Carl-Richard

How much did you know about these topics and what was your position on them before learning about them from Leo? Try to go point by point. What topics or points do you disagree or differ with Leo on somehow?

And now imagine that people use this as a source of information.

I've done some testing with GPT-6 Astra now for suggesting improvements for written text. It still has marked contextual issues. For example, I asked it to reword a paper that was initially conceptualized as a validation of a questionnaire into a "preliminary validation" and scale development study because it has a low sample size and lacks some useful analyses, and it becomes very self-critical and also more verbose than I would like. I also caught it essentially mistaking or disregarding a theoretical claim for an empirical one (which was also a problem of context). It's still good for getting some suggestions and a dialectic going, but yeah, far from human-passing in this sense. Honestly, for me at this point, the problem is not that the models are not "smart enough" but that they just fail at context and relevance. It's like having a very verbose autist on your team (no disrespect to autists, you go).

https://philosophyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Flat_Ontology https://scalar.usc.edu/works/material_philosophy/flat-ontology It's like consciousness itself, AND sense perceptions, AND concepts, are equally imagined. You don't seem to have an own "reality category" for each, unlike say most idealists worth listening to (who are not pure subjective idealists, skeptics, solipsists) who have a distinction between for example Consciousness/Truth and Maya/illusion (referring to sense perceptions, and perhaps concepts). And there is a hierarchy there; one is more real than the other. You don't seem to have that. "Whatever you imagine, that's reality". It's like kinda you're just floating out there, not very grounded in the everyday reality of stuff or human things. The reason I only have two categories of "awakening" is because one of them is consciousness, the other is "sense perceptions" (energy, phenomena, a.k.a. illusion, Maya), and then I of course distinguish that from conceptual understanding (which is not awakening, but rather indeed conceptual understanding of reality). On the other hand, the way you seem to multiply the kinds of awakenings into essentially infinity, it just seems like you've collapsed awakening into the conceptual. Any distinction you can make, you can "awaken" to. Even my stinky shoes. And why are consciousness vs sense perceptions vs concepts salient distinctions? Because they are central to how humans operate. And of course they have been salient to how people have described awakenings up until today. Awakening to consciousness (pure "knowing", which is ultimately formless), vs awakening to energy/phenomena/form/bliss, etc., they are quite distinguishable. One of them is very fundamental but also abstract, the other is more concrete and embodied (you can literally track it as movements of energy in the body, or how you relate with objects, the love you feel for them, their feeling of fullness and depth). Meanwhile awakening to something like "perfection" or "authority", you're now truly dividing the pie in a way that is seemingly indistinguishable from conceptual divisions. Which again, the conceptual mind can reflect on and use these concepts to inquire into the nature of consciousness, and use them to have an experience of consciousness, but I would again posit these are entry-points into the experience rather than "the" experience itself. Like self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is a process of the mind using concepts to look places, and at times, it can unravel the mind into consciousness. But the thoughts during self-inquiry are not the consciousness that seems to be unraveled.

You have what is called a flat ontology and it's as far as standard philosophy is concerned — for a lack of a better word — "impotent" (It doesn't attempt to deal with human affairs like illusion / sense phenomena, concepts / cognitive representations, or explaining multiple minds; it's quite "alien"). But you probably don't care about that.

You will tend to play more consonant than dissonant, hence it will limit you in that way. You're not necessarily limited in what you are able to play, but you are limited in what you will be most inclined to play.

The thing about this solo is not that it's impossible to play, but that it contains some incredibly musical but not music-theoretically standard series of notes. It's what happens when you play music but you don't know or care much about music theory and you simply play what sounds good. And sometimes that let's you play things that sound really really good and interesting but that no person who has learned music theory will ever be privied to play (because they have boxed themselves in and limited their range of accepted notes). And that also goes into my point that music is not something you fundamentally learn in theory, you learn it in practice, you learn it by expressing what your soul hears and feels (I'll refrain from tying this to a discussion of PUA, but I also think this also applies in a big way to communication between other human beings, a.k.a. "being social"; it's something you "do" most fundamentally, and getting boxed in by theory, "getting stuck in your mind", can definitely limit you). 4:00-4:32 This one is also sooo coool: 1:42-2:07 (The solo at 3:05-3:35 is also pretty cool).

@Lucasxp64 Interesting how if this is true, AI tech will be forced to abandon LLMs not because it will be limited in domains that organic systems are more efficient or superior, but because it will be limited in its own domain. And that the answer there also seems to be to recreate or engineer organic systems. I wonder if we will eventually conclude that building sensory-cognitive systems from scratch will be too much of a hassle and that we instead go the cyborg or mutant route trying to create a superintelligent human.

Omni-impotence.

*Me, a non-dual rat, watching a fellow rodent about to be devoured by horny felines*

A nurse giving you the wrong medicine, gg. My physiology and anatomy books when I studied biology were meant for nurse students. It's serious education. You need some way to certify whether they know the basics of things like the human body. A bachelor degree for a nurse is probably reasonable, although I don't know the full curriculum. What are people suggesting, 1-2 year education?

Hmm.

The issue is you want to point to individual cases and paint like an intuitive picture of "surely this would be very very reasonably true", while the legal system, in the case of the death penalty, has always and probably will always use concrete standards and rules that can be applied to each case individually. If you can't provide that, we can't know whether your intuitive idea of a legal system is even possible or if it doesn't already exist somewhere. The job would be much easier if you could say "yes I would vote for the death penalty in this country with this legal system". Right now, your position is essentially "I'm somehow not satisfied with current legal systems and would want a better one but I don't know how". And that makes it harder to say how much you would "accept" innocent lives being lost (we already know you do accept them with "basically 100%", as basically 100% is not equal to actually 100%, unless you want to walk back that statement). And no, Breivik or Columbine is not 100% (unless you have an argument for that). At most close to 100%. I'm just trying to explore whether you have thought through your point to any significant degree. Because if you accuse liberals of not being serious about serious crimes, I would expect some serious thought into the policies for such crimes. If you don't have that, you're perhaps not being very serious. At least "no death penalty under any circumstance" is a clear policy position.

I walked outside in the rain some days ago and then the day after, I had the Stinky Shoe awakening. Really annoying "facet of the Absolute" to awaken to. I honestly believe you have two facets of "awakening": transcendence (emptiness, pure being, Oneness) and immanence (love, bliss, kundalini, energy). Whatever else is simply new ways of self-inquiry to tap into such states (or simply having an intellectual understanding of a phenomena). You can imagine yourself as a big balloon stretching out infinitely and have the "Infinite Balloon awakening" or imagine the thing that existed before you were born and have the "Pre-Natal awakening" or where you will be after you die and have the "Post-Mortem awakening", or you can realize that these are ways of self-inquiry (the conceptual mind throwing rocks at itself to make it crack) to induce the experiences of transcendence and/or immanence. Omniscience / omnipresence / omnipotence are different conceptual rocks to throw against yourself to make the veil fall. I personally think a pointer which Leo said once was incredibly effective for me and which you could classify as an omnipotence pointer: "you are creating everything". But the place it lead me, I didn't identify as fundamentally different than where I was lead when I heard and grasped the "you don't exist" pointer. I was just lead there in a different way. As @Eskilon said, omniscience and omnipotence (and I would add omnipresence) are ultimately one; it's just you can look at them from different angles. And then you of course have stages of Enlightenment, but that's essentially an interplay between the two facets and baseline integrations of those.

What do you mean by normie? If they are curious, I would already classify them as "not normie". In any case, I would say whatever comes to mind. One line of thinking I like is making somebody try to imagine/remember where they were before they were born. And that that thing before they were born has always existed and will always exist and it's fundamentally what they are, what they always were and what they will always be.

I did watch it. https://rupertspira.com/blog/if-awareness-is-the-witness-of-experience-doesn-t-this-imply-duality/ The problem with "normies" getting it is not as much in what is actually said. It's mainly in getting an interest or intuition about what it's pointing to, of course beyond the language, and then wanting to pursue that. And then it's using the right language (whatever may work, which can vary from person to person) to induce that understanding. "Language", "thought", "belief", "concepts", etc., these are basic words that can help equally in pointing towards that which arises before and is fundamentally independent of those things.

I mean it's pretty standard guided self-inquiry.

S is always on my mind.

The spiritual concepts are stories that are meant to lead the conceptual mind out of its self-absorbed slumber and to look outside itself, where the self itself is seen through as just a story, and where the stories that lead it there are also seen through as just stories. Spiritual concepts are a trap drawn by the pen and for the pen of the conceptual hand that holds it, to see how the trap was drawn by its own hands, and how the hands are drawing themselves (as in Escher's Drawing Hands).

Over time, I feel like I've gone through like 50 different ways of trying to tell through language that solipsism is language. It has really become a hobby of creative thinking at this point. "Ah, a new day, another day of trying to say that solipsism is language in a new way". This was one of the later ones, notice the level of desperation in creative thinking:

Now apply the same to solipsism: "characters", "me', "others", "experiences", "no experiences", is language. What do you have without language? 'This'. The moment you start talking about other people and their experiences or lack thereof (which is what people tend to do with solipsism), you are in language. If you want to simply be grounded in just "this", no such language arises.

I just watched this video and it's the most perfect example of what I'm talking about. Somebody coming across something they find is meaningful and doing that to their best ability. It's a combination of having the right background, the right happenstance, the right feeling, whatever it is. You can see she is just glowing and outpouring with energy and meaning for what she is doing. She really found something worth pursuing. That's what you find when you find something you feel called to do. You become this fire hose, this superconductor of life and inspiration.

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

At least popcorn is a plant food and whole food :,)

When things get sufficiently removed from oneself into the past, we start to view it more through aesthetic than the brutal factual reality. We see this with the Vikings, pirates, Romans, Spartans. We start viewing them as cool, even noble somehow, perhaps despite the factual reality, and we even identify with them. Look at the Norwegian football fans during the World Cup role-playing as Vikings with their "Ro!" chant. The Vikings were essentially what Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida are today. Violent, ruthless killers, slaughtering everyone in their way, doing surprise attacks on larger cities and settlements. Norwegians are terrified of Islamic terrorists, yet they identify with the Vikings. The distinction is the separation of the far past and the immediate threat towards their survival. Remove the immediate threat to survival and you start viewing them in a different light. "But their ideology is different, that's why Norwegians don't like Islamic terrorists". Yes, different from their own, so it threatens their survival because it threathens them now. But is it really different from the ideology of the Vikings if you look at the pure structure rather than the content? Violent Islamic jihadism is not really that dissimilar from violent Norse paganism. Also, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, who couldn't be more different from oneself ideologically, also get the aesthetic treatment. There is even the idea that they were somehow enlightened or peaceful, living in perfect harmony with nature with egalitarian and matriarchical tribal structures, when that probably couldn't be further from the truth. This image crashes immediately once you replace "pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers" with "uncontacted jungle savages", and you see how when you meet these people in the present, you will end up with an arrow through your eye before anything else you can "gather" from them (talk about "aesthetics"). And of course, pirates get the Johnny Depp treatment, the Romans get the "every movie ever made about Ancient Rome" treatment, Spartans get the movie "300" treatment, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if 1000 years into the future and if violent Islamic jihadism has somehow become a thing of the past, Norwegians (or whatever they're called) start viewing violent Islamic jihadists as something cool, a bit like pirates, or the Vikings.