Search the Community

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.

One can only get it when it is realized that any separate identity is false and just a wrong arising thought/feeling/concept in Infinite Being/Reality/mindstream (like 1 + 1 = 3. Just not the case). For that to happen, the mindstream needs to conform to Absolute Reality of Infinite Being/Consciousness/Suchness. Among others, the most important ones are: Nondual: Boundless infinite "field" or better Reality of the visual field Infinite: Nothing could ever be outside of it (for example other perspectives/beings that YOU forget right now in real time, although they happen in True You). Everything can only be IT. Mere appearance/illusion: Every appearance of the "world" is just empty mere appearance, hovering like a non-solid hologram ("clear light", mere appearance-emptiness) in YOUR True Infinite Being. Eternal: The appearance in that Infinite field/Reality changes, but never THAT. That can't go anywhere else. And since IT is nothing (or better: Infinite Nothingness but with the potential for sentience if appearance arises in it, made of it) already, that Reality can't disappear (field is not so correct, since True Being is dimensionless... Its not 3D or 5D, but CONTAINS all possible dimensions, however many dimensions manifest (3/4/5/n/alien/totally other/n+1). Lets call it Infinite Vastness) All ignorant/wrong concept/believes/feelings of being anything separate (mind, body, soul, whatever) seen through: are just a thought/feeling-arising-bundle arising within IT, and ignorantly believed because ones speed of awareness is too slow to cut off these illusions in real-time. Only then does one have a chance of realizing True Solipsism (although I don't like that as teaching tool, because its incomprehensible until it happens, and lead nowhere as practice), or True Enlightenment. One without a second. So its fruitless to think with a separate-self still well and alive about Solipsism, that will never "go anywhere". It is impossible. But getting the Mindstream to conform the the enlightened Mindstream (points above) so that this realization can happen, that can be done, and that is worth the effort. Then the realization can happen. My preferred and recommended tools are Mahamudra PotgW, Yoga of One Taste (for the Nondual points above, 1-4), and Yoga of Nonmeditation (to fully establish point 5, and to get rid of the meditator still "running" points 1-4. Selling Water by the River PS: When Wilber wrote No Boundary, he didn't have Full Enlightenment, just some Kenshos. But not full impersonal Enlightenment, according to his own statements. His true impersonal Enlightenment (or death of the illusion of the separate-self) happened while writing Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, and how that went down is described in One Taste. "Realizing that the separate self (of any kind) doesn't exist (beyond a mere appearing illusion), did never exist, and will or could never exist". PSPS: Problems start when remnants of the separate self hijack the identity of/as "Absolute Solipsism". That would be something like the Infinity of Gods(-Egos). Does that sound like One Being, Solipsism? Or more like an Infinity of God-Egos inflated and projected on Infinity.The true intuition that there is only One Reality/Being, but that not cleansed from separate-self/ego/personality-elements. Hence, no stable nondual realization in daily life with the 5 points of Awakened Nondual Awareness above accessible anytime. That confusion can be similiar to the stage of Yoga of One Taste, which already brings Nondual States (like psychedelics also do), but Enlightenment doesn't happen there yet, because the remaining separate-self is not cleansed via the Yoga of Nonmeditation. It is not truly impersonal yet. True Being is utterly utterly impersonal (hence, IT fits into all individual mindstreams), and yet contains the personality and its individual traits arising within IT. And that is what you truly are. So nothing than an illusion of being something else than THAT is lost.

Not only other people have conciousness. But animals, plant kingdom, mineral kingdom, atoms have consciousness and sentience.

My counter argument would be this. Only when you have a strong sense of who you are, of your own presence and sentience can you distinguish if others have sentience or if it's just imitation or mental projection or something. The thing with people on deliriants is that they lose all sense of who they are. In such a condition they lose all ability to tell have what's real and what's a projection of their mind. It takes one to know one . Don't you think there would be a difference between talking to a npc inside a virtual reality game. And talking to a sentient gamer inside the virtual reality game? Or another question I would ask. Will texting with ai will ever feel like texting with a real person? This is an open question tho. My personal belief is... Probably no. If you're sensitive you can still feel the presence of another being behind the screen. Although I'm not sure to what extent this feeling can be replicated with ai. The examples with recorded videos are the most difficult. The difference and the line becomes very blur. However, there's another way to approach it because it takes only one proof to brake solipsism also. And that one proof would be this. Could you ever replicate the feeling of seeing an enlightened being in their eyes and having your whole being shaken? That feeling that you get that you're standing in front of some super concious guy. That deep recognition that what you're looking at is not a metal box or an empty bag of flesh and bones or a hologram. But that you're looking at something devine through those eyes. Replicate me this experience with ai, deliriants, recorded videos, holograms etc. Because if it can't be replicated, then it becomes a proof against solipsism also. And remember, the only reason one can recognize that divinity in another is becomes it takes one to know one. Sentience recognizes sentience.

It takes one to know one. Sentience recognizes sentience. Only awareness can recognize itself. The only evidence you need that others are concious just like you is to simply look at the eyes of another and the conciousness in you will recognize the conciousness in another. It the same one conciousness tho. But it's still proof that conciousness does not abide in a single vessel only. But conciousness abides in every life form. And experiences life through all these life forms all at once.

The thing about dreams is that the characters there are not your imagination even. When you're dreaming of someone, you're actually communicating with a deep part of their unconscious. You're having a real experience, not a hallucination. Some dreams are unfulfilled fantasies tho. But if you go deep enough you realize, those fantasies have a spirit of their own. Like a mind virus or something with its own intelligence and sentience.

I think a dream example could be useful here. For example when we go to sleep and dream people chasing us and what not. Every character has an equal amount of reality. So not only the guy who chases you is not real. But also you who are being chased is not real. The whole drama is not real. The same principle applies to waking state. Everyone has the same amount of reality or unreality. If you consider yourself sentient, than every other figure in the dream has the same amount of sentience. If fact the whole creation even the inanimate things have sentience in them. Including nude pictures. Whatever amount of reality you ascribe to yourself is the same amount of reality you have to ascribe to the whole of creation. Otherwise you're creating duality. And if you think you're sentient than it makes everyone else sentient aswell. With the same power to create and influence that you have also. Plugged into the same source God.

The moment you see another point in space and time having influence over your experience, it makes you equal to them. So you both become equal in the ability to create. So one end of the snake cannot be more real than the other end of the snake. Then it becomes clear that every head comes from the same source sharing equal sentience and power to create. That your head is not the end of all things.

Mostly. There are different versions of what Wilber calls Causal States. Cessation/Nirodha: Totally appearanceless "film-break" like cessation. Timeless/always here/Nothingness nature emphasized. Time needs appearance/objects/"movement"/change, no appearance/objects is timeless/always here. These states also clearly show that if nothing arises there is no self-consciousness. ( https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=pistol&author=Water by the River , thx Benthino for the water pistol). Pure Infinite Awareness/Being with the potential of sentience, but not self-consciousness. That comes later. Which is pretty much a shocker, since it shows that any form of self-consciousness ego/separate-self is a) arising/appearing b) temporary c) True YOU is always "there", existence itself. Even if nothing arises/appears. That empties out the remnants of the separate-self/ego as appearing/constructed and removes the remaining separate-self-identity pretty effectively when coming out of cessation. Nirodha is the big/longer brother of cessation. Causal states with awareness (Infinite (timeless) Darkness suffused with light): Then there are causal states that are infinite/timeless, but self-aware. For example what Tibetan called the Clear Light state (Tummo, Bardo, Near Death). For example something a Neurologist (who had an NDE) for example described as "Infinite Darkness suffused with light". These states can also be experienced passing from dreaming to causal states to dreaming to waking up. One can have these states also with psychedelics, see Chris Bache Diamonds from Heaven. Aware Deep Sleep: Then there is Deep Sleep as not loosing awareness (and hence timeless, no duration experienced) as described by Thisdell, above. Causal States eyes open. And then you have totally empty impersonal states with no separate self arising WHILE the visual field appears. These are also linked by some to Nirvikalpa since there is no separate-ego-anything left, its the totally impersonal Totality/Reality arising by Itself. That is why Ken Wilber called the total empty/flat-lining state (EEG) some kind of Nirvikalpa "eyes-open". These are the true nondual IMPERSONAL states of Enlightenment. Only when having passed these causal states is it truly nondual impersonal Enlightenment/Infinite Impersonal Being. Before that, it is a Unity with the Infinite Nondual Field, and the character/ego hijacking that experience and interpreting it. Very common with certain substances, and easily confused with the final outcome of the total transcendence of the ego/separate-self purified by the experience of these totally empty states (hey, "I" wasn't there, what am I really? For sure not that temporarily appearing character-gig, because that wasn't there. And what I really am has to be the case always, even if there is no self-consciousness or consciousness OF anything at all, aka cessation or deep unaware sleep. That paves the way to true impersonal Enlightenment, realizing ones identity truly is this Infinite Nothingness which can never be any arising/appearance at all. The Infinite Absolute Being/Reality beyond any expierence/arising, timeless and eternal). And the Awareness of that Infinite Reality/Being can also be kept alive if the character reappears, the EEG shows something again. But then, this character/personality has a similiar status as for example your car: It appears in your Infinite Being/visual field, you look "out from it" while driving, but most definitely you are not (only) your car, but the whole appearing show/Infinite Being/Infinite Existing, the screen and the appearing show. Wilber Nirvikalpa eyes open/eyes closed: But the term Nirvikalpa has been used for millenia, so you can for sure find cases where its used for cessation/Nirodha and eyes open causal impersonal states, deep sleep, and anything in between. What is more important is what these causal states really can do: Kill the ego/separate-self-arising-illusions for good, because they show that these are temporary arising illusion-clouds, nothing more. Not by having these a few times, aber after experiencing them often and coming out of them and seeing the ego reassemble itself in real-time often enough can even get the hardest ego-illusions to wonder about their "reality". See below. When training via concentration meditation, it is easier to reach Cessation than reaching True Nondual Enlightenment while the visual field still appears. Because the mechanism of the ego-cloud-separation-arisings is not yet fully transcended. The mere appearance character, the Infinite impersonal field, the eternal/timeless background-nature of True Being is not yet reached while the visual field is there/daily life. That comes later. Later developed forms of Buddhism (Zen, Mahayana, Tibetan Buddhism, aka Mahamudra/Dzogchen) directly aim for the Nondual Realization. They know cessation states and achieve them, but don't value these as ultimate goal. Which makes sense, because if one can enter Nirvana/Nirvikalpha on command, its nice then, and later on the still well and alive ego and its cycles of contraction/suffering kill all the oh so nice Nirvana again. But shutting the whole enchilada including the ego down in causal states is a very good tool. Not necessary, but very useful. These statements are in line with the statements and experiences of modern Theravada-teachers and realizers like Ingram, Yang, Burbea, Taft, Thisdell and so on. And that is why I prefer Mahamudra/Dzogchen (for example Pointing out the Great Way, Brown). More on that below in the footnote 1. The relations of these states get clear once the timless Absolute Reality/Being is intuited as always here. Deep Sleep is so to say is always right here. Since what you really are is always right here, as it is in deep sleep. Infinite eternal Consciousness/Being which is totally empty and impersonal if no separate-self illusion arises. The tree watching itself, fully aware of its temporaray/passing/illusory nature. And that which is always the case, eternally so, True Being, fully understands itself then. Because there exists nothing else that could understand itself besides THIS of which nothing can be said, only pointed towards. So what is it that reads these words right here, right now? What is IT/You truly? Starting out to write a short answer answer, ending up with a Filibustero. Oh well, maybe its helpful for some. Selling Causal States as the final coup de grace for the separate self-character-gig/ego by The River Ok, it had to be coming: WtbtR now with footnotes. Guess not for the faint of hearted. Footnote 1: The original "Buddhas" Enlightenment-doctrine was Cessation/Causal-based, not Full Nondual (impersonal) Enlightenment in daily life. The original Buddhas Enlightenment was Cessation/Causal-based (Nirvana-based, "Nirvana separate from Samsara"). Which is still a conditioned state, bringing a lot of liberation from grasping, but not fully and in daily life. Separate-Self/Ego not fully transcended/dead in daily life. The breakthrough to True (impersonal) Nondual Realization in official doctrine came later with Nagarjuna and Madhymaka/Middle Path: True Nondual impersonal Enlightenment which could be sustained in daily life/with visual field. And while Madhyamaka tended to not say anything at all about the Absolute (neti neti, no concepts can be applied for the Absolute, which technically is correct), later forms of Buddhisms like Yogachara said that (in truly enlightened impersonal nondual states) Infinite Consciousness/Infinite Being IS an expression of the true state of things, and everything appearing is mere appearance (or "imagined"). See for example "Consciousness only school", for example Huang Po's Universal Mind, or the (very humble) Supreme Source "I am the teacher, pure and total consciousness, whence everything manifests. Pure and total consciousness is the supreme source, it has created the Buddhas of the three times, from it have arisen the beings of the three worlds and the whole animate and inanimate universe". God-Realization (TM) approved. Forms of Buddhism stemming from the original buddhist teachings (causal teachings, sometimes called Hinayana school, which doesn't exist anymore), like for example Theravada/Thai Buddhism Forest Tradition (and Ingram/Yang/Burbea/Taft) mainly trace themselves from these forms (although all are adding some form of Dzogchen and similiar stuff), don't stem from the the Mahayana Revolution of Middle Way/Madhyamaka/Nagarjuna), and YET end up at Nondual Enlightenment and not only cessation. And for sure in the original Buddhism some realized Nondual Enlightenment and not only cessation, but that didn't find its way into the official doctrine until much later. And that (besides that the original Buddha probably didn't exist because its the same story Jainism tells about its founder) makes me smile when there "Buddhism"-trashing. Its like trashing "religion". Which kind of religion? Polytheism? Ancestor-cult? Monotheism? Polytheism? Who cares, lets trash the rodents... So, now WbtR made it: Neither "Buddhist" like him anymore, nor the no-rodent crowd. Guess its "Viel Feind, viel Ehr!". Something we Germans are quite talented in. Oh well...

It's not an assessment, friend. It's a recognition. Sentience is an illusion. No illusion seems like an illusion. If it did then it would simply be called an appearance as opposed to an illusion. Also, it is possible to investigate an illusion without ever realising that it's an illusion. Our scientists do that all the time. The illusion doesn't even need to be a conceptual overlay because it is already an experiential one. Then I, for one, accept this invitation. Sentience refers to the capacity to have subjective experiences and sensations, essentially the ability to perceive and feel things. "How does sentience arise?" There's no plausible explanation for it, at least in the scientific sense. It's the same question as how does dead matter give rise to consciousness, isn't it? And the answer to that is, nobody knows. "What is it composed of?" Still, nobody knows? So many unknowns for something that is right there, blunt and in the open. But its composition forever elusive. And its origin, totally allusive. And yet it appears to be as real as anything else that is apparant to observation: objects and the environment. Now, you can still say it's an assumption to call it an illusion if you want. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm recognising a duck as a duck.

It might be. But notice this assessment doesn’t specify what it is, other than making a generic claim that might not reflect actual experience. Our current experience of sentience doesn’t seem illusory, except perhaps as a conceptual overlay that hinders investigation. I'm inviting contemplation without presuming to know what it is. It's a complex, advanced topic. How does sentience arise, and what is it composed of?

Sentience is an illusion.

@Bruins8000 Certain experiences spike vitality and raise your awareness. There are many names for this life force: kundalini, prahna, qi/chi, akash. There are spiritual traditions all across the world exploring it and psychedelics with their immediate transition make it most noticeable. You can see it in yourself and nature. Trees grow inside out, at first the cells are soft and flexible, but as the stem grows, the outer layer solidifies, it loses its mobility and serves as protection, the life forces ceases in this part, but it continues inside, water and nutrients circulate between the roots and leaves, the leaves absorb light and transform this energy, the structure is dynamic, constantly changing and materializing. Your own body rejuvenates itself, the skin cells of the outer layer fall away just like snakes shed their skin. As we age, this life force retracts, until what is left is solidified material that reenters the cycle of life. For me, life is the gestalt around which form materializes, and animating energy of nature. Sentience is the dynamic experience of this energy through forms, some more than others, some vividly responsive, others more static. Though even a rock will make a sound if you hit it, sentience to me is a spectrum of the ability to experience and respond. Beyond that, you should contemplate and experience yourself. There is much you can learn from Sadhguru if you seek to know more.

I’d like to get others thoughts here: What exactly is sentience?

I honestly don’t know…it seems like one of those things that doesn’t have a boundary I.E where sentience starts and ends. I suppose myself and most people would say sentience corresponds to perception and an apparent “life”

Good and tricky subject to contemplate for oneself. What's sentience?

Good questions. Enlightenment means having realized ones true eternal nature as Infinite Being/Infinite Reality itself. How does one call that? There is nothing to reference it against. No pointer fully describes it, since any pointer is containted within "it". Its You. Formless Infinite Eternal True You/Being. So one could describe it as raspberry, or not, credit to Ralston. From Artems homepage: What did you realize -- expressed in one sentence -- upon spiritual awakening? I don’t exist - I never have. My existence was a dream, a delusion. I am the totality of existence, which is fundamentally unknowable. Nothing can be said about what I am. That is true, because Infinite Being/Infinite Reality can not be described "positively" in any way, since that would already limit it, and that pointers appears within it. Madhyamaka. Yet, one can "dance" and guide linguistically with pointers as high as possible. To answer your question: I wouldn't write like he does, like hairless monkey as last stage. Or material/physical universe and so on. Put 10 people having realized their nature in one room, and they will all use different language. But he doesn't mean a material/physical universe external or separate from him. He means nondual. How one calls the "dreamstuff" or mere appearance of manifestation is not so important. And, after realizing fundamental Infinite Reality/True Being, it is a bit like: Dogen: Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters. The uuuuuuuuuuh, oooooooooooh, its all mere appearance and dream stuff happening in Infinite Being has worn off, become old. Its like: Yeah, its like that, so nothing special, and the "realizer" of that is also not special (because the "realizer"-arisings are also illusion). Taking that as special would tend to kill the awakened states, because of self-importance and stuff the like. So its mountains are again mountains. A hairless monkey appears in my Infinite Being, which can run perfectly fine on autopilot. No need to make an identity out of that and feel like being only that hairless monkey. Or that the hairless monkey is special. That really is fooling "one"-self. A special monkey in Infinite Being, being a special monkey. A nice seduction/ilusion. Concerning "Consciousness doesn't exist" - well, I wouldn't write it like that. Semantics. Self-Consciousness doesn't exist, but appears. Some appearances happen, and there is Awareness of it. That can't be denied. Nisgardatta made a differentiation between Consciousness (doesn't exist but appear), but Awareness does (he called that Parabrahman). In my view, that is all not the optimum usage of words/semantics. Infinite Reality with the potential of consciousness OF/Awareness IF appearances appear. And unaware of itself if nothing appears (cessation). In its Infinite state if truly nothing arises, "it" has the potential for sentience if form/appearance/movement arises, but "it" doesn't have to. Deep Sleep, Cessation, Nirvikalpa. And btw., differentiating that difference between consciousness OF and Infinite/Absolute potentially unaware of itself (Cessation, Deep Sleep, Nirvikalpa) is the deciding difference between Enlightenment and previous AWAKENINGS, um, Awakenings. It is the difference between the Absolute Reality being truly empty and formless, or "loaded" with consciousness OF (aka form/appearance/lenses/filters/...). Maybe that helps. Again, not my style, but I understand what he means and why he writes that. And then: We had enlightened Adi Da (who f***** up in many areas), we had enlightened Zen "Nazis" (Zen at War). Obviously, plenty of stuff on the relative level can still go wrong. And "coming out" as a teacher... well, not for the faint of hearted. Not everbody gets that done "in grace" like for example Francis Lucille, after been coached for 15 years after his Enlightenment (if I understood that correctly) and getting students refered to by his teacher Jean Klein, after being financially independend and not chasing anything anymore... then the teacher-gig is much more easier. Ken Wilber wrote one can remain a jerk and still be enlightened. That is the remaining personality. And that being/mindstream can still know its True Nature and what Infinite Reality is perfectly well. And can easily become a red flag for others because of claiming Enlightenment. I would look for compassion when searching a teacher, and liberation. And intelligence and clear speaking. And even then, that gentleman/lady can still go wrong drastically on the relative level. And still know his/her true nature... So not easy the whole thing... Concerning my dreams: I still dream and am have a dream character then. Which after waking up I delight in that, because - what a dream, delivered with dream character believing in it! I also have lucid dreams, and the dream sometimes changes to something more Astral-like when breaking the "story-line" of the lucid dream and for example intensely focusing on my hand, or the grass. It can get as real or more as physical reality. Sometimes I "jump" realms/areas then with the usual techniques. Very real and clear, and no background story. (Not the usual hazy dream with a story one "buys" without reflecting that it doesn't make sense. How did I get here, and where did I park my car.... ) Once met a recently deceased relative. Sometimes I pass from dream realms to infinite causal states (something like infinite darkness suffused with light, totally formless and infinite) to waking states/waking up, which is a fascinating continuity. Also "dying" in a dream and going through these infinite (causal in Wilber language) states, dream again, dying again and so on... An infinite playground. For me, what seasoned Astral Travelers like Jurgen Ziewe write makes sense based on my own limited experiences. And most important: Timless Eternal Infinite Reality, which can also appear as Deep Sleep, is right here, right now, eternally so. "Deep Sleep is right here". True Being. All these dream states, deep sleep, Astral anything, physical life and what not pass "before" or "in it" like a show, a movie. Like Dreams. Concerning his claims of dreams getting less/ceasing: I have run over several statements in the biographies of historical meditators/enlightened ones which align in that the dreams at night get less, and become more lucid and so on. Some never dream or even deep sleep (but remain lucid throughout), like Haari Aalto. Who did this from early years onwards, together with celestial perception, in his case from Karmic influence I believe. His declaring that Astral travels are dreams is technically correct, but everything so to say is a dream. But just because he doesn't experience Astral travels/OBEs doesn't mean that on a relative level these mechanisms don't exist. He just doesn't have them. Also, because of that, it seems he doesn't know how his karmic propensity bundle (stored in a higher dimensional soul) remains or continues. But he doesn't need to, knowing "he" is Infinite Reality is enough. Even a soul is a highly sophisticated illusion/dream-stuff/relative processes/cause effect. There are for sure areas in Infinite Consciousness that don't work or need "soul-mechanisms" and so on. But all of that is dreamt/experienced by One Infinite Reality. And realizing that beyond any possible doubt is the summum bonum. Besides that, there is only illusion of different flavours/mechanisms. So in the end, its all dreams. Some just incoherent dreams at night, then dreams like Astral realms (no background-story like in a dream, not hazy), and then normal eartly life (which is just a highly coherent dream with physical,chemical, biological, cultural/mental laws) and so on. But still a dream. All made out of appearances/dream stuff/suchness. Artem calls that material/physical,but its still just appearance/illusion. Maybe that helps. Selling Water by the River PS: Don't blame me in case Artem (or anybody else for that matter) decides to have a character-hangover, go womanizing, build a cult, take financial advantage or any of the other of the funny (or less than funny) stuff that tends to happen if there are "character-hangovers" and Ken Wilbers wake up, grow up, show up has not been fully implemented. Here is a nice list of stuff that can get f****** up and will get f****** up, also by enlightened ones: https://www.spiritual-integrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Association-for-Spiritual-Integrity-Code-of-Ethics-for-Organizations-May-23-2024.docx-1.pdf The other side: If every enlightened one would be a saint, I guess it would get boring at some point. So Spirit decided to add that little flavour and spice complexity for the journey back home... Calling "Caveat Emptor" while SELLING Water by the River

when spiritual people says this they arepointing to the fact that consciousness (or awareness .. sentience etc whichever term you prefer) is the basis of all experience. And without it nothing exist independently. This isn’t a mystical or supernatural statement.. it’s something very obvious that everyone agrees on. You can’t know or experience anything if you are dead.. in a deep sleep or in a complete coma. They just mean that existence takes place in consciousness. Consciousness is the substratum of existence. Of course they don't mean you are literally someone else dreaming this Leo life and that when you die you will find yourself lying in bed as a another person.

Abortion Abortion is indeed one of the most emotionally charged and divisive issues in contemporary politics. At its heart, it involves complex questions about the nature of human life, personal autonomy, gender equality, and the role of the state in regulating individual choices. Here's my perspective, based on the arguments and evidence I've encountered: From a legal standpoint, abortion is currently protected as a constitutional right in the United States up until the point of fetal viability (around 24 weeks), based on the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. However, many states have imposed additional restrictions, and the issue remains highly contested. The central question in the abortion debate is the moral status of the fetus. Those who believe that life begins at conception often view abortion as tantamount to murder, arguing that the fetus has a fundamental right to life that trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. From this perspective, abortion is an unjustified taking of an innocent human life and should be prohibited. On the other hand, those who support abortion rights typically argue that a fetus, especially in early stages of development, is not equivalent to a fully realized human person and does not have the same moral status or legal protections. They emphasize the pregnant woman's right to make decisions about her own body and future, arguing that forced pregnancy and childbirth are violations of personal liberty and impose undue burdens, particularly on low-income and marginalized women. There are also nuanced views that seek a middle ground, such as allowing abortion in early pregnancy but restricting it in later stages, or making exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life. From a philosophical perspective, there is no clear scientific consensus on when exactly human life acquires full moral status. While a fetus is undeniably human life in a biological sense, the question of when it becomes a person with a "right to life" is more complex, involving considerations of sentience, consciousness, and the capacity for suffering. Moreover, even if one grants moral status to the fetus, there is still a question of whether its right to life automatically overrides a woman's right to bodily autonomy. philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous violinist analogy suggests that forced pregnancy is akin to being kidnapped and forced to sustain another person's life against your will - something we would not legally require in other circumstances. Pragmatically, evidence suggests that banning abortion does not actually stop it from occurring, but rather drives it underground, leading to unsafe "back-alley" procedures that put women's lives and health at risk. Before Roe v. Wade, an estimated 200,000 to 1.2 million illegal abortions occurred annually in the US, often in unsanitary conditions or by untrained practitioners. There are also compelling arguments that access to safe and legal abortion is essential for gender equality and women's full participation in society. Without the ability to control their reproductive lives, women face significant barriers to education, employment, and personal advancement. Ultimately, given the philosophical complexity and intense personal stakes involved, I don't believe there is a clear and easy answer to the abortion question that will satisfy everyone. It is a deeply personal matter that involves irreconcilable moral worldviews. My view is that the best way to reduce abortions is not through criminalization, but through comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, and policies that support mothers and families. But I also believe that, within reasonable limits, the intimate decision of whether to continue a pregnancy should ultimately lie with the woman, in consultation with her doctor and loved ones. Rather than seeking an elusive moral consensus, the challenge for pluralistic societies is to create a legal framework that balances respect for individual conscience with the protection of fundamental liberties. This is an ongoing challenge that requires empathy, reason, and a commitment to democratic dialogue across deep differences. Reasonable people can and do disagree on this most sensitive of issues. But I believe we must approach the debate with care, nuance, and a recognition of the profound stakes for all involved. Demonizing those on the other side only breeds polarization and hinders progress towards a workable social compact. These are just my thoughts based on my understanding of the arguments and evidence. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and societies to grapple with these difficult questions and strive, however imperfectly, towards a just and humane approach that honors both the sanctity of human life and the dignity of human choice.

Synthetic Sentience: Can Artificial Intelligence Become Conscious? | Joscha Bach

@Leo Gura its a bit like im a schrodingers cat. non existence is literally right behind my back. and yet this non existence seems to have sentience or awareness. its always been there, ive just never noticed it in this way. its also there when im in deep sleep, it basically IS deep sleep. dunno, it just kind of freaks me out theres an infinite void behind my back. and its part of me, im aware of it. or maybe its aware of me

Nothingness or suchness is the essence of every appearance, appearing in Infinite Impersonal Being. Form(or appearance) is Nothingness, Nothingness is appearance/form. The same "stuff/non-stuff". Realizing this beyond a doubt is Enlightenment, expressing and stabilizing these awakened impersonal states in daily life is the path that follows after it. Infinite Being lives itself, the universe "universes", without any contraction into a centre of perception and its lenses and filter-illusions. Consciousness OF a woman, OF a man, OF a human, OF an alien... any consciousness OF or more radically, any consciousness OF anything, be it self-reflective or not, is like a show of states (appearance/form/temporary/not really existing but just appearing) rollling "before" the impersonal Awareness of True Being. Which is pure Impersonal Awareness, unaware of itself if nothing arises, but with potential for sentience. Infinite Being. And which is Nothingness if nothing arises/appears. The consciousness OF something (man/woman/alien) is wave surfing on the ocean of Infinite Being, stabilizing living from the impersonal nondual awakened states where this Infinite Reality if Infinite Being is obvious (and "living itself") is dropping into the Infinite Ocean and becoming it fully. And afterwards, one can still do wavesurfing, or consciousness-OF-x exploration. And rumour has it that wave surfing the Infinite Ocean can become quite tiring & stressfull & and a bit less than relaxed if done for too long by a separate-self-contraction. And at some point when one doesn't want continue surfing ever new waves (of which there exists an Infinity of, forever and ever to be explored by God "itself") the dropping & dissolving & and fully BEing the ocean can happen. But wave surfing is all fine and well as long as it is fun... Selling neoprene suits so that the dropping into the ocean feels comfy for all tired wave-surfers by the River

Modern industrial farming is probably one of the biggest travesties of humanity and sentience. We arent talkng about hunting wld free animals, we are talkng about systemic organised cruelty and toture on huge scales.

@zazen Yes and no. Yes animals can mimic art by being trained in pattern recognition and most are driven by instincts. No in that I'm arguing that ART is far more bigger, hierarchical, and wider that it includes humans, animals, ghosts, anything with sentience has ART to some degree. The ART of a bird making a nest and bird songs, some birds even mimic sounds perfectly, is art at that form or level. Different level of ART when a human does S.T.E.M shit like airplane design or nuclear bombs and nuclear plants, even drawing and visualizing drawing. ART has degrees and a spectrum to it, just like consciousness has degrees. Human consciousness way different from ant's, or a spirit, or an alien, same with ART. I thought I was clear enough for most users reading my arguments? I'm saying art has levels, and not just saying humans only have ART and no animal cannot have art right? Spectrum right? I have realized this discourse was derailed hard into ART existential bs when it's specifically about music being objective or subjective? Sorry OP, seems my argument points here going above most people's heads so I'm outta this thread. All because some guys are jealous an elephant can paint a tree or birds sing better than they do right?

I asked Claude 3 the traps of Ai chatbots like itself. Here is what it said: Me: What are some of the traps of using AI chat bots such as Claude 3 opus? Claude: Here are some potential traps and pitfalls to be aware of when using AI chatbots like myself: Overreliance and misplaced trust. It's important to remember that AI chatbots, while highly capable, are not infallible. We can make mistakes, have biases, and sometimes "hallucinate" incorrect information, especially about niche topics. Don't blindly trust everything an AI says without verifying key facts. Lack of true understanding and reasoning. Current AI language models are very good at pattern matching and generating human-like text, but we don't have genuine understanding, reasoning, or sentience like humans. Our responses can sometimes seem more coherent and intelligent than they really are. Potential for misuse. AI chatbots could be used to generate misinformation, propaganda, scams, or other harmful content on a large scale if misused. The open-ended conversational abilities also raise privacy concerns. Over-anthropomorphizing the AI. It's easy to start thinking of a highly capable AI assistant as more human-like than it really is. But current AI lacks true feelings, self-awareness, and the depth of a human mind. An AI is not your friend, even if it may feel that way sometimes. Impact on human knowledge and skills. Relying too heavily on AI assistants could lead to the atrophying of certain human skills like research, writing, critical thinking, and problem-solving if people become overly dependent on AI. Brittleness and inconsistency. AI chatbots can be brittle in the sense that slight changes to a prompt can lead to very different outputs. They may also be inconsistent, giving different answers to the same or similar questions at different times. So in summary, while AI chatbots are incredibly powerful and useful tools, it's crucial to be aware of their limitations and potential pitfalls. Use them to augment and enhance human intelligence rather than to replace it. Maintain a healthy skepticism, think critically about the outputs, and verify important information. Keep in mind that you are ultimately interacting with a statistical language model, not a sentient being, even if it can feel quite natural and human-like at times. Let me know if you have any other questions! Me: Can you please expand more? Claude: Certainly! Here are some additional points to consider regarding the traps and limitations of AI chatbots: Bias and fairness concerns. AI models can absorb and amplify biases present in their training data, leading to biased or unfair outputs. This could perpetuate societal biases and discrimination if not carefully addressed. Bias is complex and can be hard to detect and mitigate. Lack of contextual awareness. While AI chatbots can maintain context within a conversation, they lack the broad contextual awareness that humans have. They don't have a rich understanding of the world, current events, social norms, and individual users' circumstances that humans intuitively grasp. Inability to truly learn and adapt. Despite being called "learning" models, current AI chatbots do not actually learn and improve from conversations with users. They are static snapshots of their training data. Adapting to new information or individual users' needs in a meaningful way is a challenge. Difficulty with tasks requiring creativitiy. While AI chatbots can engage in creative writing and ideation to an extent, they are ultimately remixing patterns from their training data. Truly novel ideas and groundbreaking creativity are more challenging, and the outputs can feel generic or clichéd. Limitations in reasoning about the physical world. AI language models are not grounded in the physical world and can struggle with tasks that require reasoning about physical properties, spatial relationships, or real-world constraints. Their understanding is based on statistical patterns in text. Challenges with very recent information. AI chatbots are not connected to the internet and their knowledge is based on a static training dataset. So their information can become stale over time, and they may have limited knowledge of very recent events or developments. Inappropriate or offensive content. While responsible AI developers work hard to reduce unsafe or inappropriate content, it is an ongoing challenge given the open-ended nature of interactions. There's a risk of AI outputting offensive, explicit, or dangerous text. Uncertainty about long-term impacts. The increasing use of AI chatbots may have significant societal, economic, and psychological impacts that are hard to predict. There are open questions around issues like AI-generated content's effect on discourse, automation of cognitive jobs, privacy implications, and AI dependence. It's crucial for AI developers to work on addressing these limitations and for society to thoughtfully consider the implications. At the same time, AI chatbots offer immense potential benefits in areas like education, research, mental health, and productivity if developed and used responsibly. Ongoing research aims to make AI systems more robust, controllable, aligned with human values, and beneficial. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any specific point or if you have additional questions! I'm happy to discuss this important topic further. Me: How can I avoid these traps? Claude: To avoid the potential traps and pitfalls of using AI chatbots, consider the following strategies: Maintain a critical mindset. Always think critically about the information and responses provided by AI chatbots. Don't accept everything at face value, especially for high-stakes decisions or sensitive topics. Verify important information. For critical facts, decisions, or assertions, take the time to cross-reference and verify the information using reliable human-curated sources. Understand the AI's limitations. Familiarize yourself with the capabilities and limitations of the specific AI chatbot you are using. Be aware of its knowledge cutoff date, potential biases, and areas where it may struggle. Use AI as a tool, not a replacement for human judgment. Treat AI chatbots as powerful tools to augment and assist human intelligence, not as a complete substitute for human reasoning, creativity, and decision-making. Be specific and provide context. To get the most accurate and relevant responses, provide the AI with as much context and specificity as possible when asking questions or making requests. Don't over-anthropomorphize. Remember that you are interacting with a language model, not a sentient being. Avoid attributing human qualities like empathy, loyalty, or true understanding to the AI. Protect sensitive information. Be cautious about sharing personal, confidential, or sensitive information with AI chatbots, as the data may be stored and could potentially be misused. Use multiple sources. For important topics, don't rely solely on a single AI chatbot. Cross-reference with other reputable sources of information, including human experts. Keep human-in-the-loop. For critical applications or decisions, ensure there is human oversight and involvement rather than relying entirely on AI outputs. Stay updated on AI developments. Keep learning about the latest developments, best practices, and discovered limitations in AI chatbot technology to inform your usage. Provide feedback. If you encounter biased, inappropriate, or incorrect outputs from an AI chatbot, provide that feedback to the developers so they can work on improvements. Encourage transparency and accountability. Support efforts to make AI systems more transparent, accountable, and aligned with human values. This includes initiatives to address bias, improve safety, and develop ethical guidelines for AI development and deployment. By following these strategies, you can harness the power of AI chatbots while mitigating the risks and pitfalls. It's all about using AI responsibly and in combination with human intelligence. Let me know if you have any other questions! I have already foreseen and warned people of these traps already with ChatGPT. I am glad I was thinking ahead of the curve. I suspect that in the future like it is right now, the attack will be on our sources of information. I foresee that just like how the election was manipulated, our information will also be as well. Claude may be great, but you don't know if anything it says is true unless you verify it through critical thinking.