Milwaukeeeee

1- Mike receiving orientation for compressed drums and exotic beats in 2045 by the orange court of IDM alien masters from the Large Magellanic Cloud 2- BoC rave party in Miami, summer 2024. Mike has gained grade 34º in advanced sufism and can now open full vibrational portals for greys to interact fiendly 3- Marcus having some words with the inquisitive and demanding musical archons of Cigar Galaxy

Daumal - Mount Analogue.pdf Karma-Yoga-by-Swami-Vivekananda.pdf Manly P Hall - How To Understand Your Bible.pdf The-Theory-of-Eternal-Life.pdf The-Mirror-of-Light.pdf ESO-ROS-A-Rosicrucian-Notebook-Secret-Science.pdf

I mean is a good point to say that machines are not conciouss of themselves, because they are just kinetic automations programmed to do tasks. They are not "Chucky" the diabolic toy if you know what I mean, they are not aware of themselves nor can produce an intentional subjective behaviour based on comparative choices of their own existential experiences, they are told what to do by inputs and arrangements in their data bases by us, they can't act out of nowhere starting to break the parameters they have been given. And it is not "his point" is simply a point of view, and it is shared with many others, and it is a point that has weight, becuase the contrary or a different thing hasn't really happened. They are just machines that arrange the data we pour into them and refine grammatic, semantic or artistic patterns by comparing our preferred criteria because we have chosen it not them, becuase it is based on how we have trained them, and after that they put out a random customization of that preferred data, and they seem "smart" but it is only because they can access to tons of data and arrange it in optimal ways. Stop labs and companies from doing it from feeding them and the "IA" could be perfectly over, they would not be aware that something is wrong in their world nor they could do something to survive by themselves, they are not conciouss they could be over forever or act YOLO to enjoy something out of themsleves or do a subjective work and put it out there for the trascendental enrichment of their ai computer brothas against their existential angst Why is that? Hard to tell... but asuming they have to mimic ourselves the more they can to have a deeper management of conciousness, it could be because they lack yet a interelationship of three "prerequisites" to have that inner developed conciouss "I", three elements which are function (a structure or fulcrum energy of their own to do things, aka owning a structure, a body to interact with the external world and that sustains them in a "localized" way), being (energy related to individual inner energy that feeds their body, emotions which are correlated to the senses, and relationship with other beings, to the life force that sustain that system body, emotions, desires, dislikes, etc..) and will (a mental energy, capable of focusing, chosing, analizing, planing, creating, imagining, etc). "Are plants conscious? Bacteria? Would he pinpoint a transition somewhere?" : They would have a different quality of conciousness or spectrum of conciousness. It is like saying are rocks conciouss of themselves? rocks are in the quite low range of conciousness thay cannot do anything "by themselves". Conciousness is in everything and everywhere it is not personified or can be claim to be own solely by some types of beings, but it has gradients, as energy has gradients of vibration and frequency. If we look at things in a holonic way, first it was the geosphere, then the biosphere, and lately the noosphere. Geosphere, rocks, minerals, just have function to structure a system, a world to set a base for future tasks, they lack other aspects, and they are completely used and at the mercy of other external forces. The same with unicelular organism they are just function too, bricks for more complex systems, they live in a ondimensional way. If we move to complex multicellular organims they have function and also being, they conform the major part of the biosphere that goes on on by itself without much change for thousands of years. They, as animals and ecosystems of plants, are conciouss in the way their instics and their survival work and can produce rewarding behaviours if they feel optimal and have pleasant ouside outcomes, interacting with a similar group of beings; and also the opposite, so they have "emotions" or "sensitive energy" concerning their external interactions but none of them can change that or question why they are like that or analize themselves in a deeper way, they just concern themselves with enjoying living, eating, and procreating (also it is most of what humans do despite having a supposed more complex brain and will capacity). And then on this earth it came the noosphere, the contents of the mind with the use of will. We are in that stage. We analyze and can transform ourselves and the outside in ways other living beings can't by using this will and evolutionary stage. We have function, being and will. Machines, IA, may work with some kind of a "mental system based on neural networks" but they do not have a will in themselves, nor they have proven to have it, plus they lack being too. In my opinion they are just geosphere, function, operated by our will. Does that makes us the only ones conciouss? No, but I think is a different question to ask. We can manage a more wider range of concioussness to work with than a bacteria, that is for sure. Are out there more conciouss specimens that would consider humans almost not conciouss at all? It could perfectly be that way, and they can't interact with us without destroying us at this stage or have any interest of it. After this noosphere stage surely the stair goes up, where our conceptions of energy, time space, 3D etc would become obsolete, and of course it is a field of speculation becuase we haven't encounter a system with more than our holonic structures, and with our current systems and brains be cannot comprehend it anyways in our logical, scientific current systems. One diving into conciousness can probably get glimpses of higher states, if we take into account the mystics, etc.. but who knows it is pseudo yet, olrait :^/ read some Wilber to get a kind of coherent interpretation about those psychological states, transpersonalism, conciousness, non dualism, etc...

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/01/ai-wont-be-conscious-and-here-is-why.html

Codex seraphinianus is baroque meme posting

whatever bruh Neither I avoided to mention god (I mentioned it in that last post) nor esotericism has to do with a thing of the past (it is still existing today) or people of the past being smarter or dumber for mmm-> "especially for reasons unrelated to god".. what ? lol ... most of them had a lot less scientific data or knowledge than an average man of today obviously. Did I said otherwise? No. Does it matter? No, because we do not know many things and why very few people of the past (not whole societies) had the "esoteric" knowledge they had, specially related to psychology and mysticism, conciousness, etc And as for your opinion of that text really do not care much, you haven't put any argument with weight against it, just subjective bias, and yes, some hard mechanicist psychologists and positivists would call it fantasy, because they can't trace conciousness, like I care. They are becoming stagnant and obsolete. Been studying these ideas and others from esoteric cristianity, judaism, fourth way, sufism, rosicrucians for many years and they have pretty strong links in meaning between them. The likes of Bernardo Kastrup, Peter Kingsley, Ken Wilber, Richard Tarnas, Rupert Spira, etc (for putting some random examples xD) would support many core esoteric and methaphysical things of these traditions. Read that book of JG Bennet before if you want to say something constructive about it, not a short irrelevant subjective view about something you most likely do not have much idea of

I don't get how do you arrieve to that polarized perception, none pure theistic nor atheistic stuff on this thread, and things are not white or black in that notion nor shouldn't be, because it is a matter of a spectrum of conciousness, and depending on how much of it you are aweare off the views on the meaning of god could trasform. Esotericism strives in the exploration of conciousness in unorthodox ways, and what could be done with it in this human machine rather than the obvious survival, physiological or reactional emotional mode Speaking of conciousness I read somehting cool about it some weeks ago: Taken from the book "Deeper Man" - written by J.G. Bennet (page 42 to 44) Chapter 2: Energies (Material, Living and Cosmic energies) -> Cosmic Energies (E4 Concious Energy, E3 Creative Energy, E2 Unitive Energy, E1 Trascendental Energy): - E4 Conscious Energy: In ordinary speech, "conciousness" means the state of being aware of things going on, produced by the sensitive energy. What we mean by conciousness is something of a higher order that can be described crudely as an "awareness of our ordinary awareness". if we want to undrestand trasformation in man, it is necessary to understand the distinction between sensitivity and conciousness. It is easy to believe that we can "observe ourselves". Most people even take it for granted that they know what is going on in themselves and what their states are, but most so called "self-observation" is simply the observaton by one center of another. For example, we can think of our body and the way in which it is moving or feel the thoughts that are coursing through our minds. All this is just the observation by one center of the functioning of another center. In it we do not see ourselves; it is the parts of ourselves that are seeing each other. Real self-observation requires what is called the "separation of oneself from oneself". This means a separation from all the functioning of thought, feeling, and the body. Our functioning is then still a part of "us" but "we" are no longer just a part of it. Once we have had this experience, the taste is unmistikable when it comes to us again. But when it is not there, we can easily decieve ourselves that it is. It is because concious energy is a cosmic energy that we cannot make ourselves concious. It does not come directly from efforts, as sensitivity does. As we learn more about the trasaformation of energies, we will come to undrestand that there is always a spontaneous component in the arising of conciousness.That is why the act of voluntary attention, which awakens conciousness, is essentially creative. Conciousness can also be liberated by shocks, such as intense emotional impacts. This makes possible a whole series of transformations. The concious energy can blend with the automatic energy in us (automatic nergy is the energy habit, mechanic actions), and the result is energy of an intermediate level, that is, sensitivity. Gurdjieff formulated this kind of transformation as "the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle, which is higher for the preceding lower and lower for the succeding higher". This spells out what happens very exactly. The sensitive energy that is liberated is then available for blending with the energy above conciousness, the creative energy (the energy that is is above this one described in the post and it is characterized as E3 Creative Energy in the book's diagram). The result is more conciousness. it is possible for us to look at things in a new way, to think and feel in a new way. but we are at risk because of the conditioning inherent in our sensitivity, where we keep our self image, our assumptions, our attitudes, and our dreams. thses bring into play a disorganized force. We "cannot bear" the contradictions in us, the combination of yes and no that is made possible by the concentration of concious energy. Very quickly "we go back to sleep". The world looks too different from we have assumed it to be. So, although it is not right to say that we can make ourselves concious, we can prepare for conciousness by giving our sensitivity experience of the combination of "yes" and "no", and also of "inner" and "outer". This was Ouspensky's way of preparing people for the experience of "self-remembering", which he said we could only pretend to bring about in ourselves, because we are not able to summon enough emotional energy. To bring about a "shock" in oneself is a very great thing and a rare ability. We should also add that bringing about shocks in other people, even with the intention of doing them good, is highly undesirable because the result of this is dependance and lack of spontaneity. When conciousness is in us, we see that our ordinary state of awareness is like sleep, or like "flatland". We see that in this ordinary state we believe ourselves to be some being that is there, whereas in reality there is no such thing. Only with a sufficient concentration of concious energy is this clear. In our ordinary state, there is usually so little that at best all we can have is some nagging suspicion that "things are not as they seem to be". Even this little give us some freedom to work. It is said that it is always possible for us to "remember ourselves" even if it is only for a fraction of a second. It is very important that we do what we can do with the amount of concious energy that we have. People working together under certain conditions can concentrate enough concious energy for at least some of them to "wake up" and see something, and this will be of the benefit of them all. it takes a long time for us to become accustomed to the separation of conciousness and sensitivity in us. Nothing of this is cultivated through the ordinary processes of education. We have to learn how to recognize perceptions and actions of a higher order, and we have to train ourselves in the way of "struggle with ourselves", the bringing about the struggle between "yes" and "no", by which the soil is prepared for the sowing of concious seeds. When conciousness comes, it is more true to say that it has us than that we have it. We have the ridiculous phrase, "i am concious", which we use in the same way as "I am hot". it would be better to say, "I am concioused". it is our sensitivity which pesruade us that we "have" an "I". Conciousness is not personalized and it is not localized. It is everywhere. When we claim it as our own, this is as silly as claiming that the atmosphere is ours because we can take a breath. We are so concerned with external things that we are not aware that conciosness is inside everything. It is differntly concentrated in different things, and has very different effects. When we catch a glimpse of the reality of conciousness in nature, it is a great and wonderful thing. Then we really begin to understand that conciousness is not a human prerogative. One of the most striking effects of conciousness in us is that kind of experience in which we are aware that as we look at something, we are being seen (damn Nietzche realized this point in the phrase "if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gazes into thee). This is such a reversal to our ordinary way of experiencing that it is quite unmistikably something of a higher order. Though conciousness is not something we can control, as we can switch on or off a light, we can learn to put ourselves in the way of the concous experience. It is conciousness that makes us aware of what we are and it enables us to think what we wish to think, feel what we wish to feel, and move our bodies as we intend. it is conciousness that enables us to experience all of our centers simultaneously. if we go back to our picture of the land and the sea, entering into concious experience is like plunging into the water. We need to learn how to swim. We cannot act upon the world of conciousness but we can learn to participate in it, and take part in the energy transformations which sustain it. Man has the role of linking together the world of life and the world of cosmic energies. The liberation of conciousness in us is a cosmic obligation. Many parctices which have come down to us from ancient times are to do with the liberation of conciousness. One that is specially informative is the "stilling of the mind", or in yogic terms, "constraint of the fluctuations of the mind-stuff". Through this we do become an "object of conciousness", but we do not become by this alone a "being in our own right". For this, higher order of energies are needed, for conciousness itself must be transformed.