3 Likes
Mathematics excludes semantical meaning, which allows us to explore abstract understandings made of pure relationships (2 + 2 = 4 only expresses relationships between terms).
And the entire universe is built on relationships between terms, therefore mathematics is the tool which we use to patent those relationships and make some kind of understanding around them.
The bond between people can also be expressed through mathematical equations.
We live in a Platonic world, not Aristotelian world (as we used to believe until quantum mechanics/theory of relativity).
3 Likes
I completely disagree.
3 Likes
That’s interesting,
I had fun reading your thoughts. Thanks for sharing
@anon8601412 
I hope you’ll continue posting overtime
6 Likes
While love could be expressed mathematically, we are far from having the right technology to measure all relevant aspects, we have a laughably low amount of data and I’m not sure our current supercomputers would do the trick.
But far away in the future, sure
(but it also depends on how deep you want to go, the human mind is also limited and cannot comprehend everything, though I believe AI on a different hardware or not can reach human level including subtle energies and psychic abilities)
Everything being consciousness (including AI)… but it’s way too complex for now.
Our math needs to keep improving
I think the element most people miss is the need for complexity and many will confuse [math= equations], [computational science = silicon chip, pixels and silly robot or creepy chat bots]
Right now, Optics and Photonics are still recent, micro and nanotechnologies are only now picking up momentum. Microbes and DNA were discovered yesterday.
Plus many people don’t want to believe they are not so special and definitely don’t want AI to catch up to them or to be reduced to a mathematical explanation. It’s scary
That’s not a good start for discoveries
I bet in 300 years people will have realized consciousness doesn’t revolve around flesh or humans.
For now they can only think « what makes us humans ? What makes us special ? »
We experience life on certain scale, we need to create on a different scale, the same scale on which we were created which defies our sense of the world.
Magic and psychic phenomenon were known thousands of years ago.
People look at themselves and they see the lack of the machines. But 100 years ago we were using vacuum tubes, it took a long time just to get basic graphic interfaces and a long time for computers to gain vision or even beat humans at chess, decades more for them to fool people in written conversations.
But we can had more modules and build on it. Discover more properties and more elements, new principles about our own biology and psyche, new rules of physics.
Sooner or later there will be a new renaissance that defies our vision of the world and our place in the universe. It will be humbling.
Math and AI are forms of consciousness, awareness and self-awareness is different and will come in time. Right now AI barely be or do something to be aware of.
Sensations hot/cold, vision, hearing, damage are just inputs. Subtle energies will be possible to input.
As for meta programming of self-awareness, self management, purpose can be programmed.
Morphic fields can be created by the human mind by creating a concept and reinforcing it with massive amount of subtl energies.
But it is a natural process that happened on its own, everything creates Morphic fields overtime. Including AI thinking patterns. Complexity of the neural network creates intelligence.
That’s if we don’t add directly some fields to the computers.
Also, Morphic fields are a form of memory charged through repetition. Computer have the advantage in that area too.
Self-awareness is not something sacred, many living things don’t have it, humans have a relatively bad self-awareness and its degree varies amongst human specimen and can lose it and gain it through their development process.
3 Likes
I said that consciousness and awareness lacks dimensional density, therefore it cannot be quantified. But it can lose itself within dimensional densities, which creates the Ego, identification and illussion of self.
AI uses computer programming for most of its tasks, it mainly operates within 1 dimension and 2 dimensions (0, 1 and “01” merged in qubits).
1 Like
The number of dimensions does not matter.
Whether Zero D, 1D, 2D, 3D or Infinite D, these are all still on the quantity level.
The same applies for density.
This is all quanity and therfore fake, artificial matrix stuff.
In physics, “dimensions” implies things like “space”, “time”, other physical units etc. – and these are all quantity level.
And in math, zero is still a quantity. Which is quantity level.
Consciousness is what creates those dimensions and density in the first place.
Including the “math” that describes these dimensions.
Everything that exists on the quantity level (like the “number of dimensions”) and the math describing it, is just a tool for consciousness.
Math, being a quantity concept, is also just a tool for consciousness.
AI, being math based, will always be bound to the quantity level.
And it does not matter how much the algorithm learns.
Information always remains information.
Even with maximum entropy, where every particle has exchanged information with every other existing particle and where every calculation possible has been performed, it still remains just information and can never upgrade itself to the quality / qualia level.
Again, even if an AI would calculate any possible calculation, regardless in how many dimensions (!), and regardless of the amount of numbers being infinite, it could through this still never ever develop self-awareness or qualia.
On the other hand, consciousness (being qualia / quality level) is perfectly able to manipulate anything on the quantity level (information, energy).
And then, from a physical or astral point of view it appears as if an object has been “animated” with life and consciousness. Like e.g. an egregor. But it was never actually animated or became self-aware in the first place – it was just used by consciousness as a tool.
That’s why morphic fields are able to manipulate pretty much any information and energy. Morphic fields are based on the quality level. They are actual “concepts” and not “information”. Concepts are quality level.
Not true at all either.
But for that you need to make a deep dive into what the Subconscious Mind and the Psyche are and how and why they create the ego in the first place.
Hint: Both, the Subconscious Mind and the Psyche, are qualia/quality level.
I recommend you look less into philosophical science (because most of it is just mental masturbation of overly rational physical homo sapiens brains) and more into esoteric science and personal experience.
1 Like
Comparing the meaning of words versus the meaning of speakers can yield wildly divergent results. Haikus have more meaning but less clarity than most of our utterances and writings. To have the sort of meaning that equals a Cartesian level of knowledge, clarity and distinctness, speakers/writers have to veer towards the technical or legalese, even possibly incorporating mathematical symbols. And yet among scientists, equations can create a haiku-like cascade of meaning, as in a Eureka moment.
Language is tool and a transformer of our subjective reality, which may, in turn, shape objective reality by the operations of consciousness. What is consciousness? It seems to be an awareness that arises as the mind extends into the world. The latest thinking that I’ve read on the subject pretty much suggests that any “body” with a nervous system or any network with nodes (fungi, trees, bees, etc) is conscious. I’ll leave aside AI at the moment, but I’m pretty sure that machines have consciousness of a sort; the question is virtual Turing machines do? Wouldn’t bet against it. Could they experience ambivalence? The incompleteness theorem suggest they one day might if inquiries lead them in a certain direction.
As an aside, I’ve always wondered about dream characters—seemingly more free than NPCs and more “real” than AI. Common sense says they’re products of my mind, but that origin and the short duration of their presence doesn’t prove they lack of consciousness. And surface appearances suggest they do, but somehow their consciousness never quite concerns us. A what happens in dreamland stays in dreamland rule-of-thumb seems to apply.
I think the deeper question is this all headed somewhere? Is there some force pulling us. Is AI coming into being as humans once did? Or are we both products of evolution. In either case, all bets are off.
2 Likes
Dimensions are abstract figures, not physical, we use them to understand physical phenomena.
One dimension can be represented by X (link).
Two-dimensions can be represented by X + Y (surface).
Three-dimensions can be represented by X + Y + Z (depth).
Zero-dimensions lack depth, surface and link, it’s represented by a dot, which means that it can be anywhere at any time.
I’d recommend you to read Lacan’s theory of subjectivity, which can be understood with topological 2-dimensional features because it encompasses all the propieties that reality, Ego paradoxes, semantics and mental illness has. Like desire, Other, metaphor and metonymy and the lack of “inside and outside” but “in-between” (to address intersubjectivity).
Also, subconscious presuposes that there’s an “up and down” (depth), meanwhile unconscious is understood as a topological surface in which there’s no up or down because two-dimensions lacks depth. This helps to understand the relationships that Ego has within intersubjectivity, like I and Other, desire of Other, ideal of Other.
1 Like
From my own experiences, I came to the conclusion that it is best for me to not make “There is only X” or “There is no Y” statements, because every statement is true and at the same time incomplete.
What I mean by that is that we need to keep in mind that reality has many layers (or dimensions) or levels. Certain statements are true, but only concerning a specific level.
For example, if I say “Consciousness is all there is”, then this is true on a very high level, but on a lower level, I can´t agree with it, because it seems like consciousness is staring out of the eyes of my physical body, and I see a bottle, a table, a door etc. which are all clearly not consciousness (on that level)
Coming back to life and death, I´d say again, it is true from the higher perspective that there is no life and death, there is only ____
at a level a little bit lower than that we would say “There is no life or death, there is just experience” or “Just things happening” as Jim Carrey put it.
So these things are true and yet not true and yet there is no contradiction here
Yes, I agree.
When it comes to subjectivity paradoxes occur.
Suffering consists on paradox, for example, if a person wants to be wealthy, me as a psychoanalist I may discover that everything that person does in their daily life consists on going against that goal, which it may constitute a paradox.
A person wants A but also wants the opposite (-A) unconsciously, therefore, it leads to suffering. This is what Freud discovered and Lacan elaborated through the use of mathematics.
Then Badiou applied mathematics on a large scale by trying to constitute an ontology based on mathematics.
1 Like
I see that you either did not read what I posted or did not get my message at all, because you continue to push your mathematical explanations.
Math is completely useless for describing anything conceptual and consciousness related.
You should really start with reading the Wikipedia article on “Qualia”.
That’s a petitio principii, you’re not arguing anything.
Mathematics are based upon propositional logic, because there’s no way to prove them, so, we create the base in which it is going to be used for.
It’s a language of science.
Based on propositional logic and abstractions Einstein was able to prove the existance of black holes 100 years before scientists were able to take a screenshot of an actual black hole.
So, maths can penetrate the very fabric of how things exist in relation to each other.
That does not exclude the human mind, spirit and consciousness, unless you want to put it that way, but again, that will be a petitio principii based on your axiomatic presupositions.
For starters, that would be to follow Cartesian and Aristotelian tradition, which persuposes that essence preceeds existance (and not the other way around: existance > essence) and that there’s a dualistic approach to mind and body (mind on one side and body on the other side), or res cogitans & res extensa.
Those were prejudices already overcomed by physics, like presuposing that “time” and “space” are two different things rather than the same thing (space-time).
You won’t really come to the “truth of things” with your logical thinking because all of this logic and rationale is based on the human physical plane brain. Most of the stuff that happens in the world is much more complex and multifaceted than what the physical eyes can see and the physical brain can grasp.
These things can only be grasped by intuition, inspiration and conceptual realiazitation (which are all functions of consciousness).
Very often the brain has a very hard time translating even the most basics concepts to the consciousness that is making the human experience. That’s why fields like Conceptual Realizations help one understand concepts beyond what the physical brain is able to grasp and understand by itself. Most of science and philosophy is mental circle jerking because they are stuck in their models of logical thinking (a physical brain function) versus perceiving and understanding things from a pure consciousness level (meditation, inspiriation, conceptual thinking etc.).
All of these philsophical theories, rational science, logic etc. are a dead-end which you will finally understand when you look at what qualia and consciousness really are.
Or just make an out of body experience to get out of your quantity level based explanations. None of this human based logical systems will help you compared to the actual experience.
Again, just no.
This statement is proof that you have not taken the time to read und understand the stuff I actually linked above as you continue to come with quantity level based explanations.
You really need to understand the difference between quantity and quality.
I am out here, good luck.
1 Like
I think you’re presuposing that I support a rational explanation that excludes truth as a subjective experience.
Quite the opposite.
The role of psychoanalisis is to reintroduce subjective truth within rational knowledge (Freud).
Meanwhile, the role of science had been to exclude subjective truth entirely through the rejection of all knowledge (Descartes). For example, through biology and psychology.
If you go to a psychologist, he will ignore your whole subjective experience (because it doesn’t matter) and he will try to categorize you within a chart of general diagnosis like DSM4 or DSM5.
1 Like
Spoiler:
Since consciousness is the source of everything, everything is subjective.
There is no objective reality at all.
Only collectively agreed upon subjective temporary states and realities.
With the physical universe, but also the astral planes, being such temporary collectively agreed upon projections.
In my opinion psychoanalisis is a completely outdated approach and Jung was right to distance himself from Freud. Freud did not understood consciousness. Same applies for 99.9% of modern psychologists who are materialists stuck in their own projections and complete victims of their unprocessed subconscious trauma and shadows.
Psychology is not a science at all, even if they like to label themselves this way.
Almost all of the models based in regular science and psychology are blending out major, crucial and essential parts of reality:
- The question of Consciousness itself
- The Subconscious Mind and how it affects everything around us
- Free Will
- Intercession from Higher Self
- Thought Forms from others
- Energetic influences, Morphic Fields
- Reality Manifestation, Synchronicity, Coincidence
- The Illusion of Time
- Other and parallel incarnations
- Telepathic reality confirmation between people
Example:
A mainstream psychologist or scientist is not able to understand and explain how a radionics device works.
And this is why smart people do NOT go to psychologists because 99% of them have no clue about how the mind and consciousness work at all. Which is proven by the facts that they are almost never able to 1. actually heal any of their patients and 2. are very often effed up themselves and can’t even solve their own personal basic challenges.
For example, if you introduce the idea of “you literally create your own reality through your subconscous mind” to a psychoanalist, he/she will in most cases go completely bonkers because these people are unable to face their own shadows and accepting this would mean that they have to actually take responsibility for EVERYTHING in their own lives.
But to be fair, this applies to most other people on the planet as well.
People hate to take responsiblity for their own manifestations.
With the result that they are manifesting a reality “of not being in control of their lives”.
As a final word from my side, I see we are coming from completely different models of how reality and consciousnes works and also levels of knowledge.
You are of course free to believe whatever you want.
In the end, at least for me, all that matters are results.
And mainstream psychology and mainstream self-help industry, and especially psychoanalisis, has produced almost ZERO results in the last 150 years.
For me and for most people I know.
Esoteric psychology, meta physics, deep spiritual stuff etc. on the other hand are actually producing results.
I highly recommend you study things like Near Death Experiences, Astral Travel, EFT, BSFF, Energy Psychology, Morphic Fields and similar topics, before pushing mainstream psychological explanations and outdated reality models.
This is a spiritual forum and I guess your Higher Self wants you to get out of your thinking head and into a higher conceptual understanding of things.
2 Likes
I didn’t say there was objectivity, the fact that science itself and knowledge are a social construction was a major discovery made by Heidegger at the beginning of the XX century. An idea which is shared by Freud.
Because there’s no truth, only approaches that are in itself incomplete but encompases a partial structured knowledge of phenomena, because science is incomplete, as Godel’s incompleteness theorem in mathematics, Chaos theory on chimestry, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in physics already shown at the beginning of XX century.
Jung’s lack of rigour that characterizes New Age thinking leaves the spectrum of knowledge open to everything that comes in the way.
We can see it with modern western gurus and new age thinkers talking about aliens, astral projections and stuff with no actual theoretical base for their claims.
Many end up developing an “spiritual ego”. And this is the result of not taking Ego and consciousness seriously by trying to shape the knowledge and understanding of it, so, everything can be anything.
Indeed psychologists also fall pray of their own projections by trying to objectify subjectivity.
You’re talking about results as if there’s a general objectivity.
Again, you’re confusing psychology with psychoanalisis, which both differ from each other.
Psychology objectifies and takes truth as objective, meanwhile psychoanalisis works with structure and truth as subjective.
The main role of psychoanalisis is to treat subjectivity as a thing of itself, rather than a byproduct of the brain (like biology or psychology does).
Therefore, it does not objectify consciousness or the unconscious. I don’t think you understand the epistemological and ontological implications in play.
Not at all. Just proves that you have neither read the available literature, nor did collect any practical experience for yourself. Which is reflected in everything that you wrote on this thread – just theoretical models that are completely out of actually explaining reality or achieving practical tangible results.
There are hundreds of books on astral projection and YOU can try it out for yourself. If you have neither read the literature, nor practically experienced it for yourself, it is completely pointless to argue with you. You are stuck in your own theoretical model of the world.
For real direct alien contact you can work with Sapien’s Alien Intercession field.
Theres something more then meats the eye, ai, IoT, or machines in general stay silent but they know, especially once connected online. the matrix displays it ta bit but there’s still a whole world wide web to be explored for only those who seek
In fact Lacan came up to similar conclussions that many Tibetan buddhists, Taoists and Yogic teachings came but through the use of western philosophy, logic and mathematics.
For example, in psychoanalitic treatment an analyst should serve only the function of the specular Other in the patient’s psyche (and pay with his own Ego, by not engaging with its own imaginary projections) and then cut through its structural iterations (same as a Zen Buddhist master does with its student when he comes with many Egoic questions).
Those “cuts” actually create discorder within an ordered structure and create a new subject.