[INFJ] Is integrated AI the end of INFJs?

[Nautilidae]

The concept the public/society has of strong AGI is more immediately useful and thus, dangerous than the threat that unboxed strong AGI will show up tomorrow if ever.

What do I mean?

Perception of the nature of a conscious being controls the behavior of the viewer. This is why human beings feel more warm about puppies than about spiders. It's also why babies protest the presence of emotionless faces when they are engaged in an exchange with an someone. The same principle observed when switching between perceiving a fellow human observer vs. perceiving an AI (or AGI) observer.

My guess is, in any of our discussions with people who are unfamiliar with MBTI or any other personality typology system, that we were met with skepticism about it. The usual retort includes the following: #1 It's not scientifically proven and #2 You can't define people like that (*insert "you'll never defeat the power of the human spirit" meme*). And what is meant in point #2 (if you probe them about it) is that they literally mean that human beings are so complex that...something about snowflakes.Another guess is that if you were to ask that same set of people whether or not they were in some way fearful about AI manipulating human endeavors, they'd not only be more open to the idea, but rather, they might be armed with some TedTalk level narrative about how real the threat is.

Where is the switch that controls cognitive dissonance about this located? Why do people resist ideas that human brains/minds are a constrained (you know, like literally every system we know of ever) when asked in the context of a human viewer, but these same people show quick fearfulness which assumes cognitive constrainment is not only real, but easily gamed once the viewer is a "mind' that is not a fellow human? It's because of the nature of AI (or AGI) thinking and consciousness is completely unknown. It is an "other" in a way that an immigrant or any human outsider couldn't be. They are haphazardly correct to fear the circumstance, and not for the reason (AI is accurate) the threat is real.

And because the best fiction is written in the gaps of our knowledge about things; AI (AGI) can be rhetorically imbued with faculties of decision making and access that it does not actually have, and the public would not be able to verify. Atrocities of many kinds could be executed, things policy would not be able to support and accidents of "runaway" AI could be blamed. In this way, nation-states and other powerful actors could accomplish goals of foreign and/or domestic policy based on collective perception from ignorance. In essence, the public would be black-boxed rather than the "AI."

 

[TheFool]

Life is a simulation if you pay attention to everything you experience. Once you observe your mind and sense sensations, nothing is tangible and only exists as a dream like mirage. Just because we have been programmed to label the taste of chocolate as a taste, it is impossible for you to pin point the actual taste of chocolate. Everything appears to exists but once observed closely, experiences become empty of their own nature.

We become mesmerized by life and most of us identify ourselves with the experiences that occur in our conciousness. Even though many of the theories about existence are accepted we can never prove anything to be fundamentally true. It could be that we are a product of evolution but it could also be true that all that is, is fabricated by conciousness just like a dream. The difference in this waking dream is that it is shared and through acceptance it has been labeled as common reality since it reoccurs over and over again. But if we were to dream a common dream every single night, would it not become as real as this waking state?

Simulation is powered by our brains, a bilogical computer itself. What we experience is not reality as it is but a decoded version, ordained by logic and past experiences. It is all fabricated accordingly thanks to our hardware, which itself is fabricated by conciousness.

That’s my silly two cents about it

 

[Kuron]

I don't think we'll be able to communicate telepathically or be able to perceive the direct thoughts of others on demand. Even if it were possible to somehow interpret the thoughts of others and transfer it, it'd have to be in a controlled manner. Think how much of a headache it'd be with all the voices going into your head at a mall. Also, considering that we can't perceive other's thoughts naturally and will most likely need some sort of device to do it for us, you can say that this is will be man's interpretation of what human thoughts are, so it probably wouldn't be perfect.

While the idea of collective intelligence seems great, I think it'd still be upto the individual to decide what to share unless you can somehow take down the wall hiding their thoughts. But lets say you can directly access their thoughts to get each individual's input to make a collective decision, then at what point do you just replace people with a bots for efficiency? Since you can read all their thoughts, you can simulate their growth over time, predict all their reactions, and calculate what their input will be to the collective decision.

It all seems unlikely to happen to me, at least for now. I'm not an expert on this, but I think there's many different layers of thoughts and each individual probably organizes their thoughts differently, so trying to understand what anyone's thinking at any moment seems kind of far-fetched.

But, lets say that we were able to directly read the thoughts of others though, I think INFJ would just get better at controlling their thoughts and would probably hide it further back in their minds or just learn to misdirect others in what they're actually thinking.

 

[charlatan]

I'm not very optimistic about most claims about AI integration with humans -- I'm not convinced basic issues like 'what does it mean to be conscious' are understood basically at all.
Without doing so, it's hard to understand what form this integration would take.

However, in general, if it's possible, I suspect there will be measures to keep privacy put in place, just as computer systems today have various privacy measures. There will probably be the ability to radically interface, like you describe, but I imagine plenty would refrain if given the choice.
So I'm not sure the potential for AI integration will spell the doom of the private individual, so much as I'm not sure the integration is well understood or possible.

I have similar skepticism for hypotheses like 'information is everything' since ultimately it seems like information is just a filler word for 'stuff' -- it seems once we deflate it, we're stuck with the same good old laws of physics and not much more. It may be that there's something much more fundamental than physics, but I definitely don't take seriously that anyone has any idea what that is.
As such, things like 'we're in a simulation' don't really make much sense to me/sound too vague.

 

[Disguised]

https://futurism.com/sorry-elon-physicists-say-we-definitely-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation

A self learning mix of computer viruses would be the end of this forum atleast. There's quite the few potential in it, but luckily AI's don't have intuition per se. They can't predict the outcome of their actions but they have to learn through mistakes which works. I think there'll be a time when these open sourced software will produce some kind of a threat, but I think the problems about them are a bit over estimated.

https://www.cleverbot.com/
This one is friendly atleast!

 

[MoonFlier]

...
AI's don't have intuition per se. They can't predict the outcome of their actions but they have to learn through mistakes which works. I think there'll be a time when these open sourced software will produce some kind of a threat, but I think the problems about them are a bit over estimated.

https://www.cleverbot.com/
This one is friendly atleast!

AI is nothing more than a tool that when used properly can augment the human workers. No company will or should ever be mostly AI run. It's that empathy that humans have for others and the offbeat imagination that adds the spark to any wildly successful company. (ex: Google, Apple, Disney). Smart CEOs will realize this.

As for viruses and hacking running rampant - oh, yes, the war has just started on that front. Everything we've seen up until now has just been the warm ups for the big game, one in which we will need AI on our side to combat the AI on the attack side. All with us staying in the driver's seat.

In regards to the hollywood depection of "evil" AI, meh... I think that's a bit too sci-fi for even us to imagine happening. The scariest of these being developed by the military are still glorified remote control robots. I don't think the military is that dumb to put life and death decisions in the hands of a bot.

 

[TheFool]

https://www.google.se/amp/s/sociable.co/technology/quantum-computing-multiverse/amp/

One day you might be able to snapchat with your another you in a pararell universe.

 

[dragulagu]

@TheFool I strongly recommend to throw that article straight into the trash bin.

Quantum theory (let alone superpositioning) has nothing to do with parallel/multiverses.
And Max Tegmark's multiverse theory is purely hypothetical. There is currently no possible methodology to prove that another universe could exist (there is no means to actually observe this). It is essentially a
theory that states that anything could happen.

"although a universe occupies space, a universe is not space itself."
"Among many of the apparent paradoxes the theory presents is that a particle can exist in more than one place at a time."
"Afterall, Einstein’s general theory of relativity still remains a theory, albeit one that changed the course of human history."
“Quantum computing will enable researchers to simulate and develop new catalysts and materials, improve medicines, accelerate advances in artificial intelligence, and even answer fundamental questions about the origins of our universe.”
"Where classical bits hold a single binary value such as a 0 or 1, a qubit can hold both values at the same time in what’s known as a superposition state."

"According to an article in Hacked, “A qubit in a quantum superposition of zero and one states exists in two parallel universes. Similarly, two qubits require four parallel universes, and so forth. Doing the math, it’s easy to see that a system of 1000 qubits spans a huge number of parallel universes.”
This...whole article...is full with contradictions and misinformation...ARGH .

 

[TheFool]

It is hard to prove that other universes exists by tangible methods since what we observe here is a product of our brains. It is not what is actually experienced but what is interpreted by our brains.

Say if I am totally wrong but when it comes to the wave-particle duality it depends on the observer. If light is a wave, like a ripple on a water, it vibrates in every direction like a sphere. But for us to be able to observe that wave-particle, it has to hit another wave-particle and return towards our eye in order to be reflected in our senses as a light. When observed with an eye it seems that the photon praticle exists in many places at the same time since that sphere of vibration wave is hitting its own waves and other wave-particles. We can only perceive light when the wave-particle hits something it can bounce itself back towards the observer.

The waves themselves are not just one wave height and lenght but all the wave heights and lenghts of the specturm. Every height and lenght is observed with a different kind of receiver. The frequency we observe with our receiver only sees the frequency it is tuned on and is oblivious for all the other frequences. That what manifests itself on this frequency is an reflection of that praticular wave height and lenghts. But this is just one of the many frequencies existing pararell in the same space that contains all the possible frequencies.

Am I totally wrong?

 

[dragulagu]

You are in the right direction. Light (being photons) is a wave packet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet). The wave packets themselves do stretch over an endless spectrum, however most frequencies tend to cancel each other out, some are amplified, thus leaving a narrow set of frequencies that we observe (these are known as the Feynman path integrals http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/path_integrals.html), that is also the reason why we do see the wave pattern through the double slit experiment. Now, as the observer you do have an impact on the result of how light behaves, but that impact is not that big, measurements like length and height don't suddenly differ between 2 observers if they watch the same process next to each-other. Only in extremes in spacetime (such as traveling near the speed of light or standing next to or away from a strong gravitational source) will these measurements occur differently.

Now what you are stating at the end: that we do not have the observational tools as humans to observe other universes is correct, however we do have a set of spectrometers / telescopes / ... that can observe the universe far surpassing what we can see with our eyes. These systems have not yet observed anything that could prove the existence of a multiverse. (the same is with dark matter / energy for the moment but we are pretty sure it exists, according to the current theory).

Having said that, chances are we'll never be able to observe other universes unless we found a method that surpasses the limitations of current physics, eg. the speed of light as information. Even gravitation waves do have a limitation in regards to speed. The universe is expanding and should it hit another universe it would take an enormous amount of time before that event will hit our systems, far beyond humanity. So for now it's all theory.

Perhaps we'll be lucky enough that we might observe the birth of a universe within our own universe with our observation systems one day, but for now it's something we can only imagine.

Disclaimer: i'm not a physicist, so please do correct me if I stated something wrong

 

[TheFool]

There are tools to observe these subtleties but every result is still observed by the human conciousness. What we observe is translated through our conciousness which is limited by the spectrum that our senses can detect.

To be able to observe something that is beyond this dimension we would need a tool that surpasses the limits that binds us to our current classical physical rules. Quantum technology could be the key that opens the possibility to unravel that which we currently are not able to observe.

The other way around is the expansion of human consciousness. There are other states of mind than this states which we refer as the ordinary state of consciousness. But human consciousness is not the basic consciousness but another altered state of consciousness. All observations that are done are limited to the limits of current state of human consciousness. The deeper scientists dig the more they have admit that reality is not objective but subjective.

In Buddhism this approach is called Yogacara.

These representations (vijñapti) are mere representations (vijñapti-mātra), because there is no [corresponding] thing/object (artha)...Just as in a dream there appear, even without a thing/object (artha), just in the mind alone, forms/images of all kinds of things/objects like visibles, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, houses, forests, land, and mountains, and yet there are no [such] things/objects at all in that [place]. MSg 11.6[16]

How we experience reality depends on the subtle forms of our consciousness which called as Bijas. These are like seeds that project the reality out of our base consciousness. Those seeds are the origin of the stream of consciousness that unravels itself. That stream is said to be a kind of code that then is interpreted by our minds creating this existence and its current forms. What we perceive is not really out there but a creation of our consciousness, like a dream that is projected and superimposed to its current form by the mind. This current dream like state of consciousness is shared with beings who’s consciousness share the same kind of coding, karma. That karma binds us in to this specific state of consciousness. But this state is not the base state. It is one form of the many other forms of consciousness that exists pararell with each other.

To understand better what is observed as out there, we need to turn within. These technologies have existed far longer than the scientific ones but unfortunately neglected by the mainstream. But there are those who are finally starting to acknowledge the teachings of 8 consciousness.

 

[dragulagu]

Will get back on ya on that topic The Fool (not a specialist in buddhism but I do recall some works).

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[dragulagu]

@TheFool , In preparation of my reply. Here is a video from one of my favorite channels (think you like it as well), just released. In regards to the limits of the universe, taking on the mathematics behind an infinite universe, the projection of an infinite universe into higher dimensions and it touches quantum physics a bit.

Be warned though, this video is heavy on the material.

couple more:

 

[dragulagu]

Ok @TheFool , as promised:

There are tools to observe these subtleties but every result is still observed by the human conciousness. What we observe is translated through our conciousness which is limited by the spectrum that our senses can detect.

Correct in the furthest sense each individual has their own observed interpretation of the world which is gathered by the senses and processed by the mind. However the scientific fields do work with instruments that are absent of a mind or consciousness and they gather data objectively. This data is read by a multitude of observers (being human or apparatus) and will get a general consensus on the values. Therefore their would be a collective agreement to what is observed and how it is observed.

To be able to observe something that is beyond this dimension we would need a tool that surpasses the limits that binds us to our current classical physical rules. Quantum technology could be the key that opens the possibility to unravel that which we currently are not able to observe.

Correct, we'll need tools that surpass our limitations in regards to our specific dimensions, Quantum technology however is not it as it is defined by the same natural laws that are limited within the same dimensions as we are in. That does not mean that Quantum physics and the Quantum world isn't an interesting field to discover, we'll be finding a lot of interesting and weird physical properties in the future (beyond the standard model).

The other way around is the expansion of human consciousness. There are other states of mind than this states which we refer as the ordinary state of consciousness. But human consciousness is not the basic consciousness but another altered state of consciousness. All observations that are done are limited to the limits of current state of human consciousness. The deeper scientists dig the more they have admit that reality is not objective but subjective.

The interesting thing, albeit that I have not read enough material on it, is that our consciousness is divided in regions conscious subconscious unconscious, these other states of mind are indeed interesting, especially
in the interpretation of the inner and outer world by the human mind. (can't give a proper opinion on it yet, will have to read more on it). To me, reality stays objective. We are a product of Nature, evolved from our surroundings and therefore adjusted to an optimal interpretation of our surroundings for survival. That is the subjective part.

In Buddhism this approach is called Yogacara.

I'm not familiar with Yogocara, but I do recall a theory in regards to the collective consciousness. That we are an partial observer from a collective of observers, sharing their observations through a collective mind.
However, that is purely metaphysical, I don't think any valid scientific proof has been proposed in regards to a collective consciousness. The closest "theory" I could think of is the though experiment of the Boltzmann brain.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/boltzmann-brain-nothing-is-real?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2
http://nautil.us/blog/can-many_worlds-theory-rescue-us-from-boltzmann-brains

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fun extra (the bit I knew from Buddhism) - I had a bizarre brainfart when I was asleep, woke up and had a weird epiphany (won't go in detail) in regards to time. Went as far as mailing the Dalai Lama (yes he does have a mail address to which you can send questions) with the question: how does Buddhism view time. You might like the explanation and reading material given by the interpreter.

Tenzin Tsepag <tsepag@dalailama.com>
Di 6/10/2015 9:02

Dear Olaf
Thank you for your query about time in Buddhism. I wish to answer your question, "How does Buddhism see and/or define time itself and its place within nature?"

According to Buddhism, just as everything that is a result of causes and conditions is transient, so is time understood to be an impermanent phenomenon. The moment something comes into being or is produced, it is subject to change and that momentary change in things is termed as "disintegration" or "impermanence".
Time is not an absolute as it must be understood in relation to passing moments in events and things. Each moment is a product of its preceding factors and therefore without those factors playing their role time cannot be. In fact, nothing in the universe has an absolute nature. Everything is relative. So, time is a relative phenomenon described in terms of the time present, time past and time future. Yet, the phenomenon of time eludes us all giving us some sense or identity we could relate to as passing through the space. Time is a passage of moments in linear terms but each nano second, second, minute, hour, day, month, year decade, etc. has no absolute identity and nature! Under careful analysis and scrutiny you have nothing to point your finger at as being this second, etc. Once you break the longer duration into their shorter parts, e.g. from a day (24 hrs) to hours to minutes to seconds to fractions of a second and smaller parts thereof, we lose the concrete idea of time we usually conceive. In the end, when you break a present moment down into seconds though we may think that we are here 'this second', no sooner that is conceived and uttered, we have shifted in time. Half the second is gone and the other half not there yet. This dissection could be done to smaller fractions of a second and still the fact remains the same. So we can see how time goes with all things that are temporal and spiritual, and we are all bound within the time factor unless we can totally transcend the thing called time! In conventional terms we can talk and think about time. Hence, we can refer to the times past, times yet to come and the present moment. However, past and future are real as is the present time. The former two can be posited only in relation to the latter which becomes the reference point for the other two.
Time is an abstract phenomenon. We can only relate to it in relation to things that change moment to moment like a clock or events. History is our witness to the changing times. So, time is a constant reminder that nothing remains static in our life and in the universe. Hence the awareness of impermanence and death could spur us on the spiritual quest for liberation and enlightenment. Otherwise, merely feeling bad about death, which is a natural process of life to end in it, will not help us grow spiritually and intellectually. Worry is not a solution either.
I hope this is of some help to you. With warm regards,
Tsepag

Religious Interpreter to His Holiness the Dalai Lama

PS: If you could find Master Aryadeva's Four Hundred Verses on Yogic Deeds, I would recommend you to read it, especially Chapter One which deals with impermanence in life.

 

[TheFool]

Great reply!

What I meant with the observing part is that it might be impossible to observe Quantum level, the subliest fields like dark matter, energy, etc. since in buddhists point of view, what we are observing is not actually out there. What we experience as reality has its “source” within us. Reality is like a dream, there is no tangible fundamental materia that creates it. Instead reality appears in the conciousness as a superimposed projection.

This conciousness is not collective and yet it is since we all share the same dream/movie/simulation but every sentient being has their own stream of consciousness formed by the karma that they inherited. Alayana Vijnana is something of a emptiness, yet full of potential to express endless forms appearing spontaneously as an act of observing is introduced. That base consciousness can take any form and different forms can appear at the same place at the same time without being aware of the exstence of other dimensions. Just as a silly thing, people who talk about ghosts might be overlapping with another dimension and sense beings that exists on a different plane/frequency. Ghosts might not be ghosts but other version of us, living in a different timeline. Highly speculative, I know.

There is mundane and absolute time. Mundane time is consits of reference points. Absolute time is this begingless ever-fresh now where all movements are observed. That sense of absolute nowness becomes very clear when the conceptual mind is silenced. There is a stillness beyond mundane time that allows us to experience the movements of all kinds.

I have read that book but it was few years ago.

I recommend all the texts of Ramana Maharishi!

 

[TheFool]

This is a bit long read but worth to contemplate on. It has the key to vajra-like meditation. The talk is given by Chögyam Trungpa.






According to the Tibetan understanding of the yogachara view, there are eight consciousnesses. The eighth, called the alaya-vijnana, is the basis for the other seven. The ati tradition presents an ultimate alaya (San.; "abode, receptacle"; Tib. künshi; "ground of all"), which is the basis of both samsara and nirvana. The Vidyadhara described this ultimate alaya and the split from it in this way:


This basic ground does not depend on relative situations at all. It is natural being which just is. Energies appear out of this basic ground and those energies are the source of the development of relative situations. Sparks of duality, intensity and sharpness, flashes of wisdom and knowledge—all sorts of things come out of the basic ground. So the basic ground is the source of confusion and also the source of liberation. . . . As for ego's type of ground, the eighth consciousness, this arises when the energy which flashes out of the basic ground brings about a sort of blinding effect, bewilderment. That bewilderment becomes the eighth consciousness, the basic ground for ego. [Garuda IV: The Foundations of Mindfulness; p. 58]


In addition to the alaya of the eighth consciousness and the alaya of the basic ground, the Vidyadhara here presents a third type of alaya, a knowing that is self-aware and self-luminous (Tib. shepa rang rik rang sel).




VCTR: Generally, there are different types of alaya: a lower level, or storehouse consciousness, and a higher level, which is basic brilliantness.


JL: It is pure tathagatagarbha.


VCTR: So to speak.


JL: If the higher level of alaya is brilliance, is there also a dharmakaya level of alaya? Is there a formless purity before it becomes luminous?


VCTR: Yes. According to vajrayana, there is the dharmata itself, which you return to at the moment of your death. It is just dissolving. After the moment of death, there is the bardo of dharmata, which goes beyond the alaya, even beyond the brilliance. It is just a kind of blankness—dead. JL: So the vajrayana seems to say that there are three types of alaya: complete purity or dharmata, luminosity, and the alaya that gives birth to grasping.


VCTR: Yes.


RK: I take it that the lower alaya, which is responsible for our ego, is not still.


VCTR: It is fickle.


RK: In shamatha practice, it seems that thoughts are being thrown out, and I am bubbling and throwing them out. There is no sense of complete peace, but there is a sense of being behind the thoughts as they come out. Is that the lower alaya?


VCTR: It could be seeing the lower alaya, though connected with the luminous aspect a little bit. If you are in the state of fickleness, you cannot see it because you are it. You begin to see it because you are beginning to be a little more steady; therefore you have a reference point. The reason you see the fickleness might be because the luminous aspect allows you to step back a little.


JL: Is the point of coemergence, or split, in that luminous alaya?


VCTR: No, the split is at the level of dharmata. When you reach the bardo of dharmata, you have a chance of either splitting downward or not. That is where coemergent ignorance and coemergent wisdom arise.


RK: If you wake up from the bardo of dharmata and go in the direction of coemergent ignorance, are you then presented with the lights?


VCTR: Yes. But that point is slightly hopeless, because you are already in duality.


RK: But if you go in the direction of coemergent wisdom, are you enlightened?


VCTR: Well, you at least glimpse it.


LM: In the past, we have discussed two types of alaya: one that is a sense of very primordial egolike consciousness and the other that is much more kosher. What is the third one?


VCTR: Dharmata.


JL: At that point, there is not even luminosity.


VCTR: There are two kinds of luminosity: that of coemergent wisdom and that of the basic alaya.


JL: Does the luminosity of coemergent wisdom take place after the split?


VCTR: Yes.


JL: Are there two kinds of brilliance, coemergent-wisdom brilliance and a coemergent-ignorance light that continues down into the basic alaya?


VCTR: No. The separation takes place at the level of dharmata, which is dull.


RK: By "separation," do you mean coemergent wisdom?


VCTR: Or ignorance.


RK: Is the lower alaya at the post-split level on the side of samsara?


VCTR: Yes.


RK: Is the higher alaya also post-split?


VCTR: No, the higher alaya is neutral.


LM: Is that the alaya referred to in the slogan, "Rest in the nature of alaya"?


VCTR: Mm-hmm.


LM: What is the term for the higher alaya?


VCTR: It is the "ultimate alaya" (Tib. tön-gyi künshi) or "perfectly pure ultimate alaya" (yangdak pe tön-gyi künshi). Out of that ultimate alaya, you could have a split. Finally, ultimate alaya is the atmosphere where the split can occur.


RK: When you have coemergent wisdom, there is both a sacred side and a samsaric side.


VCTR: Yes.


RK: Where does the sense of enlightenment or sacredness come from? Is it sacred because it comes out of the ultimate alaya?


VCTR: You could say that. Ultimate alaya at least holds the potentialities of the whole thing. We could say that samsara came out of some kind of freedom. That is the basic logic of why anyone can attain enlightenment.


RK: In meditation, is our approach to identify with the ultimate alaya?


VCTR: New practitioners try to meditate with the self-aware, self-luminous aspect.


RK: When meditators practice coemergent wisdom, is the sense of the ground what makes it coemergent wisdom instead of coemergent ignorance?


VCTR: Yes. You try to tune yourself into the ultimate alaya, and from there you try to flash.


RK: You flash on phenomena evolving? VCTR: Yes.


RK: You drop back to the point before thought arises, then you let the thought arise, but you flash on it as it arises.


VCTR: Not quite. You do not flash "on course." You just flash.


LM: It is like saturating yourself first, then you let go of that. VCTR: Yes. When you create pressure, then you can pop the balloon.


JL: Are you popping the balloon of your thoughts?


VCTR: You are popping your alaya.


JR: Then quite anything could come out [laughter].


SW: Does it come out as sacred?


VCTR: Absolutely, yes. You have sacred outlook.


RK: It is like you have a balloon full of water and a swimming pool. You drop the balloon into the swimming pool and then pop it.


LM: Or you swell up your balloon with whatever, then pop it by going out.


VCTR: Yes.


LM: And what you pop into would be sacred, the ultimate alaya.


VCTR: Then you could go a little beyond the ultimate alaya.


JR: Does this relate to "First thought, best thought"?


VCTR: Yes, very much so.


RK: So it is like you hold it, pop it, and then drop into ultimate alaya, or a little bit before.


VCTR: You hold it in the ultimate alaya. You pass beyond the luminous mind, or lower level. You hold it in the ultimate alaya, and then you pop it there.


LM: Then that is what you are left with.


VCTR: That is the level where you can actually transcend karmic force. Once you slowly go downward toward the luminous mind, you are bound by karma. So you are helpless in some sense; you have been forced. That is where the seventh consciousness comes from.


JL: Once it is popped, you start coming back down again. You expand back in through phenomena.


VCTR: Sometimes you just pop and then come back, because you cannot sustain it. But if you pop it many times, you are able to sustain it more. The idea is to flash as much as you can so that you will finally be able to sustain it.


JL: Then you just dwell there.


VCTR: "Dwell" is not exactly the right word.


JL: How would you describe it?


VCTR: There is some level of awake and space, I suppose.


JL: No subject and no object.


VCTR: No. You come down from the dharmakaya level to the sambhogakaya level.


LM: So are we talking about the dharmakaya principle?


VCTR: We are talking about the "first buddha," which we usually refer to as Samantabhadra and which is higher than Vajradhara.


LM: So this is the dharmakaya of dharmakaya.


VCTR: Right, which is a very early stage, even beyond the ultimate alaya.


LM: Would the ultimate alaya have more sense of dharmakaya or sambhogakaya?


VCTR: There is not very much there. It is just the atmosphere where the split can occur, a sort of neutral ground. It is not related to the kayas at all.


SW: It is like dharmadhatu?


VCTR: Dharmadhatu is beyond that. Dharmadhatu is before the first buddha. That is why we describe it with such terms as "simplicity," "unchanging," and "fresh."


RK: When you hold yourself back in the ultimate alaya, is there a sense of holding discursive thoughts still?


VCTR: You have to retreat back to the origin. It is holding discursive thoughts and also going beyond the luminous aspect.


RK: You cannot possibly hold it, so you drop it.


VCTR: You pop it.


RK: And you do not entertain any doubts about this process.


VCTR: That is why it is called the "fourth moment beyond the three." It is so minute. It is subtle and vajra, like the middle of space.


JL: Therefore it is outside of time.


VCTR: Yes.


JL: Therefore there is no karma.


VCTR: Yes.


LM: Since coemergence occurs before the luminous alaya, could the result or footprint of coemergence tie into the experience of that alaya? It comes after you have coemerged, but you notice it somewhat after the fact. There is some dropping of fixation, but it is not complete, since there is still some samsaric mind.


VCTR: You poke your head up, but it goes back because you are still pulled back by your karma.


RK: So you keep on poking your head up.


VCTR: That is right.


RK: The more pokes, the better.


VCTR: Yes.

 

[dragulagu]

Great reply!

What I meant with the observing part is that it might be impossible to observe Quantum level, the subliest fields like dark matter, energy, etc. since in buddhists point of view, what we are observing is not actually out there. What we experience as reality has its “source” within us. Reality is like a dream, there is no tangible fundamental materia that creates it. Instead reality appears in the conciousness as a superimposed projection.

This conciousness is not collective and yet it is since we all share the same dream/movie/simulation but every sentient being has their own stream of consciousness formed by the karma that they inherited. Alayana Vijnana is something of a emptiness, yet full of potential to express endless forms appearing spontaneously as an act of observing is introduced. That base consciousness can take any form and different forms can appear at the same place at the same time without being aware of the exstence of other dimensions. Just as a silly thing, people who talk about ghosts might be overlapping with another dimension and sense beings that exists on a different plane/frequency. Ghosts might not be ghosts but other version of us, living in a different timeline. Highly speculative, I know.

There is mundane and absolute time. Mundane time is consits of reference points. Absolute time is this begingless ever-fresh now where all movements are observed. That sense of absolute nowness becomes very clear when the conceptual mind is silenced. There is a stillness beyond mundane time that allows us to experience the movements of all kinds.

I have read that book but it was few years ago.

I recommend all the texts of Ramana Maharishi!

You know, I always wondered about apparitions, etc. and I'd love to meet interdimensional beings, it kind of fascinates me. Indeed it's highly speculative, but it's a nice fundamental for the intuitive imagination behind physics. And there are enough theories out there that involve (black hole) projections, universe simulations, multidimensional realities (hello String Theory), Physics beyond Quantum Reality etc. It's good that people imagine these realities. Let the scientific community sort it out what's valid or not by validating it.

I will read the text when I do make the time (ETA: unknown, but it's noted).

Btw, first actual image of a black hole has been revealed (these were once speculative as well): https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47873592

 

[TheFool]

When you meet them for the first time the whole concept of what is real and what is not becomes non-relevant. Preceived by the mind everything becomes so much more alive and real compared to this state of reality where chat now.

I read about that black hole when I heard about it in the news. That mass-size ratio is insane... Wonder where all that stuff ends up.

 

[dragulagu]

When you meet them for the first time the whole concept of what is real and what is not becomes non-relevant. Preceived by the mind everything becomes so much more alive and real compared to this state of reality where chat now.

I read about that black hole when I heard about it in the news. That mass-size ratio is insane... Wonder where all that stuff ends up.

Due to the hawking radiation it will all end up into space (fascinating thing is that the radiation has to possibility to create new matter). Have not yet read up the mass-size ratio, will do in a sec after the gym shower.

By the way , check this awesome movie of the far future: