Cosmin_Visan

Given that both IQ130 and IQ70 people are taking psychedelics, do they both get enlightened equally ? Can an IQ70 person then have authority over humanity's knowledge ? Because from what I see, no matter how low IQ a spiritual person is, he still pretends to be the smartest person in the world after taking psychedelics.

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.

Why do spiritual people employ empty flower-power talk to hide their lack of real understanding ? When you ask them a question, they just say "God is beyond questions. God is at peace." and by saying such an empty bunch of words they feel satisfied with themselves that they don't need to put in the efforts and thus their real lack of understanding is safe. Well... is not safe. You cannot trick an intelligent person with such puerile attitude. So why are you doing it ? Who do you think you are impressing ? And as a side note, with such an attitude, I cannot stop wondering what kind of jobs these people have in real life. Can they be engineers ? Can they tell to their manager: "We don't need to make sure this bridge doesn't collapse. God is at peace. God will save all the drivers!" ?

You project your own ignorance onto me. But of course your ego cannot handle such a possibility, so you just double down on your projections.

Besides, such an answer can be applyed to anything. And when the same answer is given to different questions, it becomes empty. For anything anyone says, you can at any time say: "is just you ego talking". Well, of course. What else is there if not egos ? So, your point ? Aaa... I know what your point is. Is just your ego that cannot handle such a possibility, so you just double down on your projections.

Again your monosyllabic way of answering. Just proving once more the very subject of this topic.

Language is consciousness. Is an elaborate way in which free will has access to strong modifications of consciousness.

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

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.

Yeah, ok, bla-bla.

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.

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 ?

What do you mean ?

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

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

I don't think you can see the tree if you don't name it.

I guess I should just give monosyllabic answers as you: Infinity! Bro!

On the contrary, "direct experience" is too woolly. "Meaning" is a much more clear concept. And yes, you use language to equate a concept to another, thus understanding better what consciousness is. Language is not just a pointer. Language itself is an experience and interacts with other experiences. Language is more like a structuring of consciousness that allows meaning manipulation.

Given that spiritual people say that language is a delusion and it only takes you away from truth, does this mean that animals are superior to humans ?

Glad someone finds value in my ideas.

Questions, as ontological entities, are something more subtle than the way in which we use the term in everyday life. Besides the questions that we ask in order to search for conceptual understanding, there are also other types of questions that lead to qualia. As I explain in my paper, probably the qualia of red and green appeared in order to help animals spot the fruits in the trees and thus avoid death. And this situation has an ontological structure of a question, something like "How do I survive death ?", and this evolutionary question led to the generation of the red and green qualia.

Yes, of course this is what it is at the origin. But to fully understand it, we also need to know how it generates the reality in which we find ourselves. To answer like Leo "it is infinite imagination and anything goes" is not an answer at all. Is just intellectual laziness. So yeah, if we are to trully understand consciousness, we also need to understand how it generates the qualia that it does. Or if "generates" is not the proper way to frame the problem (since time itself is just a quale), then we still need to find a way to frame it as to explain the reality in which we find ourselves.

No, consciousness is the direct experience. And the direct experience is meaning.

The first meaning originates from the eternal question "Who am I ?" which has as answer "I am.". And since the question is eternal, it will never feel satisfied, so it will continue to find an answer, and this eternal search for answer eternally enriches consciousness with meaning: I am human, I am human John, I am human John engineer, I am human John engineer working at google, etc.

I'm pretty sure I have lots of ideas.