Proof of infinite intelligence

[Cosmin_Visan]

1 hour ago, JosephKnecht said:

But how can I show you proof of infinite intelligence if you can't prove to me that you have any intelligence?

Intelligence is a subset of infinite intelligence so we need to prove the smaller before we prove the larger. 

The problem is that Intelligence can't be proven to anyone else but itself.

I asked you that question because I know you can't prove it, but you might be able to experience intelligence.

Thus, Experience is greater than proof.

I'm waiting for you to prove Pythagoras Theorem.

[Forestluv]

There are dozens of themes I could write about here - each deserving a week of contemplation and a notebook full essays. In the realm of Yellow, it’s difficult to choose one component of an integrated whole and act as if that one component stands alone. In the realm of Orange, the mind will analyze that component and argue the flaws of that component as if it was a stand alone entity. Within the assumption the piece is the whole, the analysis is correct. Yet from a yellow perspective, the viewpoint is is not that the piece is the whole. Yet Orange is unaware and uninterested in greater context and immature Yellow often falls into Orange’s debate trap. Orange demands that Yellow prove the piece is not the piece while only using evidence from within the piece.

It would be like Orange only being able to see a map of Paris and defing Europe as Paris. Yellow is aware of a bigger picture map and says things like “Europe is beyond Paris”. Orange demands proof of something beyond Paris, yet only information within the Paris map counts as “evidence”. Anything outside the Paris map is dismissed as a “hallucination” or “imaginary”. The trap for immature Yellow is falling into a debate on Orange assumptions. It is true that based on the Paris map that Paris is Paris. And if we allow Europe to be defined as Paris, it is also true that Paris is Europe. Yet that that framework keeps Orange in a contracted mindset and it becomes extremely difficult to communicate that we are not saying that Paris doesn’t exist, we are saying that Paris is within Europe. Yet the Orange mind will not look at a Europe map because the mind is attached and identified to the Paris map.

This may seem absurd, why would a mind be contracted to a small map when it can become aware of the small map AND large map. Why would a mind lock itself zoomed in when it can zoom in and out? To me, the biggest block is self identity of the zoomed in map. To a mind locked zoomed in, it is under the impression that zooming out means a rejection of the small map as wrong and acceptance of the large map as right. This would be a form of death because the I AM is the small map. Yet this isn’t the case at all. Becoming aware of the Europe map does NOT mean we reject the existence of Paris or that Paris is “wrong”.

In another context, we could create a small map that “intelligence” is logic and measured through one’s IQ, ability to do math, write logical philosophy etc. The trap for Orange that it’s “intelligence” map is akin to the Paris map. Orange will demand “Prove to me intelligence is not logic!” and it will only accept logic as proof. Anything it perceives as outside logic is dismissed as “hallucination”, “imaginary” and “delusional”. And within the contracted intelligence map, this is 100% true. 

Debating that intelligence is logic vs intelligence is not logic will keep a mind trapped within a contracted dualistic construct. A much better framing is that logic is intelligence WITHIN a higher order intelligence. Yet Orange will resist this because it perceives exploring this as surrendering it’s contracted map to which it is identified. This becomes totally obvious with how they perceive psychedelics. These substances expand the map and will be strongly resisted by those attached to small maps. Small mappers will focus on people that see machine elves during trips and say “Ha! That is a hallucination! He is a delusional fool!”. Small mappers will say “If psychedelics reveal infinite intelligence, why can’t a tripper solve calculus problems!”. 

Orange can win this game against blue and Orange, because it is within the small map. Orange can compete in this game with green since green has only had glimpses of the larger map and is ungrounded. Yet Orange cannot win this debate with a mature Yellow since Yellow has seen and understands both the small map and large map. Yellow can speak both languages and high Orange can sense this. Orange will get frustrated and accuse Yellow of evading the question when Yellow keeps saying “I acknowledge that your Paris exists and is true within Paris, yet you are missing awareness of the bigger map of Europe”. Yet unlike blue and Orange, yellow can ‘speak’ both Paris and Europe. Yet to Orange, the ‘language’ of Europe will be ‘unintelligent’ since ‘intelligent’ is based on the map of Paris.

A mind that wants to defend it’s small map has taken the first step in that it is subconsciously aware there is a bigger map. The problem is that, energetically, the mind will experience this as a threat to it’s small map - to which it is identified and attached. From what I’ve observed, such a mind will try to engage with someone who has only had glimpses of the larger map and lacks details and grounding. The next step would be to engage with someone who is grounded within both small map and large map. Imo, the key here is that Orange needs to have some open-mindedness, curiosity and desire to expand - or the Yellow person will see it as a waste of time. If an Orange keeps demanding “Prove to me Europe on the Paris map!” and refuses to look at a Europe map or explore outside Paris, Yellow will get fed up and move on. . . The next stage is that Orange has an awakening that it is missing something. A moment like “Whoa, I may be missing something about intelligence”. The next step is to have curiosity. From what I’ve observed, some minds seem naturally more curious and exploratory than others. Curiosity is a opens doors and can be a major source of motivation. In one form, curisoty may be “I may be missing something about intelligence. I am going to spend 1 hour a day meditating and self inquiring ‘what is intelligence”. For me, I was immersed in a career in science and ad a traditional view of intelligence as logic, problem solving, math, analysis etc. My big breakthrough was realizing that I was contracted in a small map and missing something. Rather than defend my small map as I had done for 25 hrs, I got super curious. What if there was intelligence beyond science? What if logical intelligence is within a greater intelligence? The intense curiosity allowed me to venture outside my whirlpool. I got curious of intelligence outside science. So I moved to the mountains of Peru and lived with a tribe there for a summer. My first night there, a shaman was speaking to a group of us in a temple. He started speaking about “consciousness”. My first reaction was this guy is in woo woo land. As a neuroscience professor, I’m programmed to teach. And I was about to start teaching this shaman about intelligence, and there was a pause. That deep inner voice that motivated me to move to the mountains of Peru said “You are missing something and can discover something here. This is why we traveled across the world to be here, remember?”. This allowed me to let go of my previous whirlpool and entire a very different whirlpool and expand”. And a view meta to this is aware that neither whirlpool must be accepted as true or rejected as false. 

[fridjonk]

@Forestluv Amazing post, my friend! Thanks. 

[Nos7algiK]

The simplest way to prove infinite intelligence is to look at your own imagination/dreams. You are capable of imagining anything and everything in an infinite number of ways. No one fully understands the fundamentals of imagination, nor do you need understand how everything works within your dream reality in order to dream. Yet, it will work in any scenario you imagine up. That's because the very substance of your imagination is, in itself, intelligent and self aware. Your mind is not just the only self aware thing, but also the micro of your mind(and the macro). The same applies for where are current awareness is set. It does not need to be understood to be experienced. Actually, the very reason we don't fully understand it is how we experience it.

To answer your question about someone taking psychedelics' and answer a complex math problem. Well, to be honest, if they could do something like that then intelligence itself would be limited, not infinite. If the so called "infinite mind" can only conclude the "correct" answer to the math problem. Then it is limited to that one answer by some unwritten law of the universe. But, if it's able to conclude any answer, even if it's "wrong", the intelligence is now open to infinite possibilities rather than it's one choice you are attempting to give it. To compress infinite intelligence down to rationality and logic is to severely limit it's potential. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Nos7algiK
Grammar

[JosephKnecht]

4 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

I'm waiting for you to prove Pythagoras Theorem.

... and I am waiting for you to prove that you are intelligent so that you can understand the proof. 

If you enjoy reading proofs, I suggest reading Gödel, Escher, Bach. 

Gödel proved that every formal system that is complete, cannot be consistent. 

Here is a brief overview of the book, but I suggest reading the whole book. https://medium.com/swlh/gödel-escher-bach-series-an-overview-of-gödels-incompleteness-theorem-d00c2202abf4

[No Self]

21 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Given that spiritual people say that they enter the state of infinite intelligence on psychedelics, then why don't they prove it ? And it's quite simple: just take an unsolved problem in mathematics, get your brain on psychedelics, solve the problem while on the divine state of infinite intelligence, come back, and prove to us all that infinite intelligence is real and is not just a hallucination.

I know nothing about psychedelics. But Eckhart Tolle cited a study of the most eminent mathematicians and scientists, including Einstein, which suggested that their greatest breakthroughs came at times of mental quietude. Obviously they were tapping into something. Likewise for the likes of J.S. Bach, Frederic Chopin and so many more in the musical world. In my opinion, there is no way that any human mind could come up with their accomplishments.

The Beatles experimented with psychedelics in order to try and evolve their music. Not sure how successful this was. I feel that this area will have far more research in the coming decades now that it is becoming less taboo. 

[Cosmin_Visan]

13 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

... and I am waiting for you to prove that you are intelligent so that you can understand the proof.

No worry about me, I am intelligent. So give me the proof.

[Cosmin_Visan]

13 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

If you enjoy reading proofs, I suggest reading Gödel, Escher, Bach.

I read the book. It's a low quality materialist book that says that we are robots.

[Cosmin_Visan]

23 hours ago, Shunyata said:

you can watch the whole video since it's going to be only of benefit to you. Lots of insights and a question similar to yours is being answered somewhere near the end. I'm trying to find it but I have to watch it all again.

I watched the entire video, but I didn't see any answer to my question. He only talks about random trivial experiences that people had. Can you give the minute at which the question is answered ?

[Cosmin_Visan]

15 hours ago, neutralempty said:

You cannot because proof is tied to a certain type of existence. 

Proof lies within the bigger space of verification. Not all partial existence forms have the same partial form of verification as a complement to it.

Proof is one type of verification bound to a certain type of existence which you accepted for yourself as valid, because you feel comfortable with accepting proof as a valid verification form, emotionally.

As you can use proof to verify the existence of stuff like vector spaces, you can use feeling emotions to verify the space of the soul. Both would be forms of verification to their respective types of existences.

Proof isn't the more holistic form here but verification is.

I don't care about your classifications. If you declare you have infinite intelligence, then you can also do something with it. You don't just stay on the ground and sing kumbaya. If you don't do anything with it, then you are just hallucinating. And hallucinations have no value.

[Dodo]

1 hour ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

No worry about me, I am intelligent. So give me the proof.

Heres the proof. All proofs are already written on the page in front of you, just with invisible ink,  cause infinity dont ask why!  

[allislove]

23 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

With this mentality we would still be living in caves starving and freezing to death... but feeling good, somehow.

It's good to contemplate (to prove something) if it feels good to you. Ask yourself what is your intention behind the question? Do you want to make everyone to feel good or you just want to prove that someone is wrong? There is nothing wrong, because there is only you  

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Heres the proof. All proofs are already written on the page in front of you, just with invisible ink,  cause infinity dont ask why!  

??

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

I haven't had any direct experience of an infinite intelligence, so who knows? Maybe it's finite, maybe it isn't.

But proof to me that it's finite and that the finite nature of intelligence isn't just an illusion/hallucination. 

1+1 is a pretty simple mathematical 'problem' isn't it? The answer is clear. It's 3. Oh wait no it's 4. No no no wait! I got this! It's 5. Okay no but for real... It's 6!

See I could literally come up with an infinite amount of wrong answers. I could also come up within an infinite amount of correct answers (1+1=477-475, 1+1=0×5+2)

You are asking for the solution to some mathematical problem? Well here it is. Right now. Reality itself is the answer to every question you have. We don't generate answers. We just find them somewhere within it.

But here you are, a minor wave within this ocean we call reality, demanding that reality will GIVE you an answer. Not just any answer, but an answer which will satisfy your ego at that.

What is the point in having a magician explain all his illusions to you as he's performing them?

What is the point in reality limiting itself to the demands of a single person.

What is the point in reality limiting itself to anything at all?

I wouldn't know, but again, there is no proof for reality being stupid, or intelligent. Be it finite intelligence or infinite stupidity.

This is just an intellectual conversation for us, unless you have any proof against the infinite intelligence of reality. (Which would come from within you bubble of perception somehow)

Edited November 27, 2020 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Cosmin_Visan]

3 hours ago, Dodo said:

Heres the proof. All proofs are already written on the page in front of you, just with invisible ink,  cause infinity dont ask why!  

Yeah, ok, bla-bla.

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Yeah, ok, bla-bla.

what's your goal? 

you just seem to be trolling at this point

[Cosmin_Visan]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

what's your goal? 

you just seem to be trolling at this point

You seem to be trolling. You use empty flower-power words that you think that makes you look smart. Well, they don't. They just make you look silly.

[Cosmin_Visan]

21 hours ago, Forestluv said:

There are dozens of themes I could write about here - each deserving a week of contemplation and a notebook full essays. In the realm of Yellow, it’s difficult to choose one component of an integrated whole and act as if that one component stands alone. In the realm of Orange, the mind will analyze that component and argue the flaws of that component as if it was a stand alone entity. Within the assumption the piece is the whole, the analysis is correct. Yet from a yellow perspective, the viewpoint is is not that the piece is the whole. Yet Orange is unaware and uninterested in greater context and immature Yellow often falls into Orange’s debate trap. Orange demands that Yellow prove the piece is not the piece while only using evidence from within the piece.

It would be like Orange only being able to see a map of Paris and defing Europe as Paris. Yellow is aware of a bigger picture map and says things like “Europe is beyond Paris”. Orange demands proof of something beyond Paris, yet only information within the Paris map counts as “evidence”. Anything outside the Paris map is dismissed as a “hallucination” or “imaginary”. The trap for immature Yellow is falling into a debate on Orange assumptions. It is true that based on the Paris map that Paris is Paris. And if we allow Europe to be defined as Paris, it is also true that Paris is Europe. Yet that that framework keeps Orange in a contracted mindset and it becomes extremely difficult to communicate that we are not saying that Paris doesn’t exist, we are saying that Paris is within Europe. Yet the Orange mind will not look at a Europe map because the mind is attached and identified to the Paris map.

This may seem absurd, why would a mind be contracted to a small map when it can become aware of the small map AND large map. Why would a mind lock itself zoomed in when it can zoom in and out? To me, the biggest block is self identity of the zoomed in map. To a mind locked zoomed in, it is under the impression that zooming out means a rejection of the small map as wrong and acceptance of the large map as right. This would be a form of death because the I AM is the small map. Yet this isn’t the case at all. Becoming aware of the Europe map does NOT mean we reject the existence of Paris or that Paris is “wrong”.

In another context, we could create a small map that “intelligence” is logic and measured through one’s IQ, ability to do math, write logical philosophy etc. The trap for Orange that it’s “intelligence” map is akin to the Paris map. Orange will demand “Prove to me intelligence is not logic!” and it will only accept logic as proof. Anything it perceives as outside logic is dismissed as “hallucination”, “imaginary” and “delusional”. And within the contracted intelligence map, this is 100% true. 

Debating that intelligence is logic vs intelligence is not logic will keep a mind trapped within a contracted dualistic construct. A much better framing is that logic is intelligence WITHIN a higher order intelligence. Yet Orange will resist this because it perceives exploring this as surrendering it’s contracted map to which it is identified. This becomes totally obvious with how they perceive psychedelics. These substances expand the map and will be strongly resisted by those attached to small maps. Small mappers will focus on people that see machine elves during trips and say “Ha! That is a hallucination! He is a delusional fool!”. Small mappers will say “If psychedelics reveal infinite intelligence, why can’t a tripper solve calculus problems!”. 

Orange can win this game against blue and Orange, because it is within the small map. Orange can compete in this game with green since green has only had glimpses of the larger map and is ungrounded. Yet Orange cannot win this debate with a mature Yellow since Yellow has seen and understands both the small map and large map. Yellow can speak both languages and high Orange can sense this. Orange will get frustrated and accuse Yellow of evading the question when Yellow keeps saying “I acknowledge that your Paris exists and is true within Paris, yet you are missing awareness of the bigger map of Europe”. Yet unlike blue and Orange, yellow can ‘speak’ both Paris and Europe. Yet to Orange, the ‘language’ of Europe will be ‘unintelligent’ since ‘intelligent’ is based on the map of Paris.

A mind that wants to defend it’s small map has taken the first step in that it is subconsciously aware there is a bigger map. The problem is that, energetically, the mind will experience this as a threat to it’s small map - to which it is identified and attached. From what I’ve observed, such a mind will try to engage with someone who has only had glimpses of the larger map and lacks details and grounding. The next step would be to engage with someone who is grounded within both small map and large map. Imo, the key here is that Orange needs to have some open-mindedness, curiosity and desire to expand - or the Yellow person will see it as a waste of time. If an Orange keeps demanding “Prove to me Europe on the Paris map!” and refuses to look at a Europe map or explore outside Paris, Yellow will get fed up and move on. . . The next stage is that Orange has an awakening that it is missing something. A moment like “Whoa, I may be missing something about intelligence”. The next step is to have curiosity. From what I’ve observed, some minds seem naturally more curious and exploratory than others. Curiosity is a opens doors and can be a major source of motivation. In one form, curisoty may be “I may be missing something about intelligence. I am going to spend 1 hour a day meditating and self inquiring ‘what is intelligence”. For me, I was immersed in a career in science and ad a traditional view of intelligence as logic, problem solving, math, analysis etc. My big breakthrough was realizing that I was contracted in a small map and missing something. Rather than defend my small map as I had done for 25 hrs, I got super curious. What if there was intelligence beyond science? What if logical intelligence is within a greater intelligence? The intense curiosity allowed me to venture outside my whirlpool. I got curious of intelligence outside science. So I moved to the mountains of Peru and lived with a tribe there for a summer. My first night there, a shaman was speaking to a group of us in a temple. He started speaking about “consciousness”. My first reaction was this guy is in woo woo land. As a neuroscience professor, I’m programmed to teach. And I was about to start teaching this shaman about intelligence, and there was a pause. That deep inner voice that motivated me to move to the mountains of Peru said “You are missing something and can discover something here. This is why we traveled across the world to be here, remember?”. This allowed me to let go of my previous whirlpool and entire a very different whirlpool and expand”. And a view meta to this is aware that neither whirlpool must be accepted as true or rejected as false. 

Prove Pyhtagoras Theorem! From whatever color you want. Just prove it!

[Dodo]

34 minutes ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Yeah, ok, bla-bla.

Prove it isn't the case

bla-bla=0 

29 minutes ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

You seem to be trolling. You use empty flower-power words that you think that makes you look smart. Well, they don't. They just make you look silly.

He is just coming at this with frustration. Ive had the same when people say "you can literally do anything " 

And im like uum no... I cant literally fly right now with no extra help for example. 

I think this stems from people talking about different things and he is getting annoyed.

I can remember quiet well when Leo was having his Live awakening, he said that he can answer anything that has importance or something along those lines.

He couldn't have given us the proof of the fermat theorem that Fermat could not fit in the margin lol

Edited November 27, 2020 by Dodo

[allislove]

"The proof of the sun is the sun itself.
If you wish to see it, don’t turn away from it."
– Rumi