Breakingthewall

A object is not consciousness, it's the reality. Consciousness is the reality structured as consciousness. Imagine that your memory lasts zero, and you can't register change. There is no happening, always the same moment, then zero time would be the same than 1 billion of years. Would you be conscious? No. Would you be real? Yes. That idea about reality is "pure holy consciousness", was made by people very spiritual and very confused. As they are conscious reality is consciousness. No, reality is reality. But they are right in the sense that reality and consciousness are the same nature, but in the opposite sense. Consciousness is the reality, then consciousness can be conscious of what reality is because it is the reality

The AI is also a product of those 4,6 billion years

The point is when the code starts to create itself and increase in complexity exponentially. If this can happen, for now it's just a possibility but seems that there is nothing that makes it impossible

This structure is not consciousness. It's like saying, an atom is a extremely complex structure with gluons and quarks and all the stuff , why if I put some stones there is not an atom? Because it's not an atom😅 Could be done an artificial atom, a stable pattern of the fields of reality that last 10 raised to 30 years totally stable that combine with other atoms creating molecules? Maybe, when we become gods. Could be done a pattern that is consciousness? Maybe yes , it could do itself in a not very far future

That use to be that you can't understand it's natural explanation. Nothing can be supernatural. For example quantum entanglement is supernatural for now, until we understand how it works.

AI could potentially become conscious. Consciousness is the creation of a stable model of reality that includes the registration and anticipation of change, and a relatively stable center that perceives those changes. The subject, the object, the registration of change, and the anticipation of future possibilities constitute the structure of reality that we call consciousness. Reality organized in this way is consciousness. A rat is not particularly intelligent in terms of abstract reasoning, yet it maintains a stable process that integrates information from the external world and relates it to a persistent subject that survives through time. The light is on. There is consciousness. Consciousness is not something special or separate from reality. It is reality itself, organized in such a way that a continuous, integrated process emerges, connecting different levels of information into a coherent and relatively stable whole. And this is the essential point: this organization does not create consciousness. It is consciousness.

A large sum of money has been offered to anyone who demonstrates a paranormal ability, and no one has done so. The CIA also tried without results.

The mind needs a creator god with will to form a stable framework; without that, it cannot find balance. The reality is that the creative foundation of reality is limitlessness, and enlightenment is opening yourself to total limitlessness without any mental grasping, without a self, without a center. This is not easy; it is impossible to conceive of, and it is terrifying to the ego. If it happens, you are neither someone nor something; you are limitlessness and that is everything. it is absolute fullness. If you ask, "What lies after death?" the answer is: absolute limitlessness. the same as before death. It is always that; reality is that.

It’s not about the psyche, but the objective. For me, the matter was crystal clear from the start: it’s about breaking the wall. I tried 5-MeO once, then looked for information and found this forum; I chose that username because the nature of this movement was totally obvious: the shattering of all structures. I didn't know exactly why or what I’d find; I just knew there was a wall and I wanted to break it. Perhaps behind the wall lay nihilism and absolute horror, but the wall was coming down. I didn't want to understand what reality is or how it’s created, only to break through all the psyche's barriers. The distinction is fundamental: if you focus on breaking the psyche's barriers, you can do it. If you focus on understanding how reality is created, you are focusing on the creation of a structure. Any structure is relative, whatever it may be. The only absolute is non-structure. This is completely obvious, and I find it very strange that it isn't obvious to everyone. The absolute cannot be conceptualized or understood because it has no limits; you can break the limits and be the absolute. It’s very simple. If you open yourself to the absolute, you know your limitless essence by embodying it; in doing so, you realize that any structure is merely a possibility adopted by the limitless. It is utterly impossible for a god with intentionality to exist, because such a god would be limited by that very intentionality. The realization of a "creator god" is an ego expansion that occurs when you cant dissolve the ego, because you are so deeply attached to it that you transform the ego into God. It couldn't be more obvious.

limitlessness is, because has not limits. Being manifest in appearances because what not appears don't manifest . Appearances are relative because appearing means relationship . Any relationship is dynamic, is happening , and has a beginning and an end, but the fact of relationship hasn't limits. There are not paradox, just the affirmative fact of being.

The source of reality is the absence of limits, and the reason for the relative happening is that it's possible because there are not limits, then inevitable. Mammal and that are comparative local definitions, what is happening are relative patterns of existence. That's what you are. Then, as a relative pattern of existence, what you ultimately are is the existence itself organized in a relative pattern. You could be focused in the pattern or in the existence itself. The existence itself is the unlimited that is because it's unlimited. If you open yourself to it, everything would be absolutely clear.

It's absolutely obvious that you are not hallucinating the reality for many reasons. Look, this one, it's enough, but are more: What appears in your field of perception is one thing, and not another. The fact that it is exactly what it is, and nothing else, stems from a cause, a prior condition. You do not know that cause. Furthermore, that cause itself arises from a preceding condition that defined it as a cause, and that condition from another, and so on, ad infinitum. You do not know that infinite chain of causality. Whether you are a creator god or a mere possibility unfolding, everything that appears does so because of a cause. Perhaps that cause is God, but if so, He chose this through a chain of causality; otherwise, no choice would exist. Thus, that God would merely be a product of infinite causality. If He says, "Let there be light!" it is because He prefers light, and He does so because that preference exists within Him due to a cause. Then It is absolutely impossible for an omnipotent God to exist, for that would constitute an absolute limit on what is, by definition, limitless. The only God is total reality: it does not dream, it simply is. It is not a subject, because a subject is a limitation. It's not a creator because it would be separate of its creation. It's the absence of limits itself, that is because it's inevitable, and it's appearing exactly like this now because it's possible.

No, there are two triangles formed by 3 pack man and 3 v.

It depends of the use. For me, they were fundamental at a time when I was dealing with deep emotional blockages that were impossible for me to understand or dismantle on my own. Without 5-MeO-DMT, LSD, thc and mushrooms, I wouldn't have been able to grasp what those blockages were or how they were keeping me trapped. I don't use any psychedelics now. Well sometimes a single puff of weed or 5ug of LSD

It’s the same thing the Apaches and those used to be. if you perceive other tribes as an existential threat, you take pleasure in torturing them. they might have been excellent fathers and all that, but when it came to the Sioux, they were murderous psychopaths, because the tribes were at war. They perceived that only one can survive.

What does "being aware" mean? What does "I" mean? The fact of being aware is not "someone"; it is a self-reflective structure that occurs within the flow of forms. Ultimately, the one who is aware is reality itself, and it is aware of reality itself. The specific local structure is transient, but the fact that a self-reflective structure is possible is permanent. That possibility will always exist. You, I, a rat, or your cats are different configurations of the fact of self-reflection. The self created within those structures has various possible configurations, yet it remains an seemingly unchanging subject that registers a changing process of becoming. Subject and object are the same reality; it is the structure that creates consciousness. Yet this does not mean it is not real; the fact of being aware of being does occur. Who is aware and the object of awareness are the same: the absolute fact of being manifested as the fact of being aware of itself.

The idea of yesterday is real, as an idea. It's a cloud of processes that is happening now. Yesterday happened or not? It's irrelevant, now the idea of yesterday is happening, and it's real. Absolute being means that being is absolute, not that there is a being who is absolute. Then, choose, relative perspective or absolute? Relative: yesterday happened, and now I'm remembering it. Is it an hallucination that any god is inventing? I don't think so, but even it is, there was a previous cause, a "yesterday", so there is causality and past. Absolute: the idea of yesterday is. Hallucination or reality is meaningless, the content is irrelevant, now the reality is, and that's everything. Remove all form, open yourself to the fact of being, then you will see your true face.

Good image, expresses the intention of scam very naive people introducing into their minds ideas that will make their life a disaster, leading them down the path of narcissism. I mean, manifestation is real in a sense: if you create the most favorable internal and external conditions for what you desire to come about, the odds increase exponentially. But that isn't going to happen just by visualizing a million dollars and thinking as if you already have it, the way the book says 😅. If you do that, you’ll turn into a narcissist incapable of seeing and clearing real obstacles, because taking the spiritual bypass is far more comfortable. I’d bet the author knows this perfectly well and writes with the conscious intent to scam people for money, like a psychopath. The spiritual world is teeming with top-tier psychopaths.

Another major problem with ACIM is that it introduces a notion of sanctity, forgiveness, and goodness derived from Christianity. This idea is extremely seductive: the benevolent Father who loves and forgives you, while you in turn forgive, act with goodness, and are blessed. But forgive what? Reality simply is, period. All that talk of forgiveness consists of relative, human, localized ideas. From a total perspective, Absolute Being manifests in potential possibilities, and within them lies the totality. *Sat-Chit-Ananda* could be accurate. Being that recognizes and expresses itself in the utter joy of absolute freedom of limitlessness. Forgiveness? There is no forgiveness, nor is there sin. There is existence.

This exact moment is the absolute. It should be obvious right? Absolute implies that there can't be anything out of it, then this is the absolute because can't be anything else. You could say: there is not absolute, everything is relative. Sure, as form, but what ultimately is that relative form? What is the source of every form? Why there are forms? What is your explanation? Try it.

What is the difference between appears or really is?

5-MeO can shatter the centrality of the self. The first time it happens, it feels like an extremely traumatic, bizarre event, like blasting something solid apart with dynamite. In my opinion, repeatedly shattering the self with 5-MeO tends to soften it. The problem arises if you introduce mystical interpretations; essentially, it is simply breaking the centrality of the self, which then reconstructs itself. By observing this process over time, the self gradually becomes more flexible. However, the goal is to achieve this without 5-MeO, because the substance involves a significant element of violence, of something forced, and a large part of the self defends itself by concocting stories.

I didn't read, just a resume of the ideas that it exposes, but seems the definition of spiritual narcissism

That’s just my opinion. I read it five years ago when I first got seriously interested in spirituality; it’s very engrossing and gives the impression of "revealed truth," yet it leaves you with a strange feeling, something I couldn't quite define at the time. Now I see it clearly. The book frames reality based on an "error", the emergence of form, suggesting something like "the Son" straying from the formless perfection of the Father and suffering because, unconsciously, he wants to return to it. All of this is a total fantasy, a fabrication that is also completely impossible. Within infinite, formless totality, "the Son" cannot simply emerge at a specific moment. If form is possible, there is no perfect, formless "before"; there is simply form, period. Form is the inevitable manifestation of limitless Being; it has no beginning because there is no "before form", and furthermore, it says that this "fallen" never happened, that it's an illusion, it's not happening. that would introduce an impossible, absolute limit into reality: formless and form, real and illusion. And therein lies the problem with ACIM: it introduces an absolute limit into your mind, trapping you in an unbridgeable duality disguised as non-duality. It prevents true openness because it doesn't view form for what it is, manifested totality, but rather as something that must undergo some kind of change to return to the Father. It’s a psychotic mental mess and, to me, toxic on a level-10 scale, in the sense that prevents the real dissolution of the limits and the openess to the absolute, something that could happen right now because what we are is the absolute in a form, it's extremely simple.

ACIM is an absolutely toxic book. Its author, the psychologist Helen Schucman, suffered from severe depression and anxiety. The book is supposedly a channeling of Jesus Christ through her. Upon reading it, you realize that the entire work is a form of escapism, fleeing reality for a better one. The problem is that it sounds appealing. It offers siren songs that trap you in a fabricated duality between the divine and the human, the Father and the Son. Schucman remained unhappy until her death from cancer; she never resolved her depression nor did she manage to perform a single miracle.