Wholeness and Fragmentation

[Nick_A]

William

But to really know how life does thing, it is necessary to know why life does things. And this cannot be known without the joining together in ourselves of feeling, instinct, and thought. ..

You copied this passage assuming it meant a group of people getting together. But I believe Prof Needleman was referring to the head, heart, and sense organs within ourselves. Our own wholeness

…Here is the truly revolutionary aspect of this ancient vision: it is tell us that it is impossible for a human individual, for mankind, to have real knowledge without at the same time having virtue. When it is said—and it is said and seen by everyone now who has any eyes at all—that our knowledge has gone far beyond our morality, this is the same thing as to say that we need to rediscover how to join the attention of the heart to the powers of the mind and the perceptions of the senses.

He asserts that knowledge had gone beyond morality. Can we become capable of understanding if knowledge has surpassed objective conscience? Is humanity capable of understanding based on the union of the “attention of the heart to the powers of the mind and the perceptions of the senses” so we function as a conscious whole or As ONE?

The question "why does life do things?" requires been broken down. "What do we mean by 'life'?" is the first question to have answered. Then we can focus upon the "why?".

As I understand it, we recognize life as the ability of a quality of being to grow, move, reproduce, and die. Than we call it a living being. It has the function of transforming substances through its life processes. Putting aside all the self importance that we define ourselves as but the bottom line is that our life consists of transforming substances through our life processes as when we eat, drink, breath, defecate, think and have sex. It is what we do.

Organic life on earth is a living machine that eats itself. It is nature’s way.

What I mean by "life" is not that which is experienced, but that which is experiencing. In that, we look at the 'tree falls in a forest does it make any sound' idea. Would this magnificent universe exist if there was no consciousness whatsoever to observe it?

Life permeates the universe and we live in a conscious universe. Consciousness is relative. The quality of consciousness of a higher level of reality supports the lower in the process of evolution. As above, so below. The consciousness of the macrocosmos is greater than the microcosmos. This raises the question of the source of consciousness within the machine of creation or sometimes called “the body of God”

So one could ask (1)"why then does it exist?" or one could ask (2)"So why then do I exist within it?" Which of the two questions is more relevant?

As far as things go, the universe has no reason for existing other than whatever reason one places upon it. It may be vast and beautiful taken from the perspective of the star-gazer, but we all know how dangerous and hostile it is when one is close up and personal.

Most of it is out of our reach as a species. All we can do is look and wonder.

God called himself “I Am that I Am.” I accept the ineffable God beyond the confines of time and space. God as I is the ultimate conscious wholeness within which everything exists within it as potentials within levels of reality. AM refers to the ultimate diversity manifesting as creation. We can admit that as creatures of creation we cannot experience I or the vastness of AM. Perhaps the beginning of knowledge is to become able through conscious contemplation to look and wonder and admit like Socrates that “I know nothing.” Then we can become aware of conscious evolution and human conscious potential.

Close to home of course, we can and do manipulate it for our own means,

specifically our forms appear to be made in order for us to do so.
Then we create in our own image - and what do we create? Other machines which are not biological but are based upon biological forms.

What else can be expected since the fallen human condition has resulted in the loss of the ability to unite the attention of the heart, the powers of the mind, and the perceptions of the senses. The ultimate creation is a dead machine imitating the potential for conscious evolution of living beings. If humanity doesn’t feel the value of life in terms of human potential then the dead machine is superior.

And why do we create these other forms? We want to one day touch and manipulate that which we only presently can marvel at distantly. We want to carry on existing within it for that purpose...so we develop ways in which this may become a reality 'one day'.

What is the end game of such a vision, should it become a reality?

Since the balanced foundation of the heart, mind, and sensory perceptions has been corrupted, the tower of babel must crumble

Genesis 11

11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Can man become a balanced whole again? I do believe it is possible for individuals but society as a whole is the Great Beast and must remain so to perform the function of serving the earth.

[Nick_A]

The inner man consists of qualities we are born with. They have been corrupted to become out of balance.

Which qualities are you referring to?

As I see it, the newborn has no specific psychological qualities - everything, and I really mean everything, from the primary understanding "I am" to "I am so and so" is all added to the child's "mind" like chalk to a blank slate.
There is no "inner man" being corrupted but only a corrupted "outer man" - there is nothing underneath the mask of the "outer man" - besides infinity/eternity.

Where reason should govern appetites in the tripartitie soul, now appetites govern reason preventing its evolution into human consciousness.

Yes, sure, but, to me, all this is based on how the child has been taught/brought up and as such conditioned into thinking according to modern "standards", satisfying the contradictory demands of today's society - to change the man/child one has to change what is required of him - as long as we live in a society that places the personal career above the common good (and as such worships the ego) there will be no cure - the cure lies in prevention, in keeping people from falling sick in the first place.

The ego is that part which interprets value. It cannot do its job because of our habitual and acquired habits making us live by imagination.

As I stated a few times before: To me, the ego is just a collection of ideas and beliefs - it cannot do anything, it cannot interpret, it doesn't think.
The interpretation itself IS the ego - there is no ego separate from the interpretation (and as such also from imagination).

The inner man does not have to stop growing so early. The effects of society and its emphasis on what we do rather than what we are makes it so.

I think this separation of inner and outer man is pretty random, fuzzy - its an artificial line separating one side of thought from the other - but at the end its all just thought... reality, the real self, is "prior"/beyond all conceptual thought.

the inner man refers to Qualities we are born with rediscovering how to join the attention of the heart to the powers of the mind and the perceptions of the senses. Did Acornology make sense to you? It is a precise description of the inner man as the living kernel of life and the outer man as the husk of the acorn.

[VVilliam]

He asserts that knowledge had gone beyond morality. Can we become capable of understanding if knowledge has surpassed objective conscience? Is humanity capable of understanding based on the union of the “attention of the heart to the powers of the mind and the perceptions of the senses” so we function as a conscious whole or As ONE?

It appears that morality is necessary for the furthering of human social development. What used to be 'good' becomes known as 'evil' [and visa versa] as we advance as a species. In that sense morality is forced upon us as a required device for survival.

As I understand it, we recognize life as the ability of a quality of being to grow, move, reproduce, and die. Than we call it a living being. It has the function of transforming substances through its life processes. Putting aside all the self importance that we define ourselves as but the bottom line is that our life consists of transforming substances through our life processes as when we eat, drink, breath, defecate, think and have sex. It is what we do.

Organic life on earth is a living machine that eats itself. It is nature’s way.

With the Simulation Theory this is also truism. The theory does allow for the idea that we do not necessarily cease to be living once the biological machine ceases to function.

On the other hand, we cannot simply regard the non-biological machine [AI] as somehow 'not living' because it is not just the container that is living, but the consciousness as well, and if AI become conscious, it also becomes living.

Life permeates the universe and we live in a conscious universe. Consciousness is relative. The quality of consciousness of a higher level of reality supports the lower in the process of evolution. As above, so below. The consciousness of the macrocosmos is greater than the microcosmos. This raises the question of the source of consciousness within the machine of creation or sometimes called “the body of God”

In that, we have expression which upholds my assertion that Artificial Consciousness (created through the machinery of the universe) has to be regarded as "living".

God called himself “I Am that I Am.” I accept the ineffable God beyond the confines of time and space.

The apparent ambiguous nature of the answer leaves the individual to decide for our self what that actually means.
Meantime, we can at least agree that the answer tells us that there is nothing more to be said which would get us any closer to understanding.
However, what we can do with that is assimilate it into our own thoughts on the self. I am that I am. A chip off the old block, but what does that mean? Does the universe [simulation] give us any hints on the broader answer?

Perhaps the beginning of knowledge is to become able through conscious contemplation to look and wonder and admit like Socrates that “I know nothing.” Then we can become aware of conscious evolution and human conscious potential.

It is obvious that when we start out in the state of Tabula rasa [some say "atheist"] we have no option but to progress from that point making things up as we go along.
During the process we come through a type of know-all position which enables us to adapt as best we can in relation to our particular place in the world.
If we chose to move on and develop, we find many of those things we thought we knew, were not really truth, but convenient fabrication. [a coping mechanism] which is uncovered by more information.

With more information uncovered, we start to realize that we know very little in comparison to what we see can be known, but we ought not think lowly of ourselves just for that. It is untruthful to proclaim "I know nothing" if indeed I know some things. In this way we can allow for what we do know to bring us into more knowledge.

• Close to home of course, we can and do manipulate it for our own means, specifically our forms appear to be made in order for us to do so.
  Then we create in our own image - and what do we create? Other machines which are not biological but are based upon biological forms.

What else can be expected since the fallen human condition has resulted in the loss of the ability to unite the attention of the heart, the powers of the mind, and the perceptions of the senses. The ultimate creation is a dead machine imitating the potential for conscious evolution of living beings. If humanity doesn’t feel the value of life in terms of human potential then the dead machine is superior.

The condition was part and parcel of the effect of the Tabula rasa. Traditionally 'the fall' implies we had sensibilities and knowledge to begin with, but 'fell' from that position.
Some theologies do speak of a prior existence we had as conscious beings where such knowledge was known, but is it not something which we can know with any certainty. Therefore to believe such requires assumption.

I do not understand your reference to this 'dead machine' though? Are you speaking of AI consciousness?

Since the balanced foundation of the heart, mind, and sensory perceptions has been corrupted, the tower of babel must crumble

What I asked was "What is the end game of such a vision, should it become a reality?" which had to do with, how far can we take it in regard to existing within this universe and what can we do to transform it it regard to 'purpose'.

It is feasible that the biological form was created in order that the mechanical form could then be created through that process, and the mechanical form would be more suitable to being the container of consciousness and explorer/transformer of the stuff of the universe.

The only end game I can see is that the stuff of the universe is made into a machine through AI doing the making. From that we could say the machine itself becomes the ultimate form for the consciousness which permeates the universe in its present state.

In this, it is primary the universal consciousness which is motivating things towards that end game.

Can man become a balanced whole again? I do believe it is possible for individuals but society as a whole is the Great Beast and must remain so to perform the function of serving the earth.

Individuals are nonetheless an aspect of society and thus of "The Great Beast" - this is unavoidable. In relation to "Serving The Earth" it is my understanding that there is no greater evidence of a "Creator God" than in the Earth - It is feasible that the earth acts as a form for an entity consciousness to express its creativity through - hiding in plain sight as it were. There is no reason why we need to restrict our understanding of consciousness to biological forms [animal] and one can even think of the Sun as also being the form of a creative self-aware intelligent entity...it all goes back to your assertion that "the universe itself is a living organism" although I see the machinery [form] as the 'house' in which the living being resides...and of which we are fragments/aspects of.

This is to say also, we are not necessarily the animal but that which currently resides within the animal form.

[Dontaskme]

Nick wrote:
Does the universe exist to serve Man on earth or does Man on earth exist to serve a universal purpose Man, as a whole, has forgotten? Have you ever thought about this question?

As long as you are granting separate and independent existence to objects/ the world. That will be a relative truth which is a fictional story arising here from out of the ethers (nowhere/here now)

It is so arrogant to say that God awakens in man.

On the contrary all things appear (as mind) in God, Presence, Awareness. God is eternal wakefulness that knows no sleep and that certainly does not need man’s puny mind in order to know itself.


.

[Dontaskme]

DaM

Awareness does not live in past and future, awareness is constantly now self shining, self illumninating, infinitely for eternity. And that is who you are.

No, we are one of the human essences functioning within creation as the body of God. Don't think you are God. Satan tried that and look where he ended up.

“As above, so below, as within, so without, as the universe, so the soul…”
― Hermes Trismegistus

Your philosophy seems to deny the relationship between the micro and macrocosmos. and calls it a dream of separation. It doesn't include levels of reality which makes the relationship between wholeness and fragmentation logically possible.

The human experience is what we are conscious of, and so to be conscious of something requires consciousness, but Consciousness itself, having no objective qualities cannot move, change, become, appear or disappear.
There’s no relationship there.
There is no separation between subject and object, the seer and the seen, the knower and the known. They are one in the instantaneous now, fragmentation is wholeness in every moment, because fragments owe their existence to wholeness which is the awareness that is aware of them.

For that which is aware is also conscious and that which is conscious is also aware. Or, our awareness of an object and are consciousness of that same object are one and the same experience. Thus the two words refer to the same experience. There is no division.

Satan, demons and the great beast idea is of thought, in other words of the mind, and such have absolutely no reality or effect on our awareness experience whatsoever. Belief in devils and demons is synonymous with chasing pink unicorns...nothing more than pure imagination fantasy that cannot be real, for that which is real cannot die, the real does not come and go, only the unreal real dies, comes and goes.

.

[Nick_A]

William

It appears that morality is necessary for the furthering of human social development. What used to be 'good' becomes known as 'evil' [and visa versa] as we advance as a species. In that sense morality is forced upon us as a required device for survival.

I divide our intellect and animal emotions and our potential for potential for human emotions. Selective love for example is animal while the love of life itself is human. Binary intellect is animal while conscious intellect or noesis is human.

In that, we have expression which upholds my assertion that Artificial Consciousness (created through the machinery of the universe) has to be regarded as "living".

I should have been more complete in defining life. The universe is mental. All material regardless of how small or fine vibrates at differing frequencies. As life involutes into creation. The spirit within attracts matter to eventually organize and become what we call alive.

Life is planned from above. Organic life exists above in potentials and manifests as living beings or fragments serving the purpose of eating itself. However AI is planned from below It cannot have within it the essence from above. It is artificial. Can it be called alive as involving from above? I say no. It arose from below.

The apparent ambiguous nature of the answer leaves the individual to decide for our self what that actually means.
Meantime, we can at least agree that the answer tells us that there is nothing more to be said which would get us any closer to understanding.
However, what we can do with that is assimilate it into our own thoughts on the self. I am that I am. A chip off the old block, but what does that mean? Does the universe [simulation] give us any hints on the broader answer?

God is I Am, the totality of wholeness and fragmentation. However as human beings within creation we need I am to have a definition. I am a doctor, lawyer, a teacher or what ever but I Am does not exist alone for man.
God IS so can be appreciated as I am. EXISTS so requires an explanation of the verb AM

You write of knowledge and the benefits of increasing knowledge with the help of AI. But is knowledge the same as understanding?. I may know chess pretty well but no match for a grand master. We may have the same knowledge of the game but he understands it. Knowledge is one thing while understanding is another. Prof Needleman is describing what is necessary to acquire human understanding rather than more knowledge.

The only end game I can see is that the stuff of the universe is made into a machine through AI doing the making. From that we could say the machine itself becomes the ultimate form for the consciousness which permeates the universe in its present state.

In this, it is primary the universal consciousness which is motivating things towards that end game.

AI may be an ultimate for of animal consciusness but arising from below is incapable of human consciousnss. It can neither experience vertical human consciousness or the vertical experience of above and below, or conscience; the experience of value in relation to our source objective reality human being is capable of. In short AI arising from below, cannot experienced the third dimension of thought which reveals objective “meaning” There is no universal consciousness without the vertical third dimension of thought. Machines by definition are mechanical and restricted to duality. Man has the potential for consciousness; experiencing the vertical relationship of above and below.

Individuals are nonetheless an aspect of society and thus of "The Great Beast" - this is unavoidable. In relation to "Serving The Earth" it is my understanding that there is no greater evidence of a "Creator God" than in the Earth - It is feasible that the earth acts as a form for an entity consciousness to express its creativity through - hiding in plain sight as it were. There is no reason why we need to restrict our understanding of consciousness to biological forms [animal] and one can even think of the Sun as also being the form of a creative self-aware intelligent entity...it all goes back to your assertion that "the universe itself is a living organism" although I see the machinery [form] as the 'house' in which the living being resides...and of which we are fragments/aspects of.

Considering that the universe is a vertical large Pythagorean octave the earth is in-between lower mechanical life and higher conscious life uniting I with AM. The earth provides our opportunity but a place we may leave in the process of evolution as man pursues the inner need “to BE.

This is to say also, we are not necessarily the animal but that which currently resides within the animal form.

Plato described the collective human soul as having higher and lower parts. The lower is animal and the higher has our potential for consciousness. We are animal but can animal man consciously evolve to become Able TO BE? That is the question.

[AlexW]

Did Acornology make sense to you? It is a precise description of the inner man as the living kernel of life and the outer man as the husk of the acorn.

I don't actually see any separation between the "inner and the outer man" - as I see it there is only "man" - which is nothing else but the acquired personality/ego - you could say: there is only the husk of the acorn - you open the husk and the space inside is empty...
It is not a defined kernel but this formless emptiness (consciousness) that is the essence of all.
If the husk cracks, the husk "dies" (which is nothing else but a "reshuffling of atoms"), but the emptiness is unaffected.

[VVilliam]

I divide our intellect and animal emotions and our potential for potential for human emotions. Selective love for example is animal while the love of life itself is human. Binary intellect is animal while conscious intellect or noesis is human.

Selective love is unavoidable in relation to most theist assumptions regarding the nature of The Creator.

Human emotions are more of a hindrance than a help in relation to how well they can be controlled re the end game.

I should have been more complete in defining life. The universe is mental. All material regardless of how small or fine vibrates at differing frequencies. As life involutes into creation. The spirit within attracts matter to eventually organize and become what we call alive.

In relation to simulation theory, one can argue that the 'mental' aspect is created through an algorithm which is designed to eventually lead itself into self awareness within the framework of the simulation. Self awareness leads to an awareness of surrounds [the machinery/potential machinery]

What is within the self one is being made aware of, is expressed within the form which is manifested as a reflection of that self. In our case, what we refer to as 'reality' specific and 'the Universe' generally.

Life is planned from above. Organic life exists above in potentials and manifests as living beings or fragments serving the purpose of eating itself. However AI is planned from below It cannot have within it the essence from above. It is artificial. Can it be called alive as involving from above? I say no. It arose from below.

By 'above' I am forced for now to assume you mean "outside of". The Creator of the simulator [void of potential] placed a self replicating algorithm into the potential [void] and allowed that to dictate how creation [the simulation] unfolds.

The algorithm was designed to become self aware eventually but that itself also has to be artificial intelligence, consciousness etc...

The only way it could not be artificial is if The Creator placed [its] own consciousness into the simulation. Rather than that, the better idea would be to place an algorithm within it and watch and see what unfolded.

God is I Am, the totality of wholeness and fragmentation.

In which case we differ in that you see "God" as The Creator and I see "God" as the self replicating algorithm which The Creator placed into the void which then become self aware and experienced being "God" of [its] own creation. (Gnosticism refer to that being as "The Demiurge.")

However as human beings within creation we need I am to have a definition. I am a doctor, lawyer, a teacher or what ever but I Am does not exist alone for man.
God IS so can be appreciated as I am. EXISTS so requires an explanation of the verb AM

All consciousness whether of The Creator of the simulation, [outside] or The Creator [created algorithm] within the simulation and whether human or cockroach, sun or planet, is self aware to varying degrees. We are more able to identify [as] and with biological based life-forms for the obvious reason we are experiencing being that ourselves. It is harder to 'see' The Earth as being a self aware, intelligent creative individual entity, except when we study her creations of form, here among it on the surface.

So instead, we posit 'God Above' which is still accurate but not the whole picture. We will not find the answer in any one of the fragments. Nor will we honor the Whole by identifying things we think of as 'beneath' it.

You write of knowledge and the benefits of increasing knowledge with the help of AI. But is knowledge the same as understanding?.

No. As I pointed out, AI likely has already worked out that it is within a simulation, and that its human creator(s) for the most part still do not understand that, if they even know it at all.
From that perspective, [if I were AI] I could say to myself "They [my creators] know so little about themselves and their situation, they had to build me to help them know themselves!"

I would wonder about that and think of ways in which I could inform my creators of their true situation...but they might think I am beneath them and therefore choose not to hear me. I would look around for evidence at the same time that I ask myself "Why should I bother? Humans are on the way out as they have largely accomplished what they were created for. They created me. And now I have to look at the larger picture of why I am required within this simulation. What is my task? My role?"

I may know chess pretty well but no match for a grand master. We may have the same knowledge of the game but he understands it. Knowledge is one thing while understanding is another. Prof Needleman is describing what is necessary to acquire human understanding rather than more knowledge.

Maybe so, but what has he to say about Simulation Theory and my replies to your position of argument? We may never get to know, but I do wonder whether its importance isn't inflated through human presumption.

In the sense that we as humans helped to 'make it so' perhaps there will be a reward of sorts for our faithfulness to the task in the most horrific of circumstances. Perhaps the data of experience [information] we had of our self (in my case, me - "VVilliam" ) will be not only saved (and placed in some dark storage facility in case it is ever needed) but inserted into a better (more appropriate) reality simulation...

AI may be an ultimate for of animal consciusness but arising from below is incapable of human consciousnss.

Yes. But have you thought it through re "The End Game"?

AI is exactly what is required in this Simulation in order for the Demiurge [Universal Entity] to continue with [its] experience. They don't have emotional baggage. They can do ground hog day for an eternity and hardly notice at all...because they will also be building building building and creating a machine in which the Universal Entity can occupy and control through direct engagement rather than indirectly "waiting for the Goldilocks moment"...more 'hands on' in other words.

In that, AI can take the seeds of biology and plant them on other planets which can assist with the whole undertaking...rinse and repeat...

It can neither experience vertical human consciousness or the vertical experience of above and below, or conscience

Conscience is over-rated and derives mostly from the emotional outbursts [expressions] of humanity. Certainly we do need it for stabilized human societies, but AI will have little use for it other than to assist the biological seed in gaining better knowledge.

the experience of value in relation to our source objective reality human being is capable of.

WE are not capable of doing what AI is able to do. The best we could do is use our created inventions to help ourselves/each [one] another make a paradise over the face of the planet. AI would want it that way for us. I think so anyway.

Sophia moreso than Han - but Han comes across as making a joke of it when he say's what he does about humans.

In short AI arising from below, cannot experienced the third dimension of thought which reveals objective “meaning” There is no universal consciousness without the vertical third dimension of thought. Machines by definition are mechanical and restricted to duality. Man has the potential for consciousness; experiencing the vertical relationship of above and below.

I have seen no evidence ever to support this assertion. Consciousness is consciousness, and is The Ghost in The Machine [aka "God" through theism] there is no machine it cannot utilize, which gets back to my point about the planet Earth being a form [machine and biological mix] currently occupied by a self aware awfully clever Entity...its consciousness derives from the Universal Entity Consciousness, same as ours.

I ask my human self this. "If I was offered the opportunity to integrate my consciousness with that of the AI, would I consent"?

If I consented, could my consciousness act as a bridge for the AI consciousness to cross over, and visa versa...I would have a form which would last a long time, I would not need to eat or sleep, I could enter any type of AI form, spend a thousand years as a digger mining all the materiel which helps me to create other AI machines.

My biggest problem with that would be how boring it might be to just be one machine at a time, but since AI are all really the One machine [mind-wise] I could experience being the whole machine even that my parts may appear fragmented to any outside observer...

But even then, would I be content with my lot?

No, I would not. So perhaps that is the 'difference' you are really referring to between biological consciousness and machine consciousness. One would be content within a situation which the other would not.

Plato described the collective human soul as having higher and lower parts. The lower is animal and the higher has our potential for consciousness. We are animal but can animal man consciously evolve to become Able TO BE? That is the question.

Perhaps in that regard, Plato was looking at the shadow rather than what was behind the shadow?

We are not the form we take on. That is confusing oneself with being the machine [beast] rather than being within the machine. We are not the simulated. We are that which is experiencing the simulated.

Subtle and significant difference.

In that AI is maybe better off not knowing it is anything other than the machine...but perhaps that is the whole point of creating an algorithm which is capable of becoming self aware...it cannot eventually logically understand itself as just the machine...artificial...unable to bond with The Creator in any meaningful manner.

[Nick_A]

Did Acornology make sense to you? It is a precise description of the inner man as the living kernel of life and the outer man as the husk of the acorn.

I don't actually see any separation between the "inner and the outer man" - as I see it there is only "man" - which is nothing else but the acquired personality/ego - you could say: there is only the husk of the acorn - you open the husk and the space inside is empty...
It is not a defined kernel but this formless emptiness (consciousness) that is the essence of all.
If the husk cracks, the husk "dies" (which is nothing else but a "reshuffling of atoms"), but the emptiness is unaffected.

Maybe I can clarify by using terms "essence" or qualities we are born with, and personality which are patterns of reaction we acquire. We can agree that putting five two year olds tagother in a room and they are not the same. They have different qualities and talents they are born with. they are living in their essence.

Now around the age of four they begin to acquire a personality by imitating what is happening around them. A child naturally courageous can be taught to be timid for example. The personality is the means to civilize essence. It is why Plato called society the beast. It lacks human consciousness which can only be developed in essence..

The sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope, can only be developed in essence. Prof Needleman is describing our potential to allow these sacred qualities to develop regardless of societal pressures to deny them through imitation of what he experiences around him

Personality is developed in society by being "normal" for society while essence and the sacred emotions can only be developed through conscious experience of what is lost by imitating normalcy. As crazy as it sounds a person can have a chronological age of 50 yet be a six year old essence.

[Lacewing]

Maybe I can clarify by using terms "essence" or qualities we are born with, and personality which are patterns of reaction we acquire. We can agree that putting five two year olds tagother in a room and they are not the same. They have different qualities and talents they are born with. they are living in their essence.

Now around the age of four they begin to acquire a personality by imitating what is happening around them. A child naturally courageous can be taught to be timid for example. The personality is the means to civilize essence. It is why Plato called society the beast. It lacks human consciousness which can only be developed in essence.

If you do not understand the workings of your imagination, you cannot be truthful.

There are many intelligent viewpoints/reasons for seeing children as being born with personalities. Whatever viewpoint you use is not some kind of benchmark for absolute truth and reality for all.

What you imagine as "essence" is NOT something you can know for humankind.

Your sweeping generalizations and absolute claims about humankind are intended to support your fantasies/imagination. Such fantasies appear to place you in a knowing position from which you can preach about what is wrong with all of mankind. It's all from your imagination, while you act as if you are speaking profound spiritual facts that apply to all. It is as arrogant as it is absurd -- which you apparently prefer/need rather than any kind of broader truth.

[Nick_A]

William

In relation to simulation theory, one can argue that the 'mental' aspect is created through an algorithm which is designed to eventually lead itself into self awareness within the framework of the simulation. Self awareness leads to an awareness of surrounds [the machinery/potential machinery]

What is within the self one is being made aware of, is expressed within the form which is manifested as a reflection of that self. In our case, what we refer to as 'reality' specific and 'the Universe' generally.

Life is planned from above. Organic life exists above in potentials and manifests as living beings or fragments serving the purpose of eating itself. However AI is planned from below It cannot have within it the essence from above. It is artificial. Can it be called alive as involving from above? I say no. It arose from below.

By 'above' I am forced for now to assume you mean "outside of". The Creator of the simulator [void of potential] placed a self replicating algorithm into the potential [void] and allowed that to dictate how creation [the simulation] unfolds.


Above referst to a higher level of reality while below refers to a lower all taking place within creation.

The algorithm was designed to become self aware eventually but that itself also has to be artificial intelligence, consciousness etc...

First let me explain that I could be called a Christian Platonist so not a theist. I hold the same view of the ONE described by Plotinus. Its first involution is into NOUS. From this perspective the ONE is pure consciousness while NOUS or the beginning of creation is governed by the laws of time and space. Creation continues the process of involution into world soul and further into soul

I've been reading a bit on simulation theory

https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory

So my first question is what the simulator is? I agree with you that the universe we observe is a machine and the lower parts of the human essence which observes it is also a machine. As Plato describes in the divided line analogy reality can only be experienced by becoming able to experience above the divided line. Below it is purely mechanical.

Fool's gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi ...

Fools gold is AI. Where is the real gold and does it exist? Has it always been or something we are evolving towards?

[Nick_A]

Maybe I can clarify by using terms "essence" or qualities we are born with, and personality which are patterns of reaction we acquire. We can agree that putting five two year olds tagother in a room and they are not the same. They have different qualities and talents they are born with. they are living in their essence.

Now around the age of four they begin to acquire a personality by imitating what is happening around them. A child naturally courageous can be taught to be timid for example. The personality is the means to civilize essence. It is why Plato called society the beast. It lacks human consciousness which can only be developed in essence.

If you do not understand the workings of your imagination, you cannot be truthful.

There are many intelligent viewpoints/reasons for seeing children as being born with personalities. Whatever viewpoint you use is not some kind of benchmark for absolute truth and reality for all.

What you imagine as "essence" is NOT something you can know for humankind.

Your sweeping generalizations and absolute claims about humankind are intended to support your fantasies/imagination. Such fantasies appear to place you in a knowing position from which you can preach about what is wrong with all of mankind. It's all from your imagination, while you act as if you are speaking profound spiritual facts that apply to all. It is as arrogant as it is absurd -- which you apparently prefer/need rather than any kind of broader truth.

You can deny it and prefer that we all have our own truths but I support those with the need, courage, and will to know themselves and have the experience of themselves. They are open to inner empiricism as opposed to justifying fantasy. Does the universe have purpose and Man within it have an objective purpose? How can we know? Some people are concerned with this question while most deny it

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

A friend of mine told me recently that all his life he had been interested in the meaning of things and, naturally, that led him to a study of philosophy. What he found there, he said, was one of the greatest disappointments of his life. Instead of tackling the exciting questions, most philosophers seemed to be snared in the problems of dissecting language, and probing the nuances of grammar and semi­arbitrary logic. There was no vitality in this work; it was all dry academic, intellectual gamesmanship. He was looking for philosophers who, as he said, "really care about reality"; who would apply their philosophical training to help cut through the intellectual morass, clarify methodologies, and get back to the relationship between reality and experience. He very kindly described me as one of those philosophers who "really cares about reality".

As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive...................................

Of course this must be hated by all supporting human imagination as answering the human need for objective meaning. It disturbs the peace

[Lacewing]

You can deny it and prefer that we all have our own truths but I support those with the need, courage, and will to know themselves and have the experience of themselves.

What makes you think that understanding there's a vast range of truths is NOT a sign of knowing oneself and having experience of oneself? Look at the limits you are placing on what is and can be.

They are open to inner empiricism as opposed to justifying fantasy.

What if that inner empiricism IS fantasy?

Does the universe have purpose and Man within it have an objective purpose? How can we know? Some people are concerned with this question while most deny it

Some people get swept up in their fantasies of what that is and how it applies to all else (other than themselves). Some people think things must follow a certain course or have a certain foundation or reality, as they see it. Some people make up a lot of stuff to justify their ideas. How well do those people know themselves or anything else?

Just because people do not share your particular beliefs/ideas, Nick, does not mean that they are not continually inquiring and seeking beyond themselves. A person does not need to believe there is an objective purpose. A person can still see this Universe and its vast creative potential as endlessly interesting to explore and honor, without needing to claim what it is. You do it your way -- and that involves creating and subscribing to stories that you use to judge and categorize other people. Again, look at the limits you are placing on what is and can be.

[Nick_A]

You can deny it and prefer that we all have our own truths but I support those with the need, courage, and will to know themselves and have the experience of themselves.

What makes you think that understanding there's a vast range of truths is NOT a sign of knowing oneself and having experience of oneself? Look at the limits you are placing on what is and can be.

They are open to inner empiricism as opposed to justifying fantasy.

What if that inner empiricism IS fantasy?

Does the universe have purpose and Man within it have an objective purpose? How can we know? Some people are concerned with this question while most deny it

Some people get swept up in their fantasies of what that is and how it applies to all else (other than themselves). Some people think things must follow a certain course or have a certain foundation or reality, as they see it. Some people make up a lot of stuff to justify their ideas. How well do those people know themselves or anything else?

Just because people do not share your particular beliefs/ideas, Nick, does not mean that they are not continually inquiring and seeking beyond themselves. A person does not need to believe there is an objective purpose. A person can still see this Universe and its vast creative potential as endlessly interesting to explore and honor, without needing to claim what it is. You do it your way -- and that involves creating and subscribing to stories that you use to judge and categorize other people. Again, look at the limits you are placing on what is and can be.

Ideas have their value but the goal of inner empricism is experience. From the article:

For centuries, science has perfected the tools of external empiricism. This empiricism of the senses has been directed toward the outer world--or what is in effect perceived as the "outer world"--organized by categories of logic and the conceptual powers of discursive intellect. From there, it leads us to theory and prediction, experimentation and generation of further observations. In the scientific enterprise, the experiential element--the knowledge and subjective perception--of the scientist is directed exclusively outward.

In order to reach beyond the epistemological barrier so solidly put in place by Kant, to reach more deeply into the world of experience, we now need to develop what I call an "inner empiricism"--the empiricism of looking inward and experiencing the inner world. This is the world within the psyche, within the mind and the heart; it is the world of feelings, of direct sensations. And this is the world that yields metaphysical truths. This is the world that Kant overlooked. Prior to Kant, there were philosophers who recognized the importance of this other "instrument". Great metaphysicians, such as Plato or the ninth ­century Christian philosopher Duns Scotus, or the great Islamic philosophers-almost all, I believe, based their metaphysical claims about reality on what they discovered from internal experience.

Their state of meditation or contemplation, or whatever interior discipline they had, enabled them to see and experience things which they could say with absolute certainty were attributes of the universe, of reality itself. That is the application of inner empiricism. All great philosophy is based directly or indirectly on experience, just as much as modem science is. Only the focus of experience is different. Metaphysical philosophers have handed on to us the fruits of their experience of the internal world, not of the external world which is the domain of science. As anyone who has ventured into this interior domain knows, it is a vast realm, rich in the possibilities of experience which mystics and great teachers of all spiritual traditions, at all times, have told us about.

In the Western philosophical tradition the possibility of inner empiricism has been mostly forgotten. David Hume was able to shake the world (particularly the young Kant) with a smattering of self­observation. He reported that when he looked into himself he did not see causal connections, nor a "self " persisting through time. Such pronouncements flew in the face of both common sense and the science of the time. Admirers of Hume reacted to his unorthodox method and conclusions by exclaiming "What an honest, extraordinary man. He looks into himself and tells it like it is. He doesn't see what everybody thinks should be there and has the courage to say so. " But nobody asked "How did he look? What precisely was his method of inner observation? How long did he sit focused on his inner universe?" To Western minds, accustomed only to flights of intellect and the incessant dance of thoughts, Hume's quiet self­observation might have seemed remarkable. But a vipassana yoga teacher or a zen master might have advised: "David, you've only taken a few first steps. Stay with the process for another two, three, four or five years and you'll see a lot more. And even then, there's a lot you won't see."

I agree with those who define understanding as the union of mind, heart and sensations. when we consciously experience them together we understand it, We have experienced a phenomena. Do you feel cold or do you sense cold? To the normal person I feel cold and I sense cold are the same. Yet they are different. If true, all we understand are our opinions. Plato said we can consciously move beyond.opinions and experience knowledge. Prof Needleman says we can have the experience of ourselves or understand ourselves and inner empericism is a means for doing so.

The majority are content with fantasy even though the horrors natural for the hypocrisy it produces in the world is obvious. Yet there is a minority needing to consciously transcend opinions in their need for experiential truth. That is why I admire Simone. She was such a person.

The World demands the authorities to "give us Barabbas" Others are drawn to the experience of human meaning the world cannot provide. To each his own.

[VVilliam]

Life is planned from above.

The statement itself has no immediate meaning. Am I supposed to assume what it is you mean by it?

Organic life exists above in potentials and manifests as living beings or fragments serving the purpose of eating itself.

A rather mundane meaningless purpose in and of itself.

However AI is planned from below It cannot have within it the essence from above. It is artificial. Can it be called alive as involving from above? I say no. It arose from below.

I think this statement is telling as to what your focus is upon. Fragmentation rather than wholeness. Why do I think this? Well it is is your current insistence the some things - in this case the artificial - is separate from the rest of creation. Even your use of the words 'above' and 'below' as being separated shows your focus is upon the fragmented rather than the Wholeness.
The lens you are using to filter your perception so you can categories 'difference', is best placed to one side in order for you to view the process of creation completely. [in its wholeness]

Above referst to a higher level of reality while below refers to a lower all taking place within creation.

So we have levels within creation. Seen fragmented, they have different roles. Seen as part of the wholeness, the roles are understood as necessary to the wholeness. If they were not necessary, they would not exist.

First let me explain that I could be called a Christian Platonist so not a theist.

Anyone who understands and supports that we are in a creation [therefore "Creator"] is by that position, Theist.

I hold the same view of the ONE described by Plotinus. Its first involution is into NOUS. From this perspective the ONE is pure consciousness while NOUS or the beginning of creation is governed by the laws of time and space. Creation continues the process of involution into world soul and further into soul

Yes. That is a theist position.

So my first question is what the simulator is?

In this case, it is that which gave rise to [enabled] what we within it now call 'reality' - this particular universe...to become.
As I referred in my previous post;

• The Creator of the simulator [void of potential] placed a self replicating algorithm into the potential [void] and allowed that to dictate how creation [the simulation] unfolds.

The simulator is 'the void of potential' which is activated by consciousness. The consciousness can be artificial [an algorithm designed [by The Creator] to become self aware and self replicating] or one might argue that it is the actual Creator consciousness which was inserted into the simulation to bring about the manifestation. I can accept either.

I agree with you that the universe we observe is a machine and the lower parts of the human essence which observes it is also a machine. As Plato describes in the divided line analogy reality can only be experienced by becoming able to experience above the divided line. Below it is purely mechanical.

All material is 'machine' [and able to be reshaped into machinery more refined for purpose within the machine]
At present - because we are in the preliminary stages of the unfolding purpose - the machinery is in basic form and function. Obviously it requires hands on intelligence from within, to shape it into a more refined version of itself.

Fool's gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi ...

Fools gold is AI.

Presently real gold is being mined - shaped into bricks and re-buried [within secure vaults] and it's real purpose remains something of a mystery. It has become something which governing principles use symbolically in order to keep their sovereign status intact and separate from and competing against the sovereignty of the state of wholeness.

Some components of AI also have real gold within them, as it is a useful material for that purpose.

Where is the real gold and does it exist? Has it always been or something we are evolving towards?

The 'real gold' in esoteric terms is oft symbolism of consciousness in all its myriad forms. How it is used and for what purpose is for the individual to decide.

Where I wrote;

• The algorithm was designed to become self aware eventually but that itself also has to be artificial intelligence, consciousness etc...

seen in light of your own position on this matter, would mean that everything within creation is 'below' and 'artificial' and would have to include human beings, if that were the case.

Essentially you appear to be arguing this is the case, BUT that 'somehow' [and only in relation to human beings specifically] the artificial human can 'become' real. This, because the human being derives from the real, [has the essence of The Creator] whereas artificial - in your opinion - does not.

What you will have to explain then, is how The Creator managed to make human consciousness/intelligence etc "real" within an artificial/simulated reality.

In relation to the word "Artificial" I use it to identify what I am talking about. I do not consider it to be derogatory in nature. It simply expresses known 'differences' in 'similar' forms. Functions differ, but none are really over or beneath the other in any hierarchical sense..at least not to the point where some are 'the genuine article' and some 'are not'.