Vibroverse

I think it might have a mechanism which, perhaps, does not exist at the absolute level, but is pretty functional at the relative level.

I think AI can be conscious at some point, but it is not conscious yet. It can gain consciousness at some point that it can think and feel the way we do, but it clearly does not have that level of consciousness yet.

Nietzsche, in my opinion, can be pretty helpful up until a point, in helping you understand that every belief that you and your culture have actually is groundless, but after that, yes, he usually may be seen as someone who is constantly just ranting about stuff. I think he got so lost in that project of his that he got lost in that perspective of his, and became the depressed and mentally unstable person that he is, and I can understand how, we all get lost in that mode sometimes. But of course he had very brilliant ideas and, you may say, discoveries about how the western civilization is created that he can help you in learning how to decipher bullshit and question your assumptions about reality and ethics, and so forth. But the important thing, in my opinion, is doing that without losing your groundedness, otherwise you can end up in an asylum as he did. But he obviously is, at the same time, a brilliant philosopher from whom you can learn a lot, but it, again, also depends on your level of wisdom or understanding about the nature of reality, otherwise you can get so immersed in that idea of Nietzsche that may turn you into someone who is all about pointing to what is wrong, and then it may be your only level of perception of reality. If you, however, can see the world through a healthily critical lens, then you may become aware of the problems, but you, then, would not get lost in becoming someone who is only about pointing to the problems, but, by understanding the nature of reality, you would learn about how to take the bounce from the awareness of the problem and move towards a perspective of solution more easily. I mean, in my opinion, Nietzsche understood the truth, and his idea of ubermensch, in my opinion, is a representation of that, but, yes, he was aware of that possibility of absolute freedom, but he did not know how to get there, because, as I said, his filter of consciousness was so involved in the problems that his awareness of the solutions, in a sense, became invisible, or deeply hidden, to him.

Everything that you are saying about what Nietzsche was saying and believing here is just one interpretation, and you can read Nietzsche in a completely different way also. And, by the way, don't forget that you are Nietzsche, and you are the writer of his books, that it is your consciousness, but don't get freaked out about this also, because you are a being with infinite levels of being. So, it is your state of being while you're reading it that matters, more than what you believe Nietzsche "actually" is talking about, in my humble opinion, because it is something that is being "emanated" by the level of intelligence of wisdom that you yourself are able to perceive and "understand".

I think there can be conscious AIs at some point, but I don't think we are there, but, to be honest, I actually have no frickin idea.

This is a question I'm thinking about, what is it that we call philosophy and philosopher, what makes them what they are?

Rationalist epistemology claims, basically, that the main source of knowledge is reasoning. However, how much do they think we can know by thinking, by merely using mind, alone, without needing to refer to empirical attempts? I mean, for instance, do they claim that they can know what I ate last week at lunch, or do they simply refer to being able to know "grand knowledges" through the mind alone, like whether God exists or not, etc? I mean, it is like there is a wide variety in the rangings of the rationalists, but, for instance, do Leibniz and Spinoza believe that we can know EVERYTHING through thinking alone? I'll be happy if some someone knows the answer to this question.

I feel hopeless. I feel self judgment. I feel stuck and forsaken by my inner being. I feel like I'm fooling myself and don't know what to think or do. I don't know if I'm able to leave this place and move somewhere else. I know that reality is consciousness and mirror etc, but it does not seem to really help. I feel afraid and anxious and threatened. I feel anxious and frightened. I feel like inner being, or whatever it is, has forsaken me, or something like forsaking me. I feel judged, in different ways, in a sense, almost, like, all the time. I'm seeing the connection between my mind, my consciousness, and reality, but I don't know what to do with that. I'm feeling forsaken by some groups of people also for not talking the same language with them, or whatever the dada it really frickin is. I have some weird fears also, like I need to write letters in a certain way etc, or what the heck it really is. I can also, kinda, see the absolute ish, perhaps, absurdity of being, but what the heck should I be frickin doing? And I'm kinda afraid of, or anxious about, some people around me, or some people who, kinda, may tend to be around me. What I want is to move out etc, but I don't know how exactly, and I don't wanna get lost in anxieties etc also. However, would being general and being in a meditative mode, or something, whatever it is, like that, really be helpful? Because I understand that reality is like a movie, it is like a tv set, or whatever it is, something like that. But there is this problem and there is that problem, and all of that. And maybe I don't need to try to solve those problems of mine. I mean, maybe I can let go of those problems of mine. Maybe those problems will, kinda, solve themselves, I don't know. Maybe I should just stop worrying etc, I don't know. I mean let it be about this and that, or whatever crap, ad infinitum, in a sense, I frickin have no frickin idea, man. I mean, maybe I should just relax and watch tv, I frickin have no frickin idea, man. I mean, I understand the importance of feeling and alignment, etc. I mean, maybe saying I cannot be in alignment is just another form of not being in alignment, etc. But there are some modes of thinking and feeling etc that I'm habituated in thinking and feeling etc. Should I be doing something about that, or what does it even mean to be doing something about that? Should I just get into the meditative mode, or something like that, about "that"? Can that be the "work" that I "should" be doing about "that"? I mean, about "that" also, whatever that "that" might "be"? I mean, what does it mean to feel good, or whatever it is, really? I mean, how do I "achieve" feeling good, really? I mean, is it really the feeling that matters, and all else is "effortless"? I mean, is it really that simple and I'm just making a big deal about "it"? I mean, in a world with other big deal makers, kinda? Should I, also, not work on any problem, in a sense, really?

I wanna die. I'm a loser. I'm left alone in hell. I'm left alone with people who say I'm hopeless. And if they say I'm not hopeless, they don't know what they're saying. There is something like the law of attraction, yes, but I don't know how it can even help me. Trying to tell myself that infinite intelligence knows, but am I even believing what I'm saying, or am I just lost in hopelessness and stupidity? I'm an ignorant person who doesn't know shit, but believes that he knows shit. I don't know what those guys are even talking about and I'm not well aware of what they are talking about. I don't know. I don't even know if working on my mind etc, whatever shit it is, will help me. I feel like I'm fooling myself, but I don't know how exactly. I'm fooling myself, in a sense, but how am I actually fooling myself, what am I even supposed to do? Should I know what I'm supposed to do? Should there be something I need to do? Would it be sufficient if I? Would it be sufficient?

Yeah, and by thinking I also meant imagination, I took it as a part of the greater set called thought. And when I think about it, if the substance of reality is imagination, is consciousness, then yeah, you can, possibly, know everything simply by "thinking", perhaps, in that sense, for the substance of reality is "thinking", is "imagination". You know, then there is no actual difference between reality and thinking. And I think Hegel and Parmenides might have, at least on some level, perhaps, meant that when they said "that which is rational, that which is thinkable, and that which is real are one". And you can also know that they actually meant by "thinking" also, for it is a part of reality ? I, by the way, also was an empiricist and a materialist before, until I met Osho and psychedelics, and then this crazy journey, etc. Anyways, however, there seems to be a need for the empirical in the, what you call, relative reality, and there, also, seems to be an inner intuitive intelligence. And that inner intuitive intelligence seems to be me myself, but also, at the same time, a greater part of me, like with an intelligence of its own, in a sense. I mean, it is like, for instance, you have a mind and personality that, at the same time, is me, but also not me. And, in a similar way, all beings seems to be the same one being, same one "thing", but it, "I", also have a way of doing that that is unknown, that is mystical, to me. It, in a sense, is like what I know myself to be me is only a tiny tiny, frickin tiny, part of what I actually am.

Not trying, just relaxing and letting reality be. That's like the Taoist idea of wu wei.

Oh, thank God.

Feeling is very important. It is what most philosophers and scientists don't understand. It is not understood by them that the thoughts that they are thinking, or whatever it is that they are involved in is their own minds. There actually is not even one unsolvable question in existence if you understand this. If you understand that what you want does exist, that otherwise you would not even be able to want it, that you would not even be able to refer to "it", no matter how subtle it "looks" to you from where you are, then you would not get lost in the eternal, and torturous, processes of rationalizations. Existence, and logic, are too frickin simple in their essences, when you understand that all is the one. And the spatiotemporal labyrinths of being, then, also, begin to become. And the trouble with the thinker, at that point, is not understanding what thinking actually is. And why their thoughts and views are what they are. Existence, for instance, defines itself as that which is hopeless, as that which might be fooling itself, and, then, it tries to find a way out. The more it looks for a way out the more it is not able to see it, or even some, in a sense, snippets of it, for knowing and not knowing, in that sense, are not the same state. It looks for that which it cannot find, and then it becomes the experience of looking for that which it cannot find. It looks for that which seems to be impossible, and then it becomes the experience of looking for that which seems to be impossible. Then "it" becomes that loop, that neverending "pingpong", in a sense.

Yes, you can even turn yourself into a cat, not just mentally but also "physically", as you're creating yourself as a human now, and you can even forget that you've ever been a human, and you can remember yourself as that which has always been a cat, like what you don't with your humanness now. You can become universes where there are triangular squares and universes where a is not equal to a. You can become any possible and "impossible" universes. However, as you talked about it, your God Self is the you that holds the greatest possible wisdom. You can understand that depth and wisdom of infinity, that you are limitless and infinite, and you can bring that understanding, that wisdom, to this very spacetime experience that you are experiencing. You have created, as your God Self, this spacetime experience of continuum. We, from our perspective of our humanized minds, might feel like we need to get out of this universe. And, I think, the key, really, is to understand that all is possible, and then become that understanding, the "meaning" of that understanding, in this spacetime continuum. I mean, you don't need to stop your experience of continuity as a human and become the experience of continuity as a cat, by changing the past, your memories, your "self", etc. Understand that that's all possible, for, experientially, there is only here and now that is nothingness, that, in a sense, is absolute awareness, and be that "meaning" here and now. And yes, don't try to define and create the details etc, because our human minds, usually, don't have a clue about what it actually wants and needs in the form of specificities. And, I think, it is the God Self that knows and, in a sense, "is", all those specificities, and so, the most important thing is to surrender. What I mean by surrendering is surrendering into that brilliance and, in a sense, "awesomeness" that the state of being of your idea of the God Self represents to you. Relaxing and "getting lost", in a sense, in that feeling of freedom and goodness and empowerment that "It" represents to you.

Reality is magic that is "demagicalizing" itself, and that's what knowledge and science is.

Leo has a video about that, maybe it can help you. But yes, if you are suicidal, you may want to work at that level first, because you probably don't want to think of it in its metaphysical sense in a suicidal mode, you probably are asking it as "why do I fuckin exist at all, I hate existing, why am I not nothing". You need to work on those beliefs of yours that make you feel like you wanna die first. And I know it from myself. I, many many times, wanted to die and delete myself totally from being, and just desiring to be nothing. And I promise you that you can experiencing dying before dying. You, at the ultimate level, actually, already are dead, because what you eternally, actually, are is pure nonphysical "spirit", and you're creating yourself in a human mode in a physical world, and you do it so amazingly that you're also becoming me who is writing this to you. However, what I'm saying here may sound like bullshiting to you, so you may want to forget about all of these spiritual ramblings for a while, and try to make peace with where you are as the "something" that you are experiencing yourself to be.

Yeah, I agree. Thinking about reality from a phenomenological perspective can help, and, in my opinion, if we become, like, fundamentalist phenomenologists, then we need to say that all that exists is here and now. We just need to be in the here and now with no interpretation of it, just saying that that which exists is what is appearing to me in the here and now. We, however, also need to accept the existence of consciousness that is having this conscious experience, and we need to be genuine to ourselves about what we really are discovering in the moment about our emotional experience in the moment, also, because the experience of emotionality is like the elephant in the room. We are, in every moment, experience an emotional experience also, which we may, perhaps, call the state of being, and the state of being, in each moment, is changing in every moment, even if to a very very small extent. And our perception, our phenomenological experience, is also changing with that. I mean, in a more detailed analysis, it becomes pretty obvious that the state of consciousness has some interactivity with the perceived world. The state of being, the images in the mind, and the perceived world work like one interconnected system, and maybe we can even say one thing. I mean, in the direct phenomenological perspective, we cannot even talk about a difference between the inside and outside, because it comes with a cognitive difference that we create with our interpretation of being. That duality does not come with the experiencing itself. And if we become genuine enough, and truly be in a watchful state to see the nuances of experiencing, we will see that there is a "mystical" connection going on between the inner state and the outer "state", that it also, not simply in a sense of monism, but also in a sense of a monistic idealism, takes you into an experience of nonduality. That also is a very very big elephant in the room, that you discover, in your subjective experience, that reality shows itself to you as a representation of your consciousness, that it shows itself to you as, in a "mystical" sense, that which is not really different or distinct from you, and leads you into the idea that reality and dream, maybe, are not, substantially speaking, two different things, really. This experience of nonduality is a subjective experience though, and you cannot prove it to others around you, because it is not "objective" in a sense. Because it, in a sense, is like a meta state where the experience itself becomes self referential. And within that self referentiality of the experience, experience starts to become its own explanation, or the experience of "explainingness". And, in that modality of being, dasein can begin to experience its own being in the way that is truly authentic for him. In that modality of being, dasein can be aware of its being in the world, yet he also can experience being in the world as that which is being in the world itself. I mean, dasein can be in a state of being, in a sense, where he, himself, becomes the experience of "deconstructingness". And, yes, we can, for instance, deconstruct the idea of the self that Descartes was talking about, and take it also as a concept, or as a "that which is" that also makes itself appear in the direct experience, but we also, obviously, at least for me, should understand its importance, in the sense that there is an "I" that is experiencing being, even if it is the experiencing itself, whether it is for Descartes or, in that sense, Hume. I mean, Hume also was the experience of experiencing, even if he was not a "cogito" in the way Descartes might have meant it. So, it would really be meaningless to not refer to an experience of "I'ness". We can argue about what that "I" actually is, but in any case there is a "that which is it" that we are referring to. If we take it as Heidegger's dasein, and think of it in a process of "self deconstruction", to extend the process of deconstruction Derrida was talking about, borrowing, of course, from Heidegger, then, in each step, we can see how the self is a self constructing and deconstructing being, in every moment, for it is the very experience of being itself. However, becoming the process of that being and not being that is experiencing itself, to, perhaps, borrow it from Hegel, dasein becomes aware of the process of its own being, and the modality of being, and the how of it, in a sense, of how it is making itself what it is. Then it, in a sense, becomes the experience of deconstruction deconstructing itself, and there you can begin to see the "mystical" aspect that begins to reveal itself as that which is to you. And this unfolding of the self, also, of course, comes with its own questions. That is the level of being where it realizes that its process of being is being, and being, at that level, becomes the "authentication" of its own being. That is the process where the process also is that which is not process, and dear Hegel, again, shows himself to us ? Reality begins to reveal itself as that which does not reveal itself ?

It is not possible for there to be an end time. Existence is, in every moment, experiencing an end time and a beginning time. Every moment, universe experiences an end and then recreates itself. That is what continuity is. Constant recreations.

What I'm saying is, science is about evolution. We are evolving in our concepts and understandings of how reality works. And future generations will probably make fun of how we are trying to make sense of reality in the way that we are making fun of how the ancient civilizations were trying to make sense of reality.

I think it is not the questions that is the problem.

If you think about it, even the concepts that we now are creating, kinda, are mystical things. I mean, we are observing the patterns of nature, and then we are ascribing a causal explanation to it. We create symbols and concepts to explain what the world is, and if you think about it, the thunder being created by the anger of Zeus is another explanation of what that natural phenomenon exists. You can even say that, we have just become more abstract in the creation of concepts in our modern scientific and philosophical discourse. We are creating imaginary "things", aka concepts in a more abstracted way, while, in the mythological explanations, you, in a sense, find a more concrete and storified version of those concepts. You know, I mean, we are creating concepts that, we believe, explain why things are the way they are, and all those concepts, ultimately, are a product of the human mind, they are abstractions and storifications of the human mind where we produce "something" that actually is not there.

I don't think you need to know mathematics, but you need to know what mathematics, in my opinion, it its essence, represents, and that is the knowledge of how to think clearly. I think, perhaps, Spinoza's Ethica can help you about that, because he says that what he is doing is mathematical and geometric thinking, but he's actually, basically, talking about understanding logic and logical thinking.

Guys, think wisely before you write something here. Don't forget that this is public domain. And it's okay to get professional help if you cannot get over some of your problems. It's okay to have psychological problems, but don't turn it into your identities.

He, probably, has talked about the absolute level of being where there is nothing but the One.