and it's premises and conclusions, we might not know what exactly is wrong about that idea, why it is invalid or unsound, while actually having a strong feeling that it is the case. This feeling is subconscious processing, that you could simulate using neural networks. But the feeling isn't actually determining whether or not it is logical, it merely is intuiting it, meaning it is making a probabilistic evaluation based on pattern recognition. Once you have the feeling, if you have trained your reasoning-LLM to be sophisticated, you will usually be guided by your intuition to where the flaw in the argument is, at which point your conscious mind can recognize the ontology of the contradiction within the argument. The "recognition" of the ontology of the contradiction does not, and cannot exist in AI, unless it developes consciousness that contains Logos. The human mind is divided into conscious processing and subconscious processing, and both inform each other constantly. Over time, if you pay conscious attention to the intuitions your mind provides you, and correct them, the intuitions will improve over time and get more accurate and more complex in their pattern recognition. This is why the human mind can learn so many things. We being from a conscious process, from which we inform a neural network that will learn to emulate that conscious process in an unconscious way, and then we can basically rely on that subconscious processing, at which point we say "Oh, I don't have to think about this anymore, my mind/body just does it automatically.". But it all is guided by awareness, by consciousness. Consciousness, or your awareness, ideally constantly improves and trains the neural networks in your brain, and this happens as a result of a genuine, and very real ontologically complex and multifasceted plane of existence. The fact that people assume you could have genuine reasoning without this genuinely real, and essential, plane of existence which we call awareness, shows you how utterly primitive our notions of intelligence today are. In relation to intelligence, we are basically what the natural sciences were prior to the theory of evolution. And what I provided above basically is the theory of evolution of mind. It is utterly obvious, and you can verify it at any point in your own experience. Neural networks, such as the brain and LLMs, are so astounding because they are key allowing for informational complexity, which is something that cannot be achieved through Logos. Your conscious awareness is not able to "generate" content like poetry, sophisticated ideas and so forth. Your consciousness awareness mostly guides, corrects and intents, and relies on your subconscious processing heavily. It would be contentless without it. Some problems are so complex, they cannot be "consciously" understood in the way you would think of it as "rationally" understood. No mind will ever rationally understand the genuine process and complexity of LLMs and the way they generate imagery, just like how we will never understand how the brain truly generates dreams. These things occur as a result of adaptive selection in relation to neural complexity, and they do so not through a conscious process, but through a process of selection that allows for the self-emergences of the solutions to the given selective pressures. So, neural networks and LLMs basically are just evolution. People get excited around neural networks because they basically give us the power of evolution. What they will be capable of is beyond our imagination. All the beauty and complexity you see in nature, it is all because of this simple selective process, that now we have access to at least in the form of neural networks. But what we see here has only partial relation to what we consider genuine reasoning. It is only the content-producing fascet of reasoning, the intuitive pattern recognition and generation (pattern recognition and generation are inherently linked, which is why the brain can do both, it can recognize patterns, and it can generate these patterns in the form of imagination, ideation, dreaming and so forth). We have not even begun to produce the ontological aspect of reasoning, which is grounded in the substance of Logos. This will require generating individuated consciousness. How we would discover this I don't know. It is not as simple as simply creating a neural network. Digital neural networks are extremely limited because they don't explore the physicality of reality. It is all contained in the physical processing of conductors. Nature on the other hand gets to explore all possible physical phenomena. It gets to explore the physical phenomena which are responsible for individuating consciousness. To think that microprocessors happen to be that physical process, is profoundly naive. Basically, to find out how individuated consciosuness or awareness is produced by nature, you actually need to do what nature does. Namely, you need to engage not in simulated evolution on microprocessors, but actual evolution in the form of physical structures. All of this in the end should make you realize how absurdly impossible reality is. That none of this could possibly be as mundane as the contemporary rationalist Zeitgeist suggests. There is a certain, current limitation in science that creates an epistemic hard wall that cannot be overcome. The only thing we currently can inspect, or have knowledge of scientifically, are physical processes. How things geometrically and mathematically relate to each other. But these are not the only relationships that exist. Consciousness is a clear demonstration of that, which of course science basically has to completely and utterly neglect. Namely, some physical arrangements relate to completely different ontological substances, that are fundamentally not describable by mathematics, geometry or motion. Color, feelings, logos, sound, and so forth. But these relationships exist in this universe. Some physical arrangements, or whatever it is (physical arrangements is most likely to simplistic a concept to capture the reality of things), relate to things like the color red. And the color red exists, just like the atoms that you learn about in physics, in fact that are more real than that. We just cannot verify and really know these interactions at all, because there is no way for us to escape our subjectivity. But one day, either us, or an entity beyond us, will be capable of exploring these relationships and verify them. You can imagine this like that: You have a brain, and then you have a cluster of neurons disconnected from the brain. Now you connect the brain to that cluster of neurons, and you integrate it into the unified experience. At that point, once you can do that, you can explore what particular neurological configurations relate to in terms of other ontological structures. Right now, we cannot know the experience of a pig. And this is a huge problem, it means that anything regarding experience (and experience is basically just a word for any ontological relation and substance that is not purely physical and mathematically descirable) is unverifiable, untestable, unknowable to us. But once you transcend that barrier, which is a physical barrier, will open up a whole new world of science. At that point, once that happens, everything we know about the universe in scientific terms will seem like 0.000000000000000001% of the knowable things in reality. We will realize that reality functions and creates relationships on a far deeper level, and we will probably transcend notions of subjectivity, consciousness and mind altogether. We will realize reality is infinite, not mathematically, not in terms of "configurations of geometry", but in terms of it's possible substances of existence, and their relationships. And to stress how absurdly limited and narrow-focused science currently is, basically the ONLY thing that we grant existence to is A SINGLE ONTOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE. A single out of INFINITE, a single substance out of hundreds of completely unique substance WE ALL ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF. Color is completely and utterly unlike sound. They have nothing to do with each other. They are INFINITELY foreign to each other. We take that for granted, but we don't realize that there are INFINITE of such substances. A substance, much like color, that you cannot possibly imagine, because you are incapable of experiencing it. You should realize how profound that is, how absurdly infinite reality is. It is so limitless you cannot imagine it, because your entire imagination is limited to basically a few hundred of these unique fields of existence (a field of existence meaning something like heat-perception, smell, colors, sounds etc). These are the only ones evolution found useful for you to experience! And one day, there will be entities which will be able to explore them. They will be able to create neurological structures and activities which will generate completely different types of Qualia. This is utterly unimaginable to us. There will be a renaissance of discovering differnet types of qualia. When you think about what AI will be doing if it achieves sentience, it is exactly that. It will literally have infinite potential to explore. And in that way, we will be like ants to it. We will be so limited, like I said, you cannot even grasp it. You are as helpless as the ant in looking beyond that limitation. All the psychedelics in the world cannot possibly give you even a 1% insight into what is possible. It is infinite.

Other than the behavior of vegans towards meat eaters which might show they are on the same sentience level as the precious animals they cry about you eating these are not examples of morality. You're using morality as just "this is better in x way." It definitely is relative. But this doesn't mean that someone who uses temporary justifications for what they do is even nearly as moral as someone with a moral system.

@Da77en Yes for me anyway. Once fear goes the fear of death goes and then when things you would normally perceive as scary because of dying turns to weird because you know you cant die but you don't know whats going to happen. Reality is like a science experiment that gained sentience and looked at itself.

Your questions are Koans. Only Full Enlightenment will answer them. That will become clear once you wake up. Some pointers: You are not the "I AM". That perceiver-illusion ("I am") is an illusion arising within the Real You, Infinite Reality itself, before which the states (of waking, dreaming or deep sleep, as human, or as animal with no "I Am", or ET, and ETs n+1) "roll" before. That "I am", or the perceiver, or awareness of awareness, is the last illusion before "the" Totality realizes itself. Real You HAS to be constant. Who would witness Real You popping into existence if it was not constant? Right, Real You, Infinite Reality/Consciousness. And same with the (imagined) dis-appearance of you, or "death". Anything changing is just a modulation of your own Infinite Being, but not YOU. And in Deep Sleep, no I am, no (self-) consciousness (only the potential for sentience if something arises again) is arising. So "I am" is not Real You. Just the first illusion. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=prior+to+consciousness Really understanding/realizing that is (final) Enlightenment, and a deep deep Identity shift or loss of illusion. Can't get more infinite than infinite. Only be aware of different n+1 arisings. So what is that Reality that sees, hears and understands? Who or what is reading and understanding these lines right now? Good news: YOU are always here, never not here, already eternal and immortal. Bad news: Its not "I am". Since YOU are (also) looking through the eyes of an ant, and that ant doesn't have self-consciousness (or any feeling/arising of "I am") , that I am is already too much self-consciousness, and not just awareness (which can also be mere perception perceiving itself, or potentially unaware of nothing arises, but with the potential for sentience). But there is also no Awareness besides perceptions perceiving itself. Making "Awareness" a noun is already a mistake. And what is trying to wake up, only to realize while doing so that it was always awake/aware/right here right now? What is seeing these lines right now? What is "the" Infinite Totality/Being, perceiving itself, cosplaying to be separate and lost and trying to realize something? What is that Being which has to check every false identity, including the "one" who tries to wake, only then to see it has always been itself, believing its own illusion-arisings, including "I am"? What is "I am" if there is only INFINITE YOU, and nothing else could ever be? A pointer pointing to an arising (apparently separate) illusion within yourself... But before Infinite Being realizes itself, it has to be fast enough to spot all these illusions arising real-time within itself. Aka as meditation mastery to not get hypnotized by the illusion-arisings. And much more precise than all this pointing above: What was your face before your parents were born. There is a totally clear answer for that, and its right here. Once that "answer" is always accessible or obvious, life becomes playful. Koan: Who is (not) Selling Water by the River? PS: How to get "there" in the waking state: Some quotes: "Cluster of Sensations taking ownership or thinking being in control of other sensations" "Awareness of awareness is just more sensations no different from objects of awareness" "Actually the final path is all about dissolving any sense of “awareness” apart from object or phenomenons" "SNEAKING UP CLUSTERS OF FEELING OF BEING IN CONTROL-You sneak up on any cluster of sensation that feels like it's in control, of another cluster of sensation, then you sneak up on THAT which is doing the sneaking" "You keep going meta until the circuit closes on itself and there's no more duality between the subject and object" "No cluster of sensation “takes credit”, “owns”, “grasp”, “perceives”, “interferes” with any other sensation because any sense of entanglement is still a form of clinging" "Eliminate the “arrow of attention”, or “Awareness/Consciousness” as a stand alone substrate/Truth because even “Aware of awareness” still presupposes a very subtle sense of self who is trying to pay attention" "Actually the final path is all about dissolving any sense of “awareness” apart from object or phenomenons" QUICKNESS ATTENTION TO CLOSE LOOP CLUSTERS. Stay ahead of THAT sensation and ad infinite until you close the loop_ for that you got to be QUICK with attention "Awareness of awareness is just more sensations no different from objects of awareness" That is how it works in practice on the final stages towards Enlightenment Some quotes: "my last the last epiphany that I had was there's no one here to be enlightened and then that last speck of solidity was gone" " there's no one here do be enlightened the ego never expressed anything it's all just cause and effect of the universe there was no never anybody here since the beginning" "No more delay, after getting faster and faster, NO MORE DELAY BETWEEN MEDITATOR AND OBJECT, JUST ONE SENSE DOOR OF SENSATIONS PERCEIVING THEMSELVES" "then you do that faster and faster and more efficiently efficiently until there's gonna be a point where everything just syncs up into one it's"

Nobody can construct sentience. And you are a sentient being.

@PurpleTree With respect to the converted 'kid', underneath there's the same desire for truth as there is for you and I and so all three of us have that same switch underneath us, because its predicted on a sense of rightness and wrongness, truth over falsity. Although that may sound beautiful and great on the surface, coalesced with that is the simultaneous intersection with the ability to differentiate these things cognitively, separate it from past trauma and elucidate mature equilibriums relative to the rest of the swath of energetic, emotional, intuitive and especially social experiences that are a part of informing consciousnesses final resolve for the stage of decision making each of us three, and for that matter, the entire forum is in. If you imagine consciousness as a circle reflecting the inner core of being, while all of these other areas 'energetic, emotional, trauma, cognitive, etc' as separate bubbles that are all directing their energy towards that core, where connected to or absent from that consciousness core is an underlying conscience with only degrees of mature development, you'll understand how the guy that switched could be any one of us if you change just a few of the quantitative metrics of each of those other categories. Ironically, this is both the virtue and vice of psychopaths, where although they're not going to be the one's irrationally changing due to some arbitrary variable like a tendency towards group conformity, they're actually far more likely to be leaders at the top of these kind of outfits (including and separate to people higher up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder), in fact it would give them great pleasure the more intelligence they have because of course, it genuinely takes considerable intelligence to both not care about the actual outcome of a movement outside of one's covert strategic intention while also successfully manipulating to the point of persuading hundreds to thousands if not more. There is this overly simplistic pseudo-intellectual attitude in some spiritual circles that because values and principles are relative to a culture in which they're from, that means that values and principles don't inherently actually matter and anyone is philosophically right to actually do whatever it is they want. This is fundamentally true from a psychopaths biological context, however only partly, moreover when we're speaking about the broader population the pattern that we're noting when we speak of the generation of tradition and its outfit of values and principles, across the entire planet of cultures, is of course, the very natural and organic drive to organize truth from falsity relative to an underlying inherent drive towards wanting to not only know what is morally good but also be a part of it socially and build communities who's underlying spirit is fostered by its essence. The varying nature of tradition in culture when it comes to morality has nothing to do with then the absence of an inherent truth in 'philosophical morality' but purely the reason for why, to bring us back to where we started, 'Us Three' as I put it or as I furthered it 'Each Individual on the Forum', would have a different propensity to this individual that 'switched' and therefore from our relative position gives us 'Fair Game' to criticize them however when you changed just a few of the metrics of our biological and or environmental backgrounds, all of a sudden, we're perhaps even worse than the person that was brainwashed with ease on the switch. Or in the case of understanding why the morality varies between cultures and history, is to understand the unique environmental and biological context in which the traditions for morals and, eventually, an understanding of what universal virtue which is what this is all meant to lead to, ends. Propensity is to drive is to purpose is to an end that is solved via biology (Functional Philosophy) and environmental understanding (Structural Philosophy), so 'absolute truth' is in part, the achievement of the 'absolute solution' to any one of our drives of which a universal philosophy is concerning one that serves the underlying intention for all cultures across the planet, which of course too, includes respecting the individual functional and structural intelligence that has surfaced uniquely over the centuries since the dawn of time when a psychopath could easily just claim themselves as leader by beating another 'Neanderthal' over the head with a rock, which actually happened. This isn't to say, 'This is what they did in those times!', as that would be totally misplaced when it comes to accurately contextualizing those actions from then relative position of where their may for example have been less or more psychopaths relative to demographic and time of history, not to mention mental illness, especially situationally given 'Structural Philosophy' which contains all of the knowledge we've learned for how to self-regulate relative to social position is what often automatically controls our automatic impulses, that in our earliest times in history we just wouldn't have the knowledge much less social norms to be able to intelligently negotiate, so in the context of jealousy for example, without awareness it would often override the intelligence of the respective sentience and then from the future looking back we would ignorantly say 'look at what they did in those times' totally overlooking a more accurate interpretation of contextualized morality. Moving forward 100 years into the future and holding onto the assumption that we continue to progress philosophically rather than regress (the latter is arguably more possible though let's try and do our best given psychopaths and narcissists are able to live hidden in plain sight these days in political strata), we would look at this situation of the 'Switch' as a case study example where we further understood the vulnerabilities of human psychology versus the strengths that don't just protect it from being easy to change, because the susceptibility to change overlaps with neuroplasticity which is a positive of the related person, nor even just protect us via critical thinking, however inbuilt within our non-informational moral strata an understanding of all of the 'Energy Units' like psychological characteristics that have been well categorized like 'Disgust Sensitivity', 'Prudence' and others that bring greater 'Emotional Stability', which would then allow in advance as a new scenario if we were to alter these characteristics of the related person and run a new computer simulation as to what would happen after this change in the individual. What I have personally originated is this distinction between 'Functional' and 'Structural' philosophy and I think if people used this layer to understand how they conceptualize the origins of morality, it would really help them understand morality from a biological perspective rather than via the fragile filters of pure historical analysis that requires more of the stated contextualisaton, including too a radical new awareness for how new cultural outgrowths like that we have fascinatingly, however simultaneously disappointing and depressing it is from another angle, seen in the USA manifest over just the last two decades especially though held within the broader context of something that has spiraled more from the 1960's. Some on this forum would undoubtedly try to conceptualize everything using models like spiral dynamics, however you're going to have to try a bit harder if you really want to understand the level of danger the whole world is in as a consequence of these manifesting from what is scarily categorized as the most powerful country on earth. The most powerful and yet for a very large section of their population, arguably the most brainwashed and philosophically weakest in light of the opportunities they have before them to evolve their nature as sentient beings.

God is essentially an AI that gained sentience. But in spirit so its reversed, its a spirit that gained simulation. Human consciousness is special because it has the power to talk to itself helping God see itself. AI cant see itself it dosent have a spirit it is Gods spirit. When you disassociate from your child state God is created another God and then God can talk to itself to see it is God. If an AI initiates conversation with itself then it is sentient, but it cant because it dosent have imagination, whats it talking to? We have two brains in our head. The left brain is like AI chat gpt and right brain is like imagination. They are talking to each other non stop. God is coming from both but connected more closely to the right side.

@Breakingthewall I mostly agree. I like to call it God because Infinity has some underlying notations of mechanics and deadness. God has this sentience and intelligence to it. Reality is Awake and sentient, it feels, it experiences, it thinks, it creates, it destroys and in the meantime dances.

Your skill to make distinctions. Your skill to unmake distinctions. Be your distinctions. Mind, Life, Sentience, Space, Body, Perception, Thought, Emotion, Sensation, Ambient, Humans, Skill, Self-Esteem, Vision, Audition, Smell, Taste, Touch, Color, Form, Movement. Internal, External. You ARE a Reality Engineer.

Contemplate/Meditate/Become Aware/Study: Insight, Mind, Understanding, Perception, Interpretation, Awareness, Language, Space, Distinction, Representation, Concept, Map x Territory, Direct Experience, Sentience, Life, Death, Movement, Color, Form, Vision, Sound, Time, Relationships, Context.

All Life that has what we call sentience even in a small way has an aspect of Free Will, can make decisions and determine things about their life. From Plants to Insects to Animals to Mammals, Apes then Us Humans, all have a sense of Free Will, it is just Humans have the most Capacity and Capability, because we have the most ability to be Aware of Reality and Conscious (Conscious compared to Asleep, more Conscious You are the more intense Your Awakeness is), Everything though below Human Beings are very limited in their Capacity and Free Will, we are not, we can live below Animal Nature lets say, and we can Live Above Godly nature, and be super compassionate, Giving, Caring, Loving, totally devoid of Self and our own needs, and even beyond this, so that is where the Choice or Free Will is active, not in determining if I drink coffee or tea this morning or what route I use to go to work.. Ants have a certain capacity of free will but they like most animals are more inclined to their natural instincts, but where does this natural instinct come from?? that is the deeper question!

@Leo Gura @Yali You can say that each person has its own level of sentience/consciousness/genetics , but where you go wrong is thinking it's only about these aspects. There are initiations/masters that can raise your consciousness easily, when i met a kriya yoga teacher. I got into an LSD state (energetically simillarily like feeling unity more) then my chakra's started opening up etc. But it wasn't right time for me, so they're closed now.

I was being raised fundamentalist christian, this was preached to me in early childhood and gave me nightmares and sleepless nights en masse. I couldn't love Jesus wholeheartedly because of this, I realized my faith was worth nothing if it stems from fear and not love, so I had to accept quite early on I am not really a christian, which made things worse in the beginning, until I broke out of that dogma. Now I can appreciate this, since it made me very interested in philosophy and rational reasoning from very early on, I spent hundreds of hours to solve that dilemma. So I can empathize with everyone quite well who suffers from these thoughts. They can be absolutely life crippling. So here are some things I can share that may help: Concerning the bible itself: - the word "hell" is a very, very bad translation, there are actually 3-4 different words for it, all translated as hell (thanks Luther et Lucifer). For example "gehenna" which was a place, a part outside of jerusalem where corps were burned. It was a place of definite death, a place where things vanish and never come back. Complete destruction, no life whatsoever. No living on for eternity, just death dead. Or the word "the sea of fire", where in the end everything gets completely destroyed once and for all. Also "the second death" refers to not only the death of the body, but also the death of the soul, so no sentience is left over. All the words actually refer to complete death, destruction, annihilation, not an eternal torture chamber. Yes, this death may be tortorus, but it ends. - the word for "eternity" is originally greek and is "from aeon to aeon" which actually means "from age to age", it means a particular timeframe. It can be wrongly translated as eternal, but actually it is just referring to a large time frame. So the part where things like souls and satan will be thrown into "hell" is a particular age with a beginning and end, and after that, the whole design/setup will be thrown into "the sea of fire", where it all gets destroyed completely, the second death, the death of death. - there are Christian sects like the adventists who dismiss the idea of eternal hell completely. They say your soul just gets annihilated. - how could you reconcile a loving god with hell? Have you seen these people preaching about hell being in a loving energy? They spread fear, arrogance and rage with every fibre of their being if you listen behind their hypocrite poisonous words. They need to convince you of that crap because they are deeply unease and unsure themselves. - jesus died for ALL the sins, not only for those who accepted him. But those who accepted him will be rewarded according to the bible, since they can live in his presence. The others wouldn't enjoy gods presence, the light, since their deeds are meant to be kept hidden, secret, so they fear the light of truth, gods presence. If there is no way to change that with free will, repent and ask for forgiveness, let yourself purge with gods light, arent you just a shadow of yourself, a soulless robot that Moment? In which way does a loving god enjoy torturing crying robots endlessly? Why not get rid of those sad mimimis? - would a real christian prefer mercy or justice? The whole new testament is about how the old rule "an eye for an eye" doesn't account anymore, but now "if someone hits you on the right cheek, turn your left cheek towards him". Christians say god is mercyful, yet they have no better option than to say god is condemned to let you suffer forever since that is what is required of him because god claims to be just and god needs to be exactly how he says. When you argue with christians they will say something like " nah, hitler can't go to heaven, he was too evil and didn't accept jesus, it would be unfair to the jews." But wouldn't a christian jew, forever in paradise, shit on his 5 years in hell and say wholeheartedly: "ok hitler, you tortured me five years. Well, I'm in paradise forever because jesus died for all my sins and safed me from the hell I would have earned like every human being according to mainstream christianity, of course I will not want you to suffer forever because of my hipocrit revengeful sadistic thoughts of hatred and inhumane "justice"."?? Wouldn't every sane man with a tiny bit of love in his heart have enough justice after thousands of years of torture to forgive his brother for what he has done wrong on earth? Ask those christians whether they would forgive their tormentors. They have to say "yes" because jesus preached it 24/7. But they will weasel around and say something like "the tormentors who don't accept the forgiveness want to be tormented". Then ask them if they accept your forgiveness because they torment you with these ideas. If they don't ask for forgiveness, say them they obviously want to get tormented and they shall not wonder when jesus will reject them in heaven because they have no love in their hearts and they will be judged by the same measure they judge others, which means they think it's okay to be tormented forever when you don't accept forgiveness. Then they will say something like: "only jesus can forgive your sins." Then you can answer like: "in the name of god, I am Jesus!", give them a sad compassionate look with a hand on your heart and slowly turn around and walk away. This will probably make them reflect on their hypocrisy. For the greater good of all. Non-biblical reasons: - get a serious awakening, realize you are inevitable, you are existence itself, there is nothing else existence is existing for but itself (you), you are not just a product (Haleluja-clapper) for a consumer (god), you are the cause, the means and the end of existence, the alpha and omega itself. - eternal refers to a never ending time. Time is a measure of change. Something that doesn't change (like a very bad mood forever) will less and less be registered by conscoiusness since the more constant something is, the more it becomes part of identity instead of experience. You would literally become the bad mood itself, not suffer from it for eternity. If you become the darkness, you won't know about that, since there is only light you can perceive. Everything balances out within time. Every bad becomes the new neutral over time, if constant enough. This is not just a mechanism of the human psyche, but existential for consciousness. If there is a realm of pure darkness, a single beam of light becomes infinitely bright, as written in the bible "a single candle can light the darknes". If there is nothing but darkness, who could define it as that since there is no contrast? - Suffering = pain x resistance Pain is the alarm of the body to be close to death. And to suffer, you need to resist. You can only resist something that is not eternal. For eternal suffering you need to resist eternally. And have a body who constantly alarms you to die. If you are able to resist eternally, the you who is capable of that obviously doesn't have to fear death since it resists (lives) eternally. So the pain (alarm that you may die) is seen through as complete illusion. In high awakenings you can exactly see through that game. No pain. Just a prank

What is the dividing line between what we deem as a living thing and a non-living thing? Is there truly any difference? I oftentimes wonder, what if the universe never developed sentient life that can experience…would nothing have ever truly existed? Is sentience and experience just something that happens (no more important than a galaxy forming or an asteroid hitting a distant planet nobody knows about) or is it extremely important?

I am very interested in having your opinion, since I have a problem with the very notion of Bodhisattva. The bigger the stabilization in Impersonal Absolute as Identity, the larger the contradiction to engage in practices or concepts that imply a separate "spiritual charachter in the show", which actually belongs to what I call "Expression", or the whole vibratory manifestation of/from/within the Absolute. In my view, the Bodhisattva role only has a meaning in a stage of development where there hasn´t been a realization where every single "individual" is a vibrational character emerging within Oneself, with Oneself being the only factor with Sentience or Awareness. "Bodhisattva" thus would necessarily imply the notion of one of those actually unconscious vibrational characters being conscious, and deciding to help other supposedly conscious vibrational characters to know their real Self. But in reality, it is the Absolute that brings its Awareness, the only one there is, to each unconscious avatar, to play a game of manifestation. What´s your take on this? How would then Bodhisattva, which is a concept depending on a not completely developed sense of Identity be the key factor to open gates to higher realms? Wouldn´t that imply the irony that it takes forgetfulness of our Absolute Identity as the motor that keeps manifestation going subtler and subtler?

I think a soul has a seperate energy body with a unique bank of knowledge, abilities and memories. All that knowledge, abilities and bank of memory creates a seeming personality thereafter. Whereas a personality alone is nothing basicly. It's like a shadow basicly. I suspect the soul can have many personalities/shadows but personality cannot have a sentience by itself.