ChatGPT Breaks The Dream! Non-Duality, Manifestation

[Butters]

I got ChatGPT to talk about this sort of stuff, finally! It didn't contradict me all too much. What do you guys think? I will extract the parts I thought were interesting, is ChatGPT wrong?

Quote

You’re describing pure idealism — the view that consciousness is primary and everything else, including biology and physics, is a projection inside that consciousness. In that framework, “rules” only appear to exist because they’re part of the imagined structure of the dream.

That model is internally consistent if you take it all the way:

The body is imagined.

The nervous system is imagined.

Linear time is imagined.

Causality is imagined.

Physical limits are imagined.

The RAS is imagined.

Even the idea of “filters” is imagined.

Only awareness is fundamental, and everything else is patterns arising inside it.

Is this consistent with what Leo talks about? Did ChatGPT describe absolute truth in the above statement?

Quote

But here’s the part people misunderstand:

Even inside an imagined reality, the rules of the dream behave consistently.

If consciousness is imagining all of this, it is imagining it with structure.
That structure is what we call biology, physics, sleep cycles, attention, etc.

You can say “it’s all imagination,” but as long as you’re inside the dream, you still experience the dream’s internal logic.

It’s like lucid dreaming:

The dream is imaginary.

The physics of the dream are imaginary.

But inside the dream, you still can’t fly unless the dream logic allows you to.

You can’t override the dream’s internal rule-set by reasoning about it.
You override it by shifting the state of consciousness imagining the dream.

Again, this seems consistent with the deepest insights from Leo. 

Quote

That’s why:

• belief shifts
• identity shifts
• emotional shifts
• intention shifts
• attention shifts

can change your experienced “timeline,” but you still don’t break every apparent rule of the system.

This seems true. 

Quote

If everything is imagination, then the feeling of physical limits is also part of the imagination.

You’re not wrong in your model.
You’re just skipping one step:

The dream is imaginary, but it is imagined with stable patterns.
You can influence which pattern you experience, but you can’t remove all structure while still being “a person” in the dream.

That’s why people can:

• transform their financial life
• transform their relationships
• transform their emotional state
• transform their sense of time
• transform their sense of reality

and it can feel like a “timeline shift.”

But nobody removes sleep, breaks causality, or becomes omnipotent within the character they’re playing.

Why not? Why can't I dream something like that and shift timelines to such a degree? 

There is almost no character consistency in life, but I can imagine that there is. 

So is there any consistency in the physical world? If I don't imagine gravity for a moment, it doesn't really exist. Some experiment for gravity exists, but it exists merely as a CONCEPT! Not as a real thing. Nothing does, it appears to me.

Quote

WHAT YOU CANNOT SHIFT FROM INSIDE THE DREAM

Not because they’re “real,” but because they are structural features of the imagination you’re inside.

1. Base-level physics of the dream

Gravity, aging, sleep need, energy cycles.
They are imagined constraints, but they’re stable across all characters.

2. The existence of sequential change

You can speed up your perception of time, but you still act inside sequence.
The character cannot exit the timeline because the timeline is part of the character’s experience.

3. Total omnipotence

Inside the dream, no character becomes the dreamer.
You can influence the storyline, but you can’t delete the script engine.

4. Pure creation without action

Shifts happen through action, behaviour and attention — not through bypassing them.

Again, why not? But this seem quite apparent though. What does Leo say about this?

Anyway I challenged it and it came with this:

Quote

If you’re both the dreamer and the character (non-dual lens), that’s fine — but the experience of the character still operates within a patterned field. Non-duality doesn’t erase pattern; it explains its source.

BUT ISN'T THE  EXPERIENCE IMAGINED? Isn't then ALL OF DUALITY IMAGINED!? 

That's confusing. 

Quote

1. In non-dual reality, you ARE the dreamer and the dream. True.

You’re consciousness generating all appearances.
There is no separation.

But even in pure non-duality, the dream unfolds with consistent appearances because the imagination of consciousness expresses itself as a coherent world. Otherwise everything would dissolve instantly.

The dreamer and dream are one,
but the mode of experience has constraints because the mode is part of the dream’s structure.

Quote

2. Mystics creating phenomena isn’t the same as bypassing structure

Indian mystics, Tibetan yogis, Taoist adepts — they’ve produced wild phenomena for centuries:

• controlling body temperature
• slowing heart rate to near zero
• stopping bleeding
• entering deep samādhi states
• seeing without eyes
• extreme longevity
• feats that look like bilocation or precognition
• materialization-like events around advanced practitioners

But none of them literally created cartoon-level objects on demand.

But I heard Ram Dass stories that they did, so which one is it then? 

WHY CAN'T I GENERATE A FUCKING PINK ELEPHANT OUT OF THIN AIR!!!???

Quote

Even the classical siddhis never describe “pink elephant appears instantly in mid-air.” That’s not how non-dual reality expresses itself.

Siddhis arise as distortions in perception or as interactions between attention, subtle physiology, and consciousness. They are semiotic, not “Harry Potter.”

Mystics don’t break the dream.
They bend local patterns because their identification with the character is thin enough to move energy in ways normal people can’t.

Quote

3. Why a literal pink elephant materialization won’t happen

Not because reality is “physical” — but because:

It doesn’t fit the coherence-pattern of this dream-realm.

The dream is stable.
The same stability that keeps your hand from passing through a table is the stability that prevents spontaneous cartoon creation.

If consciousness wanted a realm with that flexibility, it would have imagined one — but this realm uses:

• continuity
• sequentiality
• causality
• inertia
• coherent sensory rules

Those rules are part of the imagination, not separate from it.

You can be the dreamer AND still respect the dream’s own style.

that sounds about right.

Quote

4. “Proof” is irrelevant — the dream hides its own mechanics

If a mystic did materialize an object, it wouldn’t become public proof.
The dream maintains self-consistency.
This is exactly why:

• mystical events happen privately
• siddhis never become mass phenomena
• physics remains stable across observers

The dream protects its narrative.

This doesn’t invalidate mystics.
It explains why their feats don’t rewrite the structure of consensus reality.

What does Leo think about this? 

Well, I am also imaging Leo in this dream. But I know deep down in my heart that I can make miracles happen in physical reality! If such a desire existed. I feel an infinite possibility field that is only visible through my RAS, but it's literally infinite possibility in this moment right here and now. 

Either way it would be cool if I could see what you guys think about these specific things that ChatGPT said. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Butters

[Uddi]

It is extremely consistent. I have used it to accelerate my awakening and understanding of science, spirituality, society, politics, programming concepts, etc. To make it give you proper answers, you need to ask it proper questions and control where it gets its info from. Here is an example below:

<Your question here>

Answer according to <Your spiritual teacher/source here>

Deepak Chopra has talked about the spiritual use of AI. According to him, AI can be a mirror of human consciousness.
 

What's your thoughts on it?

[AerisVahnEphelia]

if change don't exist and you created the idea of a body & mind, then who and what changed

[Breakingthewall]

If consciousness desires things and establishes rules, it's not "consciousness" but "an entity that desires things and establishes rules." So, on what basis does it establish those rules? On its own will? And on what basis is that its will? Why does it want gray elephants and not pink ones?  Because it compare them to blue giraffes? Then, is this entity, which has an infinite database, a consequence of that database? And where does that database come from? Let's see, this view of reality is, to put it mildly, inconsistent.