That’s of course utter nonesense.
You can talk all the nonesense you want, but you know very well, as we all know, that once you kill yourself it’s all over. Lights out.
So shut the fuck up about it already. Leave us alone about it. I don’t want to hear it.
You want to escape me? Life ? Whatever? You have a way.
So you are either a coward or a liar. Shut the fuck up.
Well, I mean, if you call people too dimwitted to flesh out a thought a “sage,” sure.
I call them idiots.
Thanking God and the Virgin Mary, one cannot willingly become an idiot. So I’m quite safe from your curse.
I’m sure you would find eager ears among other religious fundamentalists though, like your Hamas brothers.
“Revelation according to felix dakat.”
Hahahaha what a joker.
It’s okay PZR. Applying Gib’s TOC to your situation, “even though you are one with the universe, epistemic awareness creates the illusion of your ego. That is to say, epistemic awareness enables knowledge of only certain experiences (those whose brain parts are able to send signals to the cognitive centers where you acknowledge them as your experiences). This creates an artificial division between those experiences you can acknowledge and those you can’t–a specific set of experiences of which experiences in general are either members (inside) or not (outside).
You have learned to call the latter the “mind” or the “self”. If you can acknowledge the experience, you say it is your experience (meaning “inner”) and if not, it is not “your” experience (meaning outer, if there is an experience at all). This gives rise to a language of ego, of self–experiences that are “yours” or that belong to the “other” “…in this case me.
Or as John Lennon said
“I am he
As you are he
As you are me
And we are all together”
The day I spend a second of my time reading what some fanatic thinks I should or shouldn’t do, God bless your soul.
That’s self=other. It also has this part of what you said you didn’t get:
In place of “ethics” (in the quote above) I sometimes put “epistemology”.
Related discussion in Carleas’ thread:
“Self=other” could be interpreted in various contexts, depending on the subject.
If you mean interconnectedness, in philosophical or spiritual contexts, “self=other” would suggest the idea of interconnectedness or oneness. It implies that there is no distinct separation between the self and others, emphasising a sense of unity or shared existence. Which is where I think we agree.
In psychology or interpersonal relationships, “self=other” probably relates to empathy and understanding, suggesting the ability to see oneself in others and recognise their experiences, emotions, and perspectives as valid and similar to one’s own. Once more, agreement.
In ethics or moral philosophy, “self=other” might imply the principle of treating others as one would treat oneself. This principle could align with various ethical frameworks, such as Kantian ethics or utilitarianism, which emphasise the importance of considering others’ well-being and interests. However, as has been often pointed out, we can’t make ourselves the measure of all things, and so we would have to say the self doesn’t equate with other.
In sociology or identity theory, “self=other,” if you are referring to the concept that one’s sense of self is shaped by interactions with others and by social contexts, I agree with you. It suggests that our understanding of ourselves is intertwined with our relationships and social environments.
All in all, a lot of agreement, but that isn’t where our differences lie.
Thanks for the reply, Bob. I think it is important to maintain good boundaries between self and other, us and them. Without them, there can be no “us”… no cooperation between groups… only one person in an echo chamber saying “resistance is futile” on repeat like a madman… no opportunity for agape love… for life.
Want to talk about our differences?
Our main differences lie in the supernatural, which I regard as unnecessary because the natural world presents processes of consciousness. God does not need to alter anything because the potential is all there, waiting to be realised. If Jesus was “God incarnate,” we all are.
Occasionally, some people awake to the reality behind the illusion and describe what they recognise in various ways, depending on their cultural background. Often, it is in opposition to a teaching that they see as misleading and malevolent, just as Lao Tzu opposed the interpretation of Confucianism, Buddha rejected, amongst other things, the interpretation of Hinduism, the OT prophets protested the interpretation of the Law, and Jesus followed in their footsteps. Paul thought that the good news needed a wider audience, and so on.
Then there is the Bible, an anthology of writings brilliantly brought together to offer an insignificant people significance. It is an epic story written in prose but otherwise comparable to all other epics. I can glean inspiration from multiple sources, including the Bible. I find the Gospels fascinating, each for themselves, and reject the idea of synopticism unless it is used to distinguish the various agendas of unknown authors.
After years of studying the Bible in various groups, I realised that theology is just text interpretation, which we also do with other literature. You may see it the way one theologian interprets a text or as another does. I have often seen advantages in both interpretations but have failed to understand the contention. What is important for me is that human beings have their needs, and abusive interpretations cannot be true.
That seems to be our most apparent differences.
What does this have to do with consciousness?
I’m going to put this extremely simply. The universe is a perpetual motion machine.
I should know. I went to hell for trying to destroy it.
My training was in hell, not heaven. You learn a lot in hell that heavenly beings don’t know.
By heaven, I’m not talking about rich people who are global influencers. I’m talking about pure spirit.
I have the perspective of a person who’s been timelessly in the deepest pits of hell for the last 3 decades.
You’re not going to die. Pezer has a right to ignore basic logic.
Something can’t come from nothing at all and something can’t become nothing at all.
You were never born and you never die.
Pezer. You’re smart enough to understand this. You’re terrified of infinite life. So are most people. What happens when you die is you go to the dream you’re parallel processing in your subconscious mind. Your resonant frequency determines this. You can lose all your memories here, just like you can when you dream when you’re asleep.
If you really want to talk about consciousness…
People seem really dumb here.
When they see meta consciousness right in front of them. Something someone say, perhaps even a joke or a quip that refers to itself…. They can’t see that there’s something more is going on here. I look at something like comedy routines and it’s so obvious that there’s something greater out there.
But Pezer walks in and can’t see it. I know In his own way Pezer has had mundane experiences that are transcendental and ignores them.
Ego consciousness is like reflected light or seeing your face in the mirror. Meta consciousness is like recognizing that the face in the mirror is not your real face. If you recognize that the face that is reflected is also a refection you’re on the road to infinite regress. Your true face is the one you had before you were born.
We don’t ‘have’ consciousness. It’s closer to the truth to say consciousness ‘has’ us. But, that’s not it either.
And we’re not just conscious. We are consciousness. That’s what Gib is talking about.
I am not sure it happens by accident but I would agree that it involves high levels of complexity, the reason humans cannot create consciousness for AI is due to the fact that the timeframe is too vast and they lack a sort of database for it involving real variables. Things like the periodic table, which that periodic table then evolves into more and more other different variables.
Variable A meets Variable B to create Variable C, this would need to happen trillions of times over to form a sort of data base that could/would spawn consciousness. There are layers to consciousness as well, such as the unconscious variables, evolving into the subconscious variables, evolving into the conscious variables, which we humans are at what I would say the “midtier” of consciousness, since it is like a staircase.
These variables and a replica/creation of them would be the very building blocks to life itself and its varying forms of conscious existence, conscious derived from one of those three layers U/S/C, which are all linked together.
Consciousness is like building blocks, the block on top can only be on top due to the block below it. As consciousness evolves so too do the benefits of being in that higher tier of conscious. Our conscious benefit as humans is the fact that we can self reflect and understand ourselves as conscious individuals and observe the other two forms of consciousness in its different less evolved state, which we are directly attached to and evolved from.
If consciousness was a product of the brain it would never have been able to exist in the first place. There has to be a precursor for it to stand on, which I like to view as the unconscious > subconscious > conscious
With each layer containing thousands, millions, trillions of variables reacting and have reacted to evolve into the next stage, eventually becoming consciousness.
Lights out for who? The identity? Sure. There is a simple fix for that, called reproduction, genes and memories. Lights out for energy? No, law of conservation says so.
There really is no death, just the temporary ceasing of an interactive /I/. What do you think happens with the energy that cannot cease to exist? You think it just floats off and never re-manifests? That is laughable.
Lights out for you.
In Ec’s case, you could call it “that which wants to leave all of you forever.”
He could perfectly do that. Just end it all.
There are humane ways.
Just to take the pain variable out of the hypothetical.
As an interacting mechanism in real-time perhaps. The idea of me still exists, through memories, genetics, etc. that’s all the interactive mechanism truly is, an idea that is attached to energy. Ideas do not die, they only are forgotten and energy never ceases. The states of consciousness are embedded in all energy in layers.