rachMiel

@Princess Arabia Assuming like you said there is no future, how would you explain precognition?

@Atb210201 Seth is the entity channeled by Jane Roberts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjyEhWoIAu8

Sounds like you were shuttling between alternate universes! Cool. Have you read Seth Speaks? Seth talked about inhabiting multiple realities.

Have you personally experienced the timeless realm? The closest I've gotten is flow. And contemplation. And psychotropic drugs.

Are you talking a block universe where all of time coexists?

@Jannes My feeling is our subjective experience is as real as it gets for us, but there is an ultimate Reality beyond experience. This sums things up well for me: We can't experience Reality, but everything we experience is Reality. This make (non)-sense?

@enchanted From what I found online apophenia involves connections and patterns. Apophenia : the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas). Apophenia was borrowed from German Apophänie, itself from apo- (apo-, meaning "away from" or "detached") and phänie (-phany, meaning "appearance, manifestation"). – Merriam-Webster Every word is a poem!

You think anything 'underlies' experience, a truth-reality manifesting as experience?

@JannesExplain what you mean by qualia as all-encompassing absolute?

New word for me, thanks! Thing about 'apophenia' is that, go deep enough, and everything *is* related and connected to everything 'else.'

@Jannes God is the totality (immanent) and its transcendence (beyond). What you think God is?

We all love our LLMs. And we turn to them ever more, not just for facts and logic, but for wisdom. Of all ilk, including spiritual! What seeds are we planting and what will they blossom into? Think of the early days of social media, the seeds planted, the strange fruit that grew.

There is always someone there: God. No event in the universe is ever unobserved.

Humans are herd animals. We are born with the genetic predisposition to seek meaning and safety and comfort in groups and in authority figures of all types: people, ideas, scriptures. Cults are glaringly harmful extreme examples of this. But any spiritual group has its emotionally dependent herd-mentality adherents. My verdict: Actualized.org is not a cult, but has a charismatic leader whom members can get dependent on. I personally feel no pressure to be or believe in anything specific here. I am welcome to post, not to post, to stay, to leave, nobody's asked me for money, I have not been shamed for writing about different belief systems. I think the general level of 'spiritual intelligence' here is quite high, and as long as you don't fall into a dysfunctional emotional dependency on Leo or his ideas, you can have a grand old time in the forum! I will add I'm quite happy to remain quite obscure here, no followers, very little response to what I post. Were my goal to be 'in the inner sanctum' I would probably be tempted (forced?) to espouse certain views and avoid others. In summary: Thumbs up to the forum, with the proviso you need to remain intelligently aware of the potential pitfalls, i.e. granting infallibility to authority.

Every nook and cranny of potential AI-driven malice imaginable (and unimaginable) will be explored by black hatters. Anything that can be made to go wrong will be made to go wrong. It is the human way, for better and worse. We are the fundamental danger of AIs.

Whitehead agrees with this but adds an (all-important) cherry on top: Every event arises from the totality of all previous events and adds something utterly new and unique to this totality.

The mistakes are obvious in certain fields, math for example. Subtler mistakes need further research to uncover. I engage despite the mistakes because, at their best, the LLMs are like brilliant, quirky idiot-savants, great fun!

LLMs are powerful tools and just like any tools they can be used to create-expand and to weaken-contract. I 'engage' with them quite a bit and am kinda glad they make so many mistakes, if they didn't I'd be tempted to look to them as truth engines!

See the Taoist wu wei. Both wu wei and "responding rather than reacting" promote mindful, effortless action arising from the present moment.

I like way Rupert Spira puts it: Love is the recognition of shared being. Unconditional because all entities share being.

Thanks for the explanation, I get it now. I also am unsure whether it's necessary. But I have thought, for years now, that I never developed a strong solid self and this has held me back from 'transcending' the self. Transcending a wispy ghostly half-self seems almost like an oxymoron.

What is the self? (The small self, ego-I.) Thoughts, memories, desires, habits? Real, imagined, illusion, mirage? Tulpa, egregore? Nothing, nonexistent? What does the self want? Reality to obey it? Power? Eternal life? Nothing, the self is not an agent, is unable to want?

Swami Sarvapriyananda says pretty much the same thing. He says it's partial identification that will give you trouble, identifying with X but not Y. I lean towards identifying with everything rather than nothing. You?

I am the sub-process of The Process. I am the tulpa and/or egregore. I am the world. I am the mirage. I am pure awareness. I am love. And the list goes on. Take yer pick! (Or better yet, open to all, pick none.)

Good way putting it. Please explain reason the ego must become dominant and what 'dominant' means here.