I practice spirituality but I don't believe in it (and that's the point)

[Lucasxp64]

 

 

She's doing Leo Gura-level analysis here: s-tier spiritual content. Her point: consciousness and the story-building overlay on top of it are separate. It doesn't matter what metaphysics you hold, as long as you're not the materialist criticizing the finger pointing at the moon, or the blind believer staring at the finger thinking it's the moon.

Personally, I'm agnostic about "mind over matter" vs. "matter over mind," as well as Leo's "you're God dreaming yourself." I see the physical universe generating my consciousness, and my consciousness generating the idea of a physical universe, as equally valid co-arising aspects. I don't know if they co-arise, if one is primary, or if the question is malformed. This is close to Pyrrhonian epoché or Kant's phenomenon/noumenon split; I'm not claiming novelty.

And does holding any position here actually change moment-to-moment experience or ethics? If not, why do idealists and materialists fight so hard? The stakes seem mostly tribal.

It's impossible to ascertain the nature of consciousness *from within* consciousness, because it can generate infinite layers of stories. The substrate, whatever it is, can never pierce through to prove itself as the absolute bottom, because any such "proof" would only arise as more thoughts, objects, and experiences. These are simply more figments of consciousness. Any attempt to perceive outside is mediated by the very same mind doing the looking.

So I don't take Leo's word on faith that I'm God imagining the universe. The mind/brain is stuck inside whatever this universe or substrate is, and my view of that universe/substrate is stuck inside this mind/brain. (I use "mind," "brain," "universe," and "substrate" flippantly; they're concepts arising within the very field I'm trying to describe. The whole argument is built with tools that can't escape the problem. That's a hard limit of language, not a defect of the argument.)

By the same logic, a hardcore materialist can't bend my words toward the primacy of the physical universe either. The mind is stuck in itself and can't perceive outside itself. By "physical universe" I mean the whole bundle: theories, brains, common sense, all of it.

The situation might as well be:

1) A computer simulation
2) A Boltzmann brain, which is a mind that popped out of quantum vacuum fluctuations in an empty timeless universe
3) A dog struck by lightning, in whose mind arose the exact thoughts I'm having this millisecond, including the sense of time and self
4) A boundless, all-permissive god carving distinctions
5) An empty void where everything is built from axiomatic truths upward into a cohesive cosmos with emergent phenomena: the big bang, the multiverse, or whichever fad theory is current

Even these skeptical hypotheses are made of concepts arising in consciousness.

Anticipated objection: "But you look both ways before crossing the street; therefore, you functionally believe in physical reality." Sure. Functional engagement with appearances isn't a metaphysical commitment about their substrate. You can navigate the dream without claiming to know what generates it.

What remains after all this uncertainty? The bare fact of experiencing-now, without commitment to what it is or what produces it. That's the floor.

The materialist-vs-spiritualist problem gets dissolved by people who see the spiritual point without collapsing into blind belief. The moment it turns into dogma, even for "intellectually advanced" Christians who claim they don't hold blind belief because of some technicality (Jesus existed, resurrection is historical) but then in the same breath push specific doctrine, that is the failure mode. Same shape, different flag.

Edited Friday at 10:23 PM by Lucasxp64
OBS: I edited my original text with Claude Opus 4.7 for the sake of grammatical clarity, the ideas are mine.

[Breakingthewall]

37 minutes ago, Lucasxp64 said:

It's impossible to ascertain the nature of consciousness *from within* consciousness, because it can generate infinite layers of stories

The nature of consciousness is very simple. Consciousness is a process that links two other virtually separate processes that exchange information: the living organism and the universe.

This seems like a "materialist" definition, but materialism today is no longer materialism. Physics states that reality is a rupture of the symmetry of the void from which a coherent, viable equation emerges and unfolds. Or, put another way, reality unfolds given the absence of limits, the lack of absolute restriction, and consciousness is a possibility that implies reality observing itself.

[oOo]

Keep the middle ground.

Some get caught in theory.

Some get caught in experience.

Some get caught in the delusion in between.

Best.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Lucasxp64 said:

 

 

I see the physical universe generating my consciousness, and my consciousness generating the idea of a physical universe 

 

 

This is silly because you would have to find a cause for the physical universe. 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Lucasxp64 said:

 

 

 

It's impossible to ascertain the nature of consciousness *from within* consciousness,

But thats what Infinity is. It makes everything possible.

[Razard86]

Anyone that doesn't reach the Truth never wanted it in the first place. Which is weird because why even discuss it or ponder about it when you can become Conscious of it. There literally is no excuse at this point.

[Hojo]

We are different than her, we are devotees to God, we sit around think about God and talk about God because we are obssessed. We need to do it, I have been thinking about God and the universe since I was very young. Only recently having contact with it and since then its all I can think about. if you have a connection with God tears will rain from your face everyday. Being in disbeleif in God is not fun for me.

If you want to live your life and forget God to not go insane then do it. A devotee of God is constantly on the brink of insanity.

I could do less with the guru bullshit it has infected my mind, I am never going to follow a guru I feel like I was so confused I needed something to look at.

Edited 23 hours ago by Hojo

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

This is silly because you would have to find a cause for the physical universe. 

The cause of the physical universe is the absence of límits, that's obvious 

[Joshe]

15 hours ago, Lucasxp64 said:

She's doing Leo Gura-level analysis here: s-tier spiritual content. Her point: consciousness and the story-building overlay on top of it are separate. It doesn't matter what metaphysics you hold, as long as you're not the materialist criticizing the finger pointing at the moon, or the blind believer staring at the finger thinking it's the moon.

Personally, I'm agnostic about "mind over matter" vs. "matter over mind," as well as Leo's "you're God dreaming yourself." I see the physical universe generating my consciousness, and my consciousness generating the idea of a physical universe, as equally valid co-arising aspects. I don't know if they co-arise, if one is primary, or if the question is malformed. This is close to Pyrrhonian epoché or Kant's phenomenon/noumenon split; I'm not claiming novelty.

And does holding any position here actually change moment-to-moment experience or ethics? If not, why do idealists and materialists fight so hard? The stakes seem mostly tribal.

It's impossible to ascertain the nature of consciousness *from within* consciousness, because it can generate infinite layers of stories. The substrate, whatever it is, can never pierce through to prove itself as the absolute bottom, because any such "proof" would only arise as more thoughts, objects, and experiences. These are simply more figments of consciousness. Any attempt to perceive outside is mediated by the very same mind doing the looking.

So I don't take Leo's word on faith that I'm God imagining the universe. The mind/brain is stuck inside whatever this universe or substrate is, and my view of that universe/substrate is stuck inside this mind/brain. (I use "mind," "brain," "universe," and "substrate" flippantly; they're concepts arising within the very field I'm trying to describe. The whole argument is built with tools that can't escape the problem. That's a hard limit of language, not a defect of the argument.)

By the same logic, a hardcore materialist can't bend my words toward the primacy of the physical universe either. The mind is stuck in itself and can't perceive outside itself. By "physical universe" I mean the whole bundle: theories, brains, common sense, all of it.

The situation might as well be:

1) A computer simulation
2) A Boltzmann brain, which is a mind that popped out of quantum vacuum fluctuations in an empty timeless universe
3) A dog struck by lightning, in whose mind arose the exact thoughts I'm having this millisecond, including the sense of time and self
4) A boundless, all-permissive god carving distinctions
5) An empty void where everything is built from axiomatic truths upward into a cohesive cosmos with emergent phenomena: the big bang, the multiverse, or whichever fad theory is current

Even these skeptical hypotheses are made of concepts arising in consciousness.

Anticipated objection: "But you look both ways before crossing the street; therefore, you functionally believe in physical reality." Sure. Functional engagement with appearances isn't a metaphysical commitment about their substrate. You can navigate the dream without claiming to know what generates it.

What remains after all this uncertainty? The bare fact of experiencing-now, without commitment to what it is or what produces it. That's the floor.

The materialist-vs-spiritualist problem gets dissolved by people who see the spiritual point without collapsing into blind belief. The moment it turns into dogma, even for "intellectually advanced" Christians who claim they don't hold blind belief because of some technicality (Jesus existed, resurrection is historical) but then in the same breath push specific doctrine, that is the failure mode. Same shape, different flag.

That’s where I’ve arrived as well, thanks for articulating this. 

Seeking god or truth is a meaning-making activity and people fail to understand you find that which you seek. Seek meaning in truth/god, and you will find it. Or more accurately, construct it the same way any meaning is constructed.

No matter your collection of insights or truths and your conviction of them based on how they make you feel or what logic you’ve put together, they’ll never cash out to more than experiences that give you meaning, pass the time, and if you’re lucky, make you feel good. I see it mostly a hedonistic pursuit that simultaneously attempts to manage terror. Put in AO terms: survival. AO is quick to put other unconscious survival mechanisms under the microscope, but never its own. 

Maybe deep spirituality is just a pursuit for meaning and terror management.

Consciousness is like a canvas. The floor is total stillness. Those painting on the canvas are trying to paint pictures that allow them to penetrate beneath the floor because the stillness isn’t exciting enough, no opportunity for something interesting and novel. So they spend years constructing their own elaborate creations and eventually claim they have the proof that their construction has penetrated the floor, all the while oblivious that their so-called truth is a construction, a figment painted on the canvas of consciousness. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Joshe]

14 hours ago, oOo said:

Keep the middle ground.

Some get caught in theory.

Some get caught in experience.

Some get caught in the delusion in between.

Best.

That’s badass. 

[Eskilon]

15 hours ago, Lucasxp64 said:

The situation might as well be:

1) A computer simulation
2) A Boltzmann brain, which is a mind that popped out of quantum vacuum fluctuations in an empty timeless universe
3) A dog struck by lightning, in whose mind arose the exact thoughts I'm having this millisecond, including the sense of time and self
4) A boundless, all-permissive god carving distinctions
5) An empty void where everything is built from axiomatic truths upward into a cohesive cosmos with emergent phenomena: the big bang, the multiverse, or whichever fad theory is current

All those possibilities needs consciousness. You cannot escape it. Void, form or some other layer or reality, needs luminosity. 

[Lucasxp64]

On 03/07/2026 at 8:22 PM, Inliytened1 said:

This is silly because you would have to find a cause for the physical universe. 

 

On 03/07/2026 at 8:25 PM, Inliytened1 said:

But thats what Infinity is. It makes everything possible.

I reflected on what you said since yesterday, and I realized that even through the most materialistic paradigm I can say that I'm the universe including whatever substrate it may be originating from, and the universe has to be equally causeless and infinite.

I say this from the perspective of trying to look both ways in this street. Did I create reality or did reality create me? It's so obvious that it's all equally the same everywhere we look.

I'm existence itself. Existence has to be infinite, because my consciousness is infinite. This sounds ridiculous to a materialist, but they don't get... We are talking about existence itself, the very fact of anything existing at all is the most ridiculous and bat shit crazy thing to begin with. Reducing the importance of something existing at all, it has to be causeless infinity.

If I trace my origins even within this universe we reach the big bang or another theory, and behind that we can have yet more and more... Doesn't it seem familiar?

THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE ITSELF MIRRORS MY OWN MONKEY BRAIN CONSCIOUSNESS WITH ITS ABILITY TO BE INFINITE, or the other way around, the universe imbues into me that ability, either way it's the same exact existence, any distinctions are byproducts of minds like ours trying to make sense of things, the universe is not made by little discreet pieces and every attempt at finding indivisible units failed towards fuzzy unmeasurable quantum properties that propagates up the ladder of scale.

 

We look at the beginning cause, we see infinity.

We look at our consciousness and it's infinite in it's capabilities of taking in any object in, only limited by our physical brain not letting it in. The brain is just limiting infinity and constraining it.

Sense making is just constraining this infinity into specific stories, narratives, streams of more mental events.

 

Even the role of this physical universe, it's to create the shared constraints that we have as humans, so we can have distinctions inside of it so we have something to talk about, something to create with, something to seek, something and someone to be.

Crazy enough, I keep arriving at those same answers no matter where I look. Inside of myself, on physics, on philosophy, on religion, in "spirituality", in logic, in the core premises of mathematics, in my animal desires, in the limits of my consciousness and how I can't perceive beyond the literal walls of my room and I have to imagine beyond it based on my world knowledge, and how those are just small mind moments happening at a given millisecond and vanishes until I think of something else.

But I haven't seen yet that it's all actually infinite, my mind can only see distinctions, it can't see infinite because it's just nothing and nothing is always replaced by something the moment you try to catch it.

Therefore it's all just the same no matter what direction we look from the confines of consciousness, it's all infinity everywhere we look, even if it required us to go higher and higher to some unknown substrate, that substrate has to be at least equally infinite.

"The Cosmos is within us. We are made of start-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan

Edited 1 hour ago by Lucasxp64