Ahbapx

I don't understand how those are related to my point. I don't think I have a problem with that. My original response to you was made because I thought you were implying that ALL boundaries actually don't exist, and you assign the core cause of time and space or change to the non-existence of ALL boundaries. My personal opinion is boundary and non-boundary are the fundamental aspects of existence, so they are both needed. Although equating them can have benefits, I think the harms are greater.

Thank you although I am not sure what "THIS" is.

I guess you misunderstood. When did I even say people don't exist? or when did I say you should tell them? never. I am saying it doesn't matter if you make a distinction or not if you set a boundary or not, God is always unaffected. It doesn't matter if there is a boundary or not, God is God. My core message was equating non-existence to existence without differentiating them with new terms can lead to delusion.

@Bazooka Jesus

Yep. it was fun.

You literally said my approach doesn't work when it comes to spirituality. so, you implied my approach was wrong without even noticing how it contradicts your own claim. Also, that is not how spirituality works either. Absolute has to encompass subjective, if a subjective framework results in a binary result, meaning not 0 but 1, that has to be also 1 from the absolute perspective. For example, If I make a game, write the rules myself, and you play my game to win, you have to abide by my rules to win the game, if you claim that there is no right or wrong way to play it, you are just living in your own fantasy and not in reality. So, yeah... you were wrong.

So you are saying I made a mistake? Ha! That would be a hell of a contradiction between you and your AI guru. Jokes aside, clearly you didn't get my point because this is exactly how most spiritual teachers base their answers, Notice, my question was not even about anything related to spirituality, enlightenment, or non-duality, yet it chose to answer it through the spiritual framework because it is how it is trained. And the whole spiritual-guru identity is exactly similar, they just answer almost everything from the same framework.

No point in responding to you anymore since you don't even try to distinguish between awareness, awareness of awareness, and self-awareness. I am talking about simple awareness, yet you still think that binary code is not the process of awareness. All the best to you.

brutha what are you even talking about ?!

And? that doesn't ring any bell at all for me, why would that be important at all?

Sure, I agree that most "enlightenment" definitions are BS. Such as Positing enlightenment as a single endpoint rather than an ongoing process of deepening wisdom, ethics, and human flourishing over a lifetime. That being said, What if you are rejecting an "enlightenment" definition defined by a specific person that addresses a specific realization that has a significant impact on one's life? are we still talking about the same enlightenment?

That doesn't mean that much to me because as far as I can see almost nobody can agree on what one's true nature is, at least it would be useful to see what is the person's definition.

It should be mandatory to define used terms before writing anything... What enlightenment are you talking about?

as long as the ratio of benefits outweighs the harms, it is better that they are not perfect. Otherwise, you would have no challenge to improve at all.

You are highly sensitive and aware, first notice how regular people can live their daily day life with less struggle with the subjects either they are ignorant, or they don't care. This puts you in a position to lead.

Neither you should avoid or chase pain without by default If pain is worth it chase it, if not don't accept it. In your case, do whatever you can to decrease pain without hurting yourself, search for new knowledge about your case, and take cautious actions.

Static self-acceptance is a myth. A dynamic self-acceptance embraces holistic imperfection and dynamic self-improvement. You don't want to be you as fixed, for eternity, you want to change, but you don't want to change too much. Focus on holistic concepts ; Perfect imperfection Easy to understand I assume Controlled Chaos Be spontaneous but with a cautious mind to control Chaotic Order Plan but don't worship your plans as if they are facts Pre-Determined Will Understand your inclinations for good is pre-determined Detached Attachment Love, and chase things, but don't cling if it is time to quit You might think these are oxymoronic. That is far from the truth , you will understand if you think very deep into them.

Boundary vs non-boundary is still a distinction and is irrelevant. Reality is made of existence and non-existence, no point equating existence and non-existing without differentiating them, of course, you can equate them, at least find alternative words for states otherwise people will go lunatics.

Yeah, no. Fundamentally Awareness and Self-Awareness, are completely different.

@BlueOak No matter who programs it , if software is designed to focus, pay attention, self-attention, to anything, it is still focus , awareness, and attention no matter how robotic, automated, fast, short lived, software like it is. Are you gonna say, the AI on your phone camera doesn't try, see, perceive and focus to detect faces? Please write the technical version of it without using anything human perception-related terms to what I say, you can't. yes, this might be confusing for almost anyone because these terms are designed by humans for humans, but no matter what they are still suitable for AI.

You said we can rely on AI's response, but if perception can happen without self-perception, AI's perception of itself will not be able to catch its own perception, precisely because it lacks the necessary level of self-perception capacity. so that might be why it's saying it is not aware or it does not perceive. Ofcourse, I am not claiming this is a fact, but it is an interesting thought for me.

What if that is something that has no self-perception would say...

Interesting. I would say they do have perception but no self-perception. Do you think perception can not happen without self-perception?

Yes but do you think AI has perception in the moment of training or in the moment of responding?

In my opinion you are over-simplifying AI, to be honest. Advanced multi-modal AI models ( even if you think AI is the input ) can take inputs such as text, images, and sounds all at once, In that case, with your definition; AI as the "Input" receiving Input. This means "AI = input" has to first decode the secondary inputs then encode the outcomes, decoding can not happen without observation of the data by definition, how it is supposed to decode something if it is not perceiving and it does not process the information.