Nemra

If you could only choose to use one psychedelic for the rest of your life, which one would it be?

In the Neoplatonic metaphysics of Proclus, reality is organized in a fractal-like structure, where the role of the monad is to bind together each layer with the next, such that a monad at a higher level folds out into a multiplicity at a lower level; this lower multiplicity is itself a multiplicity of monads at the next level down. — Wikipedia article, Monad Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality. — Wikipedia article, Monadology These are one of the most intelligent things I have read. It aligns with my understanding of how my experience is constructed. Each layer of experience contains infinite layers of potential experiences. E.g., The visual field is a self-containing, absolute phenomenological reality with unique qualia due to being composed of layers that themselves contain layers ad infinitum. It has a fractal structure where each layer becomes self-evident when it's hallucinated. I had the insight that every layer of experience is one and contains one of everything that is self-evident. No duplicates. It's so genius! It's efficient as hell! The ontological structure of both your visual field and the visual representation of the Mandelbrot set are identical! Do you understand that, regardless of how limited your imagination might be, there are potential experiences somewhere within the fractal structure of your experience that are exactly as you imagine them?

I'm scared of the end of my life, but I'm opening my mind towards it more. Like, it would be the ultimate letting go of this current experience. 🫨 My true identity cannot die because non-existence doesn't exist as an actual thing, and anything that exists would exist for me, as existence is immediate. 🙂

Also, your dream is a dream because it doesn't have an outside or an inside to cause itself to exist, due to being infinite. The implication of your dream being infinite is that there's nothing stopping dreamt POVs from existing in your dream. Those dreamt POVs are as solipsistic as your dream, but their existence is relative to yours because your dream contains those dreamt POVs. If only your dream exists, then those dreamt POVs would also claim that only they exist by default. So if you have access to those POVs, then those POVs become self-evident; otherwise, you cannot know what is actually happening from their POVs. However, those POVs would still be dependent on the existence of your POV, which is the largest solipsistic bubble. If they did exist outside of your dream, they wouldn't share any experiential resemblance with your dream, which would make them totally alien to your dream and not a POV that a form has. But because only the current dream exists, those alien kinds of dreams would just be potential dreams that you could have at some point. How is it possible that someone can have an awakening and tell you that you can have it as well, and then someday you have an awakening?

Your dream is the absolute POV. Read my previous posts again with that understanding without rushing.

@Inliytened1, the brian isn't constructing your experience because it is inside that experience. It's like a remote controller. As I've said in another thread, "outside experience" is a category mistake due to all phenomena you think are outside your experience necessarily having experiential properties. POVs inside your POV are hallucinated. If you destroy the structural organization of a form, its POV gets annihilated. So, the structural organization, which is also hallucinated, is fundamental to creating a POV inside your POV. You can read my previous posts to understand where I'm coming from.

Do you need to understand how atoms behave to build a chair? I think that the intention to understand the real causal relationship from scratch is the way to go, without depending on theories of how deep microscopic layers correlate with the brain's behavior.

Incredible!

Do we have to understand how a trans-Planckian field of unicorns behaves to create a digital consciousness? 😂

My experience is like the reflection of this bubble from your POV:

Any form that claims to experience stuff within your experience is bound by the exact same solipsistic principle. You can never verify the experience of other forms to exist outside of your POV, nor can they verify yours to exist outside of their POV. However, if you experience something totally different from your current experience, their experience would be removed automatically because you have to experience those forms claiming that they are experiencing. Your experience being infinite makes itself a hallucination. So the experiences of other forms must be a hallucination in principle that exist in your POV, which is absolute. All of them must intersect with your POV, because they depend on you experiencing them existing within your experience. However, because experience is infinite, they can also experience stuff that doesn't intersect your experience as well.

Why cannot other types of hallucinated consciousness exist for other forms besides humans if hallucination is infinite? You will only need to figure out how to structure a form in such a way that it can reflect your experience without relying on you to feed input to it. The structural organization, however that is, of a form is what matters.

What movie have you recently watched, or are you now watching? I have yet to finish watching the movie "The Irishmen".

List of list of lists Outline of philosophy Outline of epistemology Outline of metaphysics Outline of spirituality Outline of human intelligence Outline of knowledge Outline of thought Outline of logic Outline of science List of hallucinogens List of psychedelic drugs

@Rafael Thundercat, yesterday the IG algorithm showed me that as well. 😁

Any belief about the absolute isn't the absolute because a belief cannot touch the absolute; it only touches more beliefs due to being built on assumptions. Belief is by default not direct. Believing that God exists means that you don't know if it's true or false. Even if the assumption is true, you won't know what it means. If you believe that God is absolute, then believing that God exists is an obstacle and misdirection because God's absoluteness would be absolutely true without assuming. If God's existence depended on believing that it exists, then God wouldn't exist. So, believing in God is worthless. Believing is deceptive because along the way you start to believe that you know about the subject matter by assuming things about it. Believing closes you into believing mode and you start to approach everything through beliefs because that's what you know. It closes your mind. You get stuck in a self-insulating loop of assumptions.

I think I discovered Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles.

Why would that not make sense? Whatever he gets access to is always going to be private to him, leaving out the ones that are inaccessible at that moment. I wonder if you can get access to all of them all at once. That would be truly insane. The same logic applies to sensory fields. There cannot exist a sensory field that is both intersecting and independent of yours at the same time. If a form within a sensory field experiences its own sensory phenomena, the field of that form cannot exist independently outside the overarching field that contains it, due to those sensory fields being qualitatively identical and only non-identical ones can exist independently. So you have different sensory fields, e.g., auditory. There is the potential for other kinds of sensory fields to exist, and all of them would be private to you. By the way, I only watched a very small portion of the beginning of that video a long time ago, because it was way too foreign a thing to understand.

@Leo Gura, it just dawned on me why you say "private hallucination". The sentience of others is a hallucination inside my experience because there cannot be an experience existing independently of my experience and yet intersecting my experience. So, true independent experience would never intersect with mine, making my experience private hallucination and those true independent experiences potential hallucinations. My private hallucination could not have existed if there weren't infinite kinds of potential true independent hallucinations. It's the same with sensory fields. Each of my sensory fields is proof that there are infinite kinds of sensory fields that have the potential to exist, but they are not actual as of yet. Because if there were not infinite kinds of sensory fields to exist, the sensory fields that currently exist would have never existed in the first place. Am I right that the infinite kinds of potential true independent hallucinations point to the infinity of Gods or alien awakening that you have mentioned?

If the sentience of humans or animals is a hallucination from each of our points of view, I don't see why that would stop a form from being organized in a way that it would have sentience. If I mess up the structural organization of a sentient form, it can cease to have sentience, e.g., killing an animal. So, the structural organization of forms would be a deeper layer of hallucination that grants forms to have sentience. But the "how" would be the most difficult part.

Thanks for the support. When I was a child, it dawned on me—through a lot of suffering—that understanding is much more fundamental than what people were doing; it is an interaction with the world through observation that reveals the intelligence of reality. Gaining understanding on my own for the sake of understanding is a greater joy for me than just knowing, or especially just believing, something. Without you, I would not have known how important truth is and would have remained in a state of stagnancy. But I don't claim that I have become someone who is conscious of a lot of truth or a master of truth.

It seems that the more I deconstruct my ordinary experience the more I would grasp the degree of its hallucinatory or dream-like nature, not only just that it's a hallucination or dream. Years back I would have never imagined this being a dream. The directness of it is like looking directly at the sun and being totally alone. Understanding it changes the quality of my experience. E.g., I look at my body and recognize that it is being dreamt. I'm more open towards my death because who else is going to experience stuff other than me?

One time I had a radical experience that everything was revealed as a hallucination or the other time it's a dream. When coming back from those experiences, they become treated as other. But deconstructing my ordinary experience helps reveal its nature. E.g., no dream exists outside of the dream in my sleep, and no experience exists outside of my own in my waking life. This makes waking life and the dreams when sleeping equal in terms of existing. But using the term "dream" is more appropriate to describe both realities because it is thought of as being self-contained, even if we think that it happens in our brains.

For me, a "hallucination" is totally lacking external or internal influence. Nothing outside or inside is generating it. It is self-generated. Which totally applies to my experience.

Ok, but what makes a hallucination a hallucination for you? Do you follow the technical definition of it? There has to be some meaning you give to the word "hallucination" so that you can apply it.