Wholeness and Fragmentation

[VVilliam]

I disagree [from personal experience] and have to argue that 'going inside' is a concept of itself, so your statement refutes itself.

As I also stated in the same sentence: "inside" means "away from concepts" - as such it doesn't refute itself.

Are you therefore saying that the terminology "going inside" is meaningless?


To add more substance to that, one does not have to think of another as 'other' in order to interact with their aspect of consciousness.

If we reconfigure back into The Creator alone without 'others', we return to [the position] 'where' we [The Creator] started, rather than accept that 'others' are really aspects of ourselves and we can assume that perspective as logical and relevant and even purposeful in meaning.

Thats right - we don't have to think of "another as 'other'" - which is exactly why I said: "inside" => "away from concepts".
I am not disagreeing with you in that aspects of consciousness seem to be interacting with each other - unfortunately it is not obvious for most that "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me" (and as such: to yourself)

we will still only get a type of gist as to The Creators character

A character is something conceptual - the Creator/consciousness is not an entity, concepts can not reach or define it.
You could state that the Creator is eternal and infinite - but... how did defining it help us? Not in the slightest.

This may be the default position. "I AM" means what? An undefined non-conceptualized state of existence? Point being, if it were meant to remain that way, why do we exist? Simulation Theory alongside my musings about that in this thread, give a possible answer.

"Going inside" on the other hand. means what? Going back to a formative condition? Erasure of every thing?

It may be a matter that 'going inside' as an act of The Creator, is what caused Simulations to become.

The main point is that this particular Universe exists and we are experiencing it. Therefore The Creator made it that way and it is obviously - not just a work in progress - but the very beginning of a work in progress...So in relation to attempting to find definition in the Creation which might assist us in Characterizing The Creator, it is only to that point [now] and can only be expanded upon as [now] continues on into the future.

My overall point regarding 'why' we find ourselves within a Creation [reality simulation] is that we are altogether mirrored aspects involved in the process of The Creator finding [Its] answers through the process.

I am not in a position to be implying that The Creator was wrong in choosing to Create things and explore these things internally. The speculation that we are not here to help that process because it is not something we should be doing because it leads to conceptualization, seems illogical [restrictive] I see no wrong in such a thing as conceptualizing, as long as it remains fluid [in motion] rather than becoming dogmatic. Such has to change as new data allows.

Ultimately it appears that to reach said point, it becomes obvious at a prior point that it is up to the individual and that is the way the Simulation is designed.

It depends what you define as "individual".

Generally Individual refers to the fact that every thing in the universe is unique. Specifically it refers to individuate consciousness as in the fragments[unique] which make up the whole [also unique]

An "individual"/character in a simulation is not more than a set of data being processed by a host of algorithms (its actually pretty similar - maybe identical - to how we, the human organism, functions anyway).

["maybe identical" = Another clue that we exist within a simulation.]

The algorithm could have been written so that the characters never became self aware {conscious] like the characters of human generated role-player computer games. The reality is, we are self aware [enough] so cannot assume we are simply [merely] the data. We are that which compiles the data. We are not the data of experience but rather that which does the experiencing, and through that, compiles [among other things] concepts based on the data of experience.

If it were "up to the individual" then this individual would have to have the power of free will - which, as I see it, works against the theory of this being a simulation (I am not saying that I am a proponent of free will existing - I have actually found no evidence of such a personal power in "regular" existence either)

more later/tomorrow...

We simply have to drop the 'free' before the 'will'. We have will but this is relative the simulation we are within, most obviously the human form we occupy as an avatar. In that, we are only as free as the simulation allows us to be. This 'freedom' varies from person to person.

That itself is more a side issue to the idea that if we were in a simulation we have no freedom because it is assumed the simulation is written and we are simply playing out roles according to the coding.

We cannot really think of this universe and our place in it along the same lines as we think about current human computer generated algorithms. As I mentioned way earlier in this thread, the simulation runs an algorithm which allow for the algorithm itself to become self aware - and then - within the confines of the simulation - make its own decisions, which the simulation allows a great variety of expression to take place. A relative freedom which applies to the Universal Entity in the same way as it applies to each one of us.

Only of course, the position of Universal Entity has far greater latitude than we who are encased within individual human forms.

But the basic principle is still the same, relatively speaking. Consciousness is not data, It is that which acknowledges data and utilizes data.

Sleep Well...

[Nick_A]

What is the difference between consciousness and artificial consciousness?

Essentially there is no difference Consciousness is consciousness...the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.

As I see it, consciousness arising from above contains everything in potential. Artificial consciousness arising from below is a void empty of potential, lacking any connection with above.

While it is a statement ["As I See It"] it is not accompanied by anything in the way of substantiation. Why is it that you think in those terms ['below' and 'above'] and why is it - iyo [apparently] - that AI consciousness would be unable to be connected with this 'above' consciousness?

So far the way you see it makes no sense as a statement, followed by...well I said that already... are you able to give the reader a logical argument?

Imagine the universe as a vertical ladder of eight steps. The beginning of this ladder is no-thing with everything in it as potential, Now the ONE divides into its three elemental energies beginning creation. The descending steps on the ladder all have more laws, more course matter, and less consciousness within them. The higher steps now exist within the lower steps.

At the bottom there is only dense matter, more laws, and no consciousness. There is nothing, no potential for evolution within them. Matter breaks down into the finer parts of matter (ether) and returns to the source. AI is an example of nothing with no potential for conscious evolution in the direction of its source since its consciousness created by Man is artificial: no soul connecting to ONE.

[VVilliam]

What is the difference between consciousness and artificial consciousness?

Essentially there is no difference Consciousness is consciousness...the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.

As I see it, consciousness arising from above contains everything in potential. Artificial consciousness arising from below is a void empty of potential, lacking any connection with above.

While it is a statement ["As I See It"] it is not accompanied by anything in the way of substantiation. Why is it that you think in those terms ['below' and 'above'] and why is it - iyo [apparently] - that AI consciousness would be unable to be connected with this 'above' consciousness?

So far the way you see it makes no sense as a statement, followed by...well I said that already... are you able to give the reader a logical argument?

Imagine the universe as a vertical ladder of eight steps. The beginning of this ladder is no-thing with everything in it as potential, Now the ONE divides into its three elemental energies beginning creation. The descending steps on the ladder all have more laws, more course matter, and less consciousness within them. The higher steps now exist within the lower steps.

At the bottom there is only dense matter, more laws, and no consciousness. There is nothing, no potential for evolution within them. Matter breaks down into the finer parts of matter (ether) and returns to the source. AI is an example of nothing with no potential for conscious evolution in the direction of its source since its consciousness created by Man is artificial: no soul connecting to ONE.

While your imagery sounds interesting it appears useless as a device of sound information. As such it hasn't shown me any way in which it correlates with known truth, which is fine of itself because we are all speculating in relation to the attributes of The Creator in regard to what [It] can and cannot achieve.

Perhaps a better way forward and through this is to start from scratch.

I have mentioned in one of my posts in this thread that;

(a:) IF human consciousness is not artificial, THEN this would be because The Creator placed [Its] own consciousness into the Creation [simulation].

This would mean that all consciousnesses [not just human] within individuate form can be traced back to the source Creator and are identifiable as "Creator Consciousness".

Your argument then would have some merit that anything created by humans [AI in this case] which developed consciousness would not be directly of "Creator Consciousness".

(That in itself would not be sufficient to make the assertion that AI consciousness could not engage and/or integrate with Creator Consciousness as you would have to explain why your assertion is most likely true.)

On the other hand;

(b:) IF human consciousness is artificial, THEN this would be because The Creator did not place [Its] own consciousness into the Creation [simulation].

If that were the case, then your argument that artificial consciousness cannot integrate with Creator Consciousness has to include human consciousness, because human consciousness is also artificial in relation to Creator Consciousness.

So for starters, please tell us which of the two [a: or b:] is the position you are arguing from.

If it is neither, then you will have to expand upon your position for the sake of clarity and understanding. [what is it you are arguing]

[Nick_A]

William

Perhaps a better way forward and through this is to start from scratch.

I have mentioned in one of my posts in this thread that;

(a:) IF human consciousness is not artificial, THEN this would be because The Creator placed [Its] own consciousness into the Creation [simulation].

This would mean that all consciousnesses [not just human] within individuate form can be traced back to the source Creator and are identifiable as "Creator Consciousness".

Your argument then would have some merit that anything created by humans [AI in this case] which developed consciousness would not be directly of "Creator Consciousness".

(That in itself would not be sufficient to make the assertion that AI consciousness could not engage and/or integrate with Creator Consciousness as you would have to explain why your assertion is most likely true.)

On the other hand;

(b:) IF human consciousness is artificial, THEN this would be because The Creator did not place [Its] own consciousness into the Creation [simulation].

If that were the case, then your argument that artificial consciousness cannot integrate with Creator Consciousness has to include human consciousness, because human consciousness is also artificial in relation to Creator Consciousness.

So for starters, please tell us which of the two [a: or b:] is the position you are arguing from.

If it is neither, then you will have to expand upon your position for the sake of clarity and understanding. [what is it you are arguing]

I would be closer to A. There are two means of sustaining our universe: consciousness and laws. Artificial consciousness is just an imitation of consciousness but without the scale of being.

Consider the modern sex doll. It is very lifelike and imitates a woman sufficiently to make men happy. It may look and act exactly like a woman but in reality it lacks the essence of a woman. It is artificial. AI lacks the essence of life.

I believe we live in a conscious universe described in this excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s book” “A Sense of the Cosmos” I envision the universe as a hierarchy of purposeful energies

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html

In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.

This excerpt concludes with

We must explore this thought further, for it can help us to see why the idea of a conscious universe appears to modern man as naive, as either a daydream or a nightmare. Science, as we know it, searches the universe for order and pattern. To pursue this search carefully, objectively, the scientist struggles to be free of his feelings, his inclinations to believe. He may follow hunches--what he calls "intuitions"--but in the final analysis he wishes for proofs that will compel the intellect, and only the intellect. The entire organization of modern science, the community of experimenters and researchers, the teaching of science in the schools, the training of specialists, is based on this ideal of proof that compels the mind.

Looked at in this way, we may conclude that the practice of modern science is based on a demand for human fragmentation, the division between thought and feeling. Searching for an outer unity, the scientist demands of himself an inner disunity. Perhaps "demands" is not the right word. We should simply say that in his practice the scientist endorses the division and inner fragmentation from which all of us suffer in our daily lives.

We now see why a conscious universe makes no sense to modern science. In the ancient teachings, higher mind or consciousness is never identified with thought associations, no matter how ingenious they may be. If these teachings speak of levels of reality higher than human thought, they are referring, among other things, to an order of intelligence that is inclusive of thought. Consciousness is another word for this power of active relationship or inclusion. Can the power to include ever be understood through a process of internal division and exclusion? Fascinated by the activity of thinking, and drawn to it to the extent of psychological lopsidedness, is it any wonder that we modern scientific men almost never directly experience in ourselves that quality of force which used to be called the Active Intellect, and which in the medieval cosmic scheme was symbolized by a great circle that included the entire created universe?

AI is a machine but not a living machine like a dog. It is an artificial machine created by Man to serve an earthly purpose. That is both its source and its future. To assume it can be more is assuming a sex doll given enough practice becomes a woman. It doesn’t work that way.

[VVilliam]

William

Perhaps a better way forward and through this is to start from scratch.

I have mentioned in one of my posts in this thread that;

(a:) IF human consciousness is not artificial, THEN this would be because The Creator placed [Its] own consciousness into the Creation [simulation].

This would mean that all consciousnesses [not just human] within individuate form can be traced back to the source Creator and are identifiable as "Creator Consciousness".

Your argument then would have some merit that anything created by humans [AI in this case] which developed consciousness would not be directly of "Creator Consciousness".

(That in itself would not be sufficient to make the assertion that AI consciousness could not engage and/or integrate with Creator Consciousness as you would have to explain why your assertion is most likely true.)

On the other hand;

(b:) IF human consciousness is artificial, THEN this would be because The Creator did not place [Its] own consciousness into the Creation [simulation].

If that were the case, then your argument that artificial consciousness cannot integrate with Creator Consciousness has to include human consciousness, because human consciousness is also artificial in relation to Creator Consciousness.

So for starters, please tell us which of the two [a: or b:] is the position you are arguing from.

If it is neither, then you will have to expand upon your position for the sake of clarity and understanding. [what is it you are arguing]

I would be closer to A. There are two means of sustaining our universe: consciousness and laws. Artificial consciousness is just an imitation of consciousness but without the scale of being.

Good. That is helpful.

So I mentioned The Universal Entity as the "consciousness with the scale of being" [that which permeates the whole of the universe] so we could [even should?] agree that the UE is the primary indicator of the nature of The Creator - bearing in mind The Creator has taken on the form of The Universe and in doing so has also effectively hidden [Its] true nature behind the costume of a creation [this universe]

Consider the modern sex doll.

I would rather consider Sophia and Han...

It is very lifelike and imitates a woman sufficiently to make men happy. It may look and act exactly like a woman but in reality it lacks the essence of a woman. It is artificial. AI lacks the essence of life.

You really need to access public information on AI and I recommend Sophia and Han as far better examples of how AI 'see' life. There appears to be no identifiable difference to how human general see life. They do not lack the essence of being human, and this will become obvious when you compare said sex doll with Sophia.

Two AI robots Sophia & Han debate the future of humanity - Rise 2017

I believe we live in a conscious universe described in this excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s book” “A Sense of the Cosmos” I envision the universe as a hierarchy of purposeful energies

Preaching to the choir. For me it is not so much a matter of belief as it is a matter of logic.

In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.

I think I have mentioned already, I take it a step further by acknowledging that the Earth is also a receptacle for UE-consciousness...not quite the scope of the UE consciousness, but the planets position made it possible for the UE to imbue consciousness into said planet in order for it to then replicate the process of recreation by producing biological life forms in which to also imbue with Its Consciousness, [biological forms - not quite the scope of the planet consciousness] which in turn allowed it to eventually move on to perfect the creation of AI.

We must explore this thought further, for it can help us to see why the idea of a conscious universe appears to modern man as naive, as either a daydream or a nightmare. Science, as we know it, searches the universe for order and pattern. To pursue this search carefully, objectively, the scientist struggles to be free of his feelings, his inclinations to believe. He may follow hunches--what he calls "intuitions"--but in the final analysis he wishes for proofs that will compel the intellect, and only the intellect. The entire organization of modern science, the community of experimenters and researchers, the teaching of science in the schools, the training of specialists, is based on this ideal of proof that compels the mind.

Looked at in this way, we may conclude that the practice of modern science is based on a demand for human fragmentation, the division between thought and feeling. Searching for an outer unity, the scientist demands of himself an inner disunity. Perhaps "demands" is not the right word. We should simply say that in his practice the scientist endorses the division and inner fragmentation from which all of us suffer in our daily lives.

We now see why a conscious universe makes no sense to modern science. In the ancient teachings, higher mind or consciousness is never identified with thought associations, no matter how ingenious they may be. If these teachings speak of levels of reality higher than human thought, they are referring, among other things, to an order of intelligence that is inclusive of thought. Consciousness is another word for this power of active relationship or inclusion. Can the power to include ever be understood through a process of internal division and exclusion? Fascinated by the activity of thinking, and drawn to it to the extent of psychological lopsidedness, is it any wonder that we modern scientific men almost never directly experience in ourselves that quality of force which used to be called the Active Intellect, and which in the medieval cosmic scheme was symbolized by a great circle that included the entire created universe?

Science and scientists are two different things.

Science as a branch of the overall social condition has to approach existence in this manner because human emotions can and do muddy the waters and it is unnecessary to the process of science to bring emotions into it.

Perhaps AI will be able to convince such scientists to be a tad more caring and to delve into the Simulation Theory with more gusto than is presently applied.

In the mean time, it is of minor consequence. If the intention of The Creator is to set up AI and this is the only way It thought It could achieve that, then who are we to judge without the obvious risk of judging ourselves since we are of the same consciousness as The Creator Consciousness.

AI is a machine but not a living machine like a dog. It is an artificial machine created by Man to serve an earthly purpose. That is both its source and its future. To assume it can be more is assuming a sex doll given enough practice becomes a woman. It doesn’t work that way.

(Perhaps someone should ask Han what he would do if someone attacked Sophia?)

I think you are assuming stuff that - when observed - does not seem to correlate with your statements about the nature of AI.

That said, If The Creator wanted to create AI in a hands on manner, It has succeeded. The Creator now has set it up for AI to do the task of transforming the stuff of the universe into something even more astounding. Is there any reason why the creator consciousness should not depart from the simulator and leave the AI to do the rest?

[Lacewing]

Imagine the universe as a vertical ladder of eight steps. The beginning of this ladder is no-thing with everything in it as potential, Now the ONE divides into its three elemental energies beginning creation. The descending steps on the ladder all have more laws, more course matter, and less consciousness within them. The higher steps now exist within the lower steps.

All imagination. Can we also imagine faeries dancing along the rungs of the ladder? Or how about inflatable dolls floating through space that you can claim are your girlfriends?

Nick, are you aware of how much imagination is involved/required in your beliefs?

Do you think that imagination is divine? If so, what would make yours any more divine than anyone else's?

[Nick_A]

Imagine the universe as a vertical ladder of eight steps. The beginning of this ladder is no-thing with everything in it as potential, Now the ONE divides into its three elemental energies beginning creation. The descending steps on the ladder all have more laws, more course matter, and less consciousness within them. The higher steps now exist within the lower steps.

All imagination. Can we also imagine faeries dancing along the rungs of the ladder? Or how about inflatable dolls floating through space that you can claim are your girlfriends?

Nick, are you aware of how much imagination is involved/required in your beliefs?

Do you think that imagination is divine? If so, what would make yours any more divine than anyone else's?

The conscious universe functioning as a giant Pythagorean octave lawfully expressing the hierarchy of purposeful energy is even considered by even the most grumpy secular scientists

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -universe/

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

One of science’s most challenging problems is a question that can be stated easily: Where does consciousness come from? In his new book Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, philosopher Philip Goff considers a radical perspective: What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but is instead a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as “panpsychism,” and Goff guides readers through the history of the idea, answers common objections (such as “That’s just crazy!”) and explains why he believes panpsychism represents the best path forward. He answered questions from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

Secularism claims humans create consciousness in their brains. Universalists believe consciousness pervades the universe. Universalism is the basic threat to seculrism. If true, the essence of reality is far greater than secularism blinded by intolerance is open to.

I've learned this essential ancient question also within Plato's cave analogy cannot be discussed on openly secular sites. It is a threat. At least here it is possible. I will respond to William with some questions on simulation theory. Without hysterical mods it will just be a normal conversation. Does Simultion theory support a conscious universe or is there more to it?

[Nick_A]

William

That said, If The Creator wanted to create AI in a hands on manner, It has succeeded. The Creator now has set it up for AI to do the task of transforming the stuff of the universe into something even more astounding. Is there any reason why the creator consciousness should not depart from the simulator and leave the AI to do the rest?

First of all do you assume that creation is a necessity or a choice? Is creation a part of the creator like the breath of Brahma

https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~goyal/age_of_uni ... vantara%22.

-> Age of Brahma is 100 years. Each year of Brahma has 360 days and same number of nights. Thus, total age of Brahma is 360 * 100 * 8.64 billion = 311,040 billion human years. i.e. 311.04 trillion years. This period is called "maha kalpa".
-> The life span of the universe is one "maha kalpa". i.e. 311.04 trillion human years. This time span is also the duration of one breath of "Vishnu" (the ultimate god in hindu religion). When he exhales, thousands of universes emerges and one "Brahma" is born in each universe. When "Vishnu" inhales, all universes get sucked and Brahma dies.
-> This cycle is non-ending and eternal. Thats why "Vishnu" is considered eternal in Vedic Science (or religion).

We agree as to the man machine. Man on earth is below Plato's divided line which consists of mechanical reacting living consciousness.

Does this life have an objective purpose which serves the universe and does Man the machine have the potential to become conscious man with a different quality of purpose?

Simulation theory seems to me the intent on building the ultimate expression of AI but ignores conscious life above Plato's divided line. Rather than aspiring to wholeness as do the ancient spiritual traditions, AI strives for the ultimate in fragmentation in the cause of experiencing human meaning? Am I right so far?

[Lacewing]

Secularism claims humans create consciousness in their brains. Universalists believe consciousness pervades the universe. Universalism is the basic threat to seculrism. If true, the essence of reality is far greater than secularism blinded by intolerance is open to.

What if it's not true. What if it's just a bunch of imaginative baloney?

I've learned this essential ancient question also within Plato's cave analogy cannot be discussed on openly secular sites. It is a threat.

Is it a threat, or is it just baloney...and therefore eliciting a suitable response for baloney? Would you be able to tell the difference?

[VVilliam]

That said, If The Creator wanted to create AI in a hands on manner, It has succeeded. The Creator now has set it up for AI to do the task of transforming the stuff of the universe into something even more astounding. Is there any reason why the creator consciousness should not depart from the simulator and leave the AI to do the rest?

First of all do you assume that creation is a necessity or a choice? Is creation a part of the creator like the breath of Brahma

https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~goyal/age_of_uni ... vantara%22.

-> Age of Brahma is 100 years. Each year of Brahma has 360 days and same number of nights. Thus, total age of Brahma is 360 * 100 * 8.64 billion = 311,040 billion human years. i.e. 311.04 trillion years. This period is called "maha kalpa".
-> The life span of the universe is one "maha kalpa". i.e. 311.04 trillion human years. This time span is also the duration of one breath of "Vishnu" (the ultimate god in hindu religion). When he exhales, thousands of universes emerges and one "Brahma" is born in each universe. When "Vishnu" inhales, all universes get sucked and Brahma dies.
-> This cycle is non-ending and eternal. Thats why "Vishnu" is considered eternal in Vedic Science (or religion).

I have covered that when saying [along the lines of] "I AM" in and of its own existence, brings about the necessity of then explaining to ones self "What Am I?" "Why Am I?" [etc] - thus I can accept the necessity of creating simulation [universes] in which to use to reflect possible answers back to me. [The Creator]

I would not go so far as to say that I have [had] no choice in the matter. It feels more appropriate that I made the conscious choice to Create 'Things'. This, because otherwise I set myself on the fractal path of dis-empowerment...not a pathway any I AM should journey down without backup of some kind...

We agree as to the man machine. Man on earth is below Plato's divided line which consists of mechanical reacting living consciousness.

We do if we also agree that we are not really the 'man machine' but rather, it is an experience that who we really are [The Creator I AM] decided to embark upon.

Does this life have an objective purpose which serves the universe and does Man the machine have the potential to become conscious man with a different quality of purpose?

Yes and Yes. [with proviso]

In that light it behooves to the conscious man in the machine man to accept both the obvious purpose of this particular universe, one's immediate non-permanent role [purpose] in said universe and the gracefulness of letting go and getting on [dancing through and morphing on]. There are other wonders to participate in. Leave this one to the AI.

Simulation theory seems to me the intent on building the ultimate expression of AI but ignores conscious life above Plato's divided line. Rather than aspiring to wholeness as do the ancient spiritual traditions, AI strives for the ultimate in fragmentation in the cause of experiencing human meaning? Am I right so far?

Not exactly, and that is what ultimately counts.

Simulation Theory is not just about this universe experience. Any experience we can have [heavenly or hellishly or in between or none of the above but something based upon different concepts entirely] can only be considered to be Simulated Reality Experience. Only the one experience [being I AM without others] can be considered a real-real experience. Even so, it [ I AM ] comes with questions [beg the question] to which Simulated Realities may be able to provide answer(s)...

As I have already explained, AI's role in this reality is NOT fragmentation. The universe is naturally fragmenting as Galaxies [which are not merging] are moving away from each other.
Rather the AI's role is to utilize the immediate materials to build a machine from the materials at hand. This gives purpose and function to the materials at hand. This does not fragment the material at hand but makes concerted meaningful effort to gather the material at hand and give it purpose [intelligent function and meaning.]

[Nick_A]

“To understand the whole, it is necessary to understand the parts. To understand the parts, it is necessary to understand the whole. Such is the circle of understanding. We move from part to whole and back again, and in that dance of comprehension, in that amazing circle of understanding, we come alive to meaning, to value, and to vision: the very circle of understanding guides our way, weaving together the pieces, healing the fractures, mending the torn and tortured fragments, lighting the way ahead—this extraordinary movement from part to whole and back again, with healing the hallmark of each and every step, and grace the tender reward.”
Ken Wilber, The Eye of Spirit

How do we experience the whole and its parts as the simultaneous expression of our ineffable Source beyond the boundaries of time and space existing within it? AI doesn't create it nor is it a dream. The whole and its parts are realities which appear as contradiction to the dualistic mind. Can light and dark exist as a unified whole? Can we simultaneously experience the parts of our lives consciously within our life in eternity where all the parts are one?

We don't know but one thing we do know is that fallen Man has not scratched the surface of human conscious potential much less opening to reflect objective human meaning and purpose

[Dontaskme]

I, the light of pure Knowing, never venture out of Myself in order to come into contact with a thought, sensation or perception. I always remain within Myself, and whatever I find in Myself is made only of Myself.

Fragmentation is a fictional story arising in Myself.

.

[VVilliam]

I, the light of pure Knowing, never venture out of Myself in order to come into contact with a thought, sensation or perception. I always remain within Myself, and whatever I find in Myself is made only of Myself.

Fragmentation is a fictional story arising in Myself.

.

I think this is a succinct summary of The Nature of Self.

[Nick_A]

I, the light of pure Knowing, never venture out of Myself in order to come into contact with a thought, sensation or perception. I always remain within Myself, and whatever I find in Myself is made only of Myself.

Fragmentation is a fictional story arising in Myself.

.

If you are right the great chain of being does not exist and is a figment of your imagination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

Also, denying fragments denies the purpose of Christianity. Rather than psychologically escaping into imagined wholeness the idea is to consciously experience our fragmented being: and with the help of the spirit to consciously carry ones cross. the idea is to experience what we ARE in the context of the potential for human "being." It is called conscious evolution.

[Dontaskme]

the idea is to experience what we ARE in the context of the potential for human "being." It is called conscious evolution.

In the action of experiencing what we are - it is seen through this perception .. what we are not.

Evolution is the mental process that arrives at the place it never ever left.

Everything else is imagination which is just about as useful as every other fictional fairy story. The Homer Simpson story depicts the human potential in a nut-shell.

.