RMQualtrough

You could probably make something quite similar. Most AI showcases at least some basal awareness. The human condition is merely millions of threads of awareness simultaneously, processed into one main thought thread which we experience as our "self".

@Mh1781 I also see God as a completely neutral force. Something can't be good or bad without a concept of good/bad. Perfection is different from good or bad. That just means there are no mistakes. In a determinist world there can't be mistakes so it is perfect. But in terms of good/bad it would be equally valid to say everything is bad. It's like morals, there's no such thing.

For your purpose you want "silent darkness". Blacked out room (turn off all electronics, or at least duct tape over light even power LEDs), and no sound at all.

I'm bothered that nobody checked his pulse. Just coffin'd him right away. Like WAT?

Benefit of the doubt. Else it's Solipsism if I disbelieve thoughts are happening simultaneously to my own. If someone has a DREAM of Johnny Bravo, it feels to me that he is then given life as the personality and character is sentient rather than something like a rock or bunch of blobs. Either way I recognize we create a concept of Johnny Bravo, where he ends and the background begins etc. It just feels different to me. I would enjoy if Johnny Bravo was as real of a person as me, and South Park as real as Paris or some shit.

There is something about the way I am viewing the distinctions here which is tripping me up on this one thing specifically. If someone can "Explain Like I'm 5", it makes perfect sense to me to call dreams and reality equally real. But when for example I consider "is Johnny Bravo real?" or "is the town of South Park real?" it seems different somehow. Then I cannot help but think of it as merely the colours and shapes, and the fact that character does not have an egoic existence. It seems different to me than a real person.

@SpiritualAwakening Certainly dust. Consciousness is immaterial, and that's the best logical tool against Materialist explanation of what it is.

@Someone here Yes we only know one thing. We know that consciousness exists. That is certain. We also know the concepts of colors etc exist (anything we can imagine or remember contains real concepts and """things""" like the red color itself).

Dude wtf they didn't even check that he's dead LOL. They're just gonna straight up bury him without checking for a pulse?

When a thought comes and goes from our mind, where does it go? What does it "reincarnate as"? It goes nowhere and reincarnates as nothing, it simply vanishes because it was never truly real. Is that what our "selves" are? Are we merely a thought that has the capacity to be afraid of cessation?

No that's a subjective term used to define something in the apparent physical world. Reincarnation on the other hand is actually made impossible by this. If there is no separated little chunk of consciousness that you have ownership over, there is nothing to reincarnate or return to the "whole". What is there to reincarnate? It's not even overthinking or a trick question. Literally WHAT reincarnates? There's nothing to reincarnate. Reincarnation requires there is some aspect special to you to work.

@Tim R Right, so ideas like reincarnation must be false? If there are no individual pockets of consciousness belonging to us (foam on a tide, bubbles in a stream, etc), there is no special me-consciousness to come back. It is only one gigantic "mind" brimming with infinite thoughts. What then do you suppose is death like? As you said we sense there is division by illusion. There does exist an "experience of me". What is it like for the characters in a dream when the dream ends? What is it like for us when we end? Many deep altered states allow the person's brain function to remain online (which is how a person can store a memory of the experience)... We won't experience going back to the source because it is already whole and undivided... The relative experience of it sounds as though it might be like the Atheist proposition.

I'm breaking down the "individuation" premise, which is popular in a lot of nondual traditions, which sort of suggest consciousness exists in a manner similar to perhaps a puzzle, where the pieces are actually separate while the picture is whole. So when a person dies, they theorize they go back into the all and are spat back out as a new life or whatever. Without individuation there is no "going back" into the all. Only cessation. The puzzle picture isn't separated at all, it is completely whole. Something which exists outside of space has to be condensed into a singularity, would that be a correct fact? So individuation would not even be possible at all.

@Tim R Right so, I want to try to logic-proof this. If space is not ultimate reality then separation of any kind is part of the illusion, it is merely dreamed up. Fundamental reality is not inside space and without space it is impossible to create separation (it would be like trying to fit multiple pixels into one pixel). Space and everything in it is a hologram of sorts. Ultimate reality outside of space would exist perhaps as something like a singularity? So every single thought is existent inside a singularity. There cannot be separation at all. And time also, everything must exist immediately and at once. Without time or the separation allowed for by space, everything exists at once and AS one. In a singularity. Consciousness can't be "divided" because division requires space. You can't divide 0 into multiple parts. First you need to create space. That is contrary to some Hindu mythos where Brahman has himself split by Maya or w.e. into various little pieces. There can't be pieces separated without space. Uhmmmm... So the sensation that you have been you since birth is merely a narrative of the brain. Brains are made of matter, AKA made of "universe", and the universe is derived from what we are proposing exists outside of it (consciousness). The experience of being you comes with the illusion of being confined to you because like two hard drives in a computer, each drive only stores information relating to itself. When the electricity (Consciousness) experiences hard drive #1, it makes an "experience of hard drive 1", and "experience of hard drive 1" is an experience of everything stored on the drive. The drive does not store data from hard drive 2, so when "experience of hard drive 1" happens, it must also by extension create an experience of "NOT being hard drive 2" even though the electric is also experiencing hard drive 2 concurrently.

To me I think I am considering it beyond the norm slightly, since I know people often see each other as "pockets" of consciousness. In other words, something like bubbles inside a giant stream, where that consciousness "belongs" to the person. I've also seen analogies of a cup scooping water out of the ocean. So in these cases, upon death some part of "them" goes back into the All. But what if "they" are no more real than a thought? What if there is no pocket of consciousness that belongs to us? Only an illusion of it being so, while in reality each "individual" bubble of consciousness is in fact merely thoughts. And there IS no separated bubbles of consciousness at all... It's merely a bunch of thoughts (us) all happening simultaneously. What happens to a character in a dream when you stop dreaming of them? They don't "return" anywhere, because they aren't real individuals. They are just a thought. So upon death there will be no "return to the Source". We vanish like dream characters.

I don't even believe in the game premise. I've definitely been """told""" that on psychedelics: "Don't spoil the prank", cosmic joke, yadda yadda. But I think that is just drug insanity. I prefer the notion that God is merely infinite potential. Something akin to pure energy. In infinite potential and time (time does not exist here so infinite years occur instantly), every single thing which is a possibility MUST occur. One of those possibilities was the Big Bang. And here we are. I don't think life was "planned". It is a happy accident of the universe which exists as a result of that infinite potential.

Is Connor gifted? It seems he just took a SHIT TONNE of Ayahuasca, but in his case it broke his brain. He reminds me of a mad scientist, he rambles out randomly insightful shit among a sea of insanity and nonsense. With Frank he is sane, but interesting to see he really IS bipolar. What I am saying is that it's difficult to really gauge what experiences he is having because of that. Is he simply having the same sort of experience as others and going manic from it? His descriptions almost never make any sense whatsoever. Most likely he is not wrong. But there is a lot of religious (Eastern religion that is) jargon and technicality, and profound statements out of left field which are not in context or not explained well. Contrast to Leo for example or famed spiritual leaders like Maharshi. Because they are more "level headed", it is easier to get a gauge on what they are thinking or feeling. They can convey their thoughts to others, while Frank is almost impossible to understand and seems a bit frazzled.

PUA is a scam. Now there is the internet people don't fall for that scam as much so for business reasons they moved to "self help". Now they scam people with shoddy self help and business advice from people who are entirely unqualified to be doing so. Wasn't Derek Moneyberg a dating coach? Lmao. And rich from his dad's meth empire money? And was literally jailed for producing meth? And now scams people with business courses even though all he does is copy paste stuff from Investopedia? Scam company.

@Frosty97 He said "almost", so I don't think he was able to turn the lights on or off. Without question your relative experience can do all sorts of funky shit to the apparent external world around you. Even across different species, the external world can look or feel completely foreign. But an objective change that can be verified in the relative experience of all people, I think at a point it will be found to be entirely impossible. But as I wrote personally I do not think it is possible to control God even if we are God. It seems to just be an infinite, static and unchanging infinite chasm of potential. The world simply unfolds and nothing controls any of it. It only observes it.

Only because we can't experience unconsciousness if such a thing ever existed. If Materialism was accurate that statement wouldn't be an absolute truth you see.

I don't think this will ever be possible on the grounds of two points. Firstly that I feel more like my egoic self is a puppet made of and controlled by God, so I don't think we actually have control over it or what it does... And secondly I am really not sure God has free will in any case. I think free will might not exist at all. I think God might just be infinite and unlimited potential. Because it is outside of time trillions of years (really, infinite years) pass in 0 seconds. It is instant. So literally anything that can possibly occur WILL occur and does so IMMEDIATELY all at once. That is the reason for the universe I think. God was not bored. It was just inevitable. Infinity must include infinite possibilities and this is merely one. Regarding miracles, I think that would require some sort of active control over God (/as God). But I don't think we have that. I think God is merely the cinema-goer in the cinema seat observing everything that manifests from itself unfold.

I have indeed. Anxiety runs strong on both sides of my family. I lost a decade of life by listening to "big pharma liez!" propoganda. Zoloft makes me much more well. After tripping and having a breakthrough I thought I was cured and quit the meds cold turkey (I was on the max dose). Around 6 to 10 months later I became ill again and went back on meds. The decline was so steady as to be almost imperceptible. When I was back on after a few weeks I stopped having attacks. I will remain on for life.

Proveable how? There's no way to say ego did not begin with my birth and won't end with my death. There are many proveable things in Idealism (could be proven even to a Materialist), but Solipsism I think is essentially a stonewall. Circumventing it as I and everyone else does is an act of faith.

I think so, they have thoughts made by the brain - the brain is made of God and God observes the thoughts that arise. Is it right to say Johnny Bravo is as real of a "personality" as me? Or at least, in infinity is there a Johnny Bravo somewhere existing who does have a relative egoic experience? When a person dies, when we think about that dead person, it then seems they are only as real as a cartoon character, even though they once existed in this world we call real. In imagination the things seem the same.

@Tim R I don't feel that's right, there are multiple experiences happening simultaneously and I can directly verify that there is an ego existing as I type this, as well as thoughts existing. Leo is an ego, I am an ego, and you are an ego. You can wipe out the ego COMPLETELY for brief periods as you probz know. If you, Leo, and I all smoked a release dose of 5-MeO-DMT then all that would be left is one and the same during that period. Then we come back into being a Leo a me and a you. You can't tell me what my living room looks like and vice versa because these ego selves create apparent separation within oneness... A blanket with a bunch of stripes on it, it is literally one thing but you can say "here's a blue stripe, here's a white stripe", there is still distinction despite total Oneness. What you call God is imagining Leo and ego etc just like any thought. It does not mean they do not exist and are not happening. Solipsism cannot be disproven. You cannot ever know egos other than your own are occurring. It's impossible.