Carl-Richard

We agree that consciousness is not a thought and that consciousness is not bound to anything. Still, do you experience thoughts? Yes. Can you experience my thoughts? No. Does AI experience thoughts? That is the question of AI sentience. Regardless, to say that you or me do not experience thoughts is absurd.

The paradigm that Leo is talking from is not what we usually experience in our day-to-day 3D consciousness where discussions of AI take place. In this more normal level of reality, brain activity does correlate with certain types of human personal experiences (e.g. feelings, thoughts, understanding), but not transpersonal consciousness (or it's negatively correlated with it). You seem to drag the discussion towards transpersonal consciousness, meanwhile the questions of AI sentience is about whether they have these human personal experiences. So if you claim that AI have human personal experiences and you're not currently living in DMT hyperspace, then the implications of neural correlates is a problem you have to address.

The way I view these models is that they display the order that each stage is unlocked, but that unlocking one stage doesn't mean you've explored the full extent of the other stages (or that your behavior at any moment is fully encapsulated by one stage). So in theory, what you're saying is possible, but also remember that misunderstanding the stages is very common (especially Tier 2). I'm not going to try to judge your stage, but how would you describe the aspects of yourself in Tier 2?

Perceptions correlate with brain activity. Consciousness goes beyond perceptions.

SD isn't the only psychological stage theory, but yes, he took inspiration from SD among other similar theories. He later collaborated with Beck to create SDi. He isn't the first to create a meta-theoretical synthesis of stage theories either (there he took inspiration from Robert Kegan). However, the way he did it is unique (4 Quadrants).

I think this is my favorite Allan Holdsworth song (not for any of the reasons above). Pretty chill.

Does it work in reverse?

Going for a run changes breathing too It changes everything. Breathing is one thing.

They've told me about it in retrospect, but just generally, not from that particular experience.

I might've misrepresented some of the details from memory, so I replaced what I wrote with a direct quote from the dissertation.

You can read about it in section 7.6 of Bernardo Kastrup's PhD dissertation: https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA-3.pdf

This also happens online in more close-knit communities like those on Discord, which is good why those things are also discouraged on here.

I suggest you update your concept of sentience by distinguishing it from phenomenal consciousness (qualities of experience). A rock consists of consciousness, in that it has certain qualities (color, texture etc.), and under metaphysical idealism (which you're proposing), these qualities exist outside the confines of biology (brains). However, sentience involves more loaded kinds of experiences which are associated with biology, like pleasure and pain, emotions and understanding, which have a private side (subjective 1st person) and a public side (objective 3rd person). A rock doesn't have that. If you were a materialist, you could more easily avoid making the distinction between consciousness and sentience, because you would believe that neither of them arise before biological life. However, when you're an idealist, this distinction becomes more necessary. The technical term for the split between private and public is "intentionality" and denotes the most basic aspect of sentience (the ability of minds to be "about" something).

Have you read the paper you're criticizing?

You asked me "how does it not add up when you apply statistical methods?", and "according to whom is it the leading model in personality theory?". Tell me, how exactly am I supposed to answer those questions without appealing to external factual information? Do you even care about the scientific method? How do you think quantitative social science should be done?

? That's a nice opinion. It's almost like you read straight from the Criticism section on the MBTI wiki ?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism There is a general consensus among the experts in the field (you know, scientists – people who do science). I've quoted David R. Buss' books in the past, but I'll try something different this time: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/people-are-strange/201910/five-big-reasons-embrace-the-big-five-personality-traits

Every little helps.

This made me think that I might've "blessed" my mother and brother and everybody else sitting on the airplane when I had my most impactful awakening.

Go take a walk. Feel the air, watch the sky. Pet a cat, talk to people, or just watch them. If at any point you feel less connected to any of these things because of "solipsism", you're on the wrong track. Drop that belief.

I don't eat ice cream, because I feel better when I don't eat it. I never get cravings for it either. Internal motivation is a strong force.

They're not mutually exclusive lol. They just don't correlate as much as the others. ...wait, did you think that all the sub-facets are each their own personality type? Please no, I'm going to lose my shit ?

I just mentioned a fun fact lol. If anything, my point is that JP is a bigger deal than most people think. Not many people know he used to be a scientist working on Big 5.

@Leo Gura That's all fine. It doesn't really affect the crux of my point as stated earlier, which is essentially just that humans are very different from machines. Biological evolution is just one lens of looking at that difference.

You'll miss the point if you only use fuzzy terms like "reality" and "seeing". He and his team has proven mathematically that evolution through natural selection makes it so that biological organisms only perceive their environment as far as it benefits their survival. This is just a rehashing of the idea that the world of sensations/perceptions is illusion/Maya, and that God/reality is transcendent and not limited to it (but that it's also both transcendent and immanent). It's perfectly compatible with non-dual mysticism.

Fun fact: Jordan Peterson (and some other person) co-authored that paper with DeYoung, which produced the 10 facets. The dude has made big historical contributions to personality psychology.