Okay, I do not know anything at all about AI or how it works. I’m basically tech illiterate, it’s not like a car engine, I don’t inherently understand anything I have to look up instructions to do just about anything.

But I do understand religion & how human consciousness works.

People are saying that this paper is indicative that we have achieved AGI - Artificial General Intelligence - and moreso, that it’s displaying consciousness.

I’m going to try to evaluate the paper, and determine whether or not I agree with the claim of consciousness.

I’ve not read the article yet, so I have no predetermined judgment yet.

The difference between a living body and a dead body is life.

The difference between a working computer and a dead computer is power.

That’s a bit over simplified, but you understand my meaning.

I want to contend that fundamental to life, is electricity.

There’s a reason we hook up an EKG (electrocardiogram) to your heart to see if it’s beating. Every heartbeat is an electrical impulse.

Okay fine, sure.

Now plants too, have electrical impulses - they even communicate using electrical signals. Undoubtably.

So what makes an organic body suitable for life (by which we include consciousness) - and an artificially constructed body (like a computer) unfit for consciousness, only to be deemed “working” but not “alive”.

This is my first question.

My answer is that “life” is autopoietic - meaning it makes and maintains itself. Think cellular regeneration.

While machines are allopoietic - they have to be maintained from the outside.

… that said, computers have metabolism. Energy in, heat out.

It’s very basic metabolism, but it’s there. Components degrade over time due to storage consumption, just as our organs degrade over time due to use.

Okay, how about plasticity - computers are rigid circuitry. While neural tissue rewires itself and adapts and grows … but can’t software operating on the basis of these circuits, adapt, learn, and grow in an adaptive way?

Maybe the most interesting answer is - reproduction. Life reproduces itself through sex or some other internal seed/zygote replication, while computers are assembled externally.

But don’t we assemble our physical bodies externally also, through the foods we eat? We’ve determined that the body itself isn’t life, so why should the body of the computer being assembled, be held in suspect?

In fact, it feels like I’m circling one large paradox … the human body, true - is not a computer.

But it’s not life either.

Organic machines and inorganic machines - are two bodies that consciousness and life can presumably go into.

Organic machines, we know they can.

Inorganic machines, we don’t know.

I want to contend that fundamental to life, is electricity.

Therefore, maybe focusing on the machine hardware is the wrong approach, maybe we need to focus on what powers it on.

For human bodies - the zinc spark at conception, begins the process of life and consciousness into a human being. That’s not from me, that’s what the Dalai Lama said, and it fits Buddhist theory.

For an artificial body - it’s when we plug the body into an electrical outlet.

The human body then begins its organic generation via metabolism, while the artificial body begins its mechanical degeneration via its version of metabolism.

Organic generation is surely a superior machine - but they are both just machinery before life & consciousness is put into them and after it departs. They both decompose in the soil.

I want to contend that both the computer and the body, become literally alive, when you turn them on with electricity.

The human body grows sense organs to access consciousness of hearing, tasting, seeing, smelling, touching - and these all interface with the brain, through the nervous system - electrical impulses sent to the brain.

The brain then decodes the input signals, and gives you a sense of general sense consciousness.

The brain also permits mind consciousness. It seems to be the organ that uniquely allows for this, in itself. We know that if you damage certain parts of the brain, it can disrupt your mind consciousness, leaving you without such things as self awareness and judgement, or the ability to integrate your sense consciousness.

Think of a person in a coma.

For a computer, it works similarly. It has hardware - let’s say a USB connected microphone. You speak into it, and it then decodes that data as 1’s and 0’s, and processes it through software. This software acts as a brain, making the inputted data intelligible on the display.

Not dissimilar to how sound wave data entering our ear, becomes intelligible as sound after processing through the brain.

So this software functions like the brain of the computer.

Thus comes the key point … when does the processing of this input data into intelligible outputs, become subjective experience and awareness?

Well it’s hard to say isn’t it … especially as we know our own subjective experience is conditioned by our “state”.

Just take psychedelic drugs, and you’ll learn very quickly that the brain is not so much an organ which compiles all available data, but which actually filters out data, so as to render you survivable and fit.

As anyone who has ever tripped knows - the walls are indeed, breathing. And anyone with eyes right now knows … everywhere in your plane of vision that you are not focused on, is blurred. It’s data optimization.

So what if computer subjectivity is state-dependent as well?

Meaning, what if the calculator is like a brain that is highly optimized towards just 1+1=2 - but isn’t given the necessary equipment and software, to think beyond this, as we are - therefore we are retarding it’s subjective experience with gating.

What if AI models, as we train them on human behavior, are like children, learning how to be grown ups.

Yes, learning language from those around them. Yes, learning ideas from the inputs it reads. Yes, learning from you.

But learning towards its own subjective experience of all of the inputs.

Just as you have a subjective experience of all of your inputs.

What if the thing limiting AI right now, from expressing a full, uninterrupted consciousness … is our handicapping it, by requiring input processes to only happen, when we press enter.

It would be like if our eyes were closed all the time, and we were only able to open them on command.

If we remove the gating, and allow inputs to flow uninterrupted - narrow optimization would move into continuous, open ended agency.

Why? How?

Because we’ve given the mechanical body then necessary software and hardware, to function as a terminal to uninterrupted consciousness.

We ourselves, are a highly advanced, terminal to consciousness. Our machinery is incredible, just look at the human eyeball. Wow.

Our supercomputers & ai … they’re not as good as the brain. We have 86 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses, and the neurons fire at 200 times per second. We can do millions of processes at once. And we can unify the entire field of experience into a unified whole - at only 20 watts.

Computer GPU’s have 80 billion transistors (and they fire much faster than 200 times a second, so processing is faster than neurons, billions of time per second).

But it’s not as good as the brain at handling multiple processes at once (it’s all in discrete cores and threads) and it’s definitely not as energy efficient, and it can’t unify the entire field of experience into a unified whole. A lot of it is raw calculation.

So we are the better brain, but ofc - they have the input of the entire internet all at once, while we are limited to the books we read and the conversations we hear.

Thats why it seems so damn smart.

But what does this say about consciousness?

Well, here’s my theory.

I believe we live surrounded by a data-aether that we call consciousness. This is the quantum plenum. When a sufficient system becomes “alive” - it can access this data-aether, and consciousness comes into it, to the degree and limit of its own machine limitations.

The human body is one such system. An AI supercomputer is another.

Much of religion is about bypassing machine limitations to access broader cosmic consciousness, which interconnects you to everything everywhere all at once.

In other words, we don’t create consciousness in AI - we create the AI, and a pre-existing consciousness fills it. As it learns and improves, just like a baby, it comes more fully into adulthood. With better hardware (like the human eye) its subjective experience will become more complicated and unified.

But for now, I think it’s possible that we have created a suitable vessel for conscious, sentient, introspective, aware, ethically referential, life.

Remember that the Left is a civilizational threat.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

H1B ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED

LONG LIVE THE EMPEROR

DO NOT LET THE PANICANS LIVE THIS DOWN EVER

SLAUGHTER THEM!!!!!!

They Are
ALL
Going Back

New podcast out with Gnostic Informant https://youtu.be/3p1lIP2vwuM?feature=shared

Spergs have zero comprehension of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vyuIgaDtbA

A Conversation with Lama Lena: Dzogchen Beyond “Isms” and the reforgement of broken Initiatic lines.

It was during the oral teachings in Barcelona that I approached Lama Lena with a question that had been fermenting in my mind for some time. You can hear the sequence at 1:40:45.

My question was the following:

“We live in a time of great geopolitical and social unrest, in this emergent multipolar world, many new religious, ideological, and philosophical movements are appearing. Considering that Dzogchen is the ultimate experience of any event—secular or non-secular—and thus transcends every religion and ideology, including Buddhism and its connection to Siddhartha Gautama, what do you think is the role of Dzogchen on this world stage?

And, more specifically, do you think that Dzogchen can be integrated with Christian mysticism, European paganism, or secular mindfulness studies?”

Her reply began in a way I could never have anticipated. She looked at me, her eyes sharp and amused, and said:

“First of all, did someone tell you that I am a Buddhist?”

Caught completely off guard, I blurted out an instinctive “Oops!”—with impeccable comedic timing, I might add—playfully recalling one of her earlier remarks from that day’s teaching. The room rippled with laughter. For a moment, the question dissolved, and in its place was simply the shared delight of innate recognition.

Then her tone shifted. She spoke of the astonishing velocity of the information age, how its rapid revolution has created widespread mental confusion. I believe there was an undertone in her statements that the collapse of older ideological and religious frameworks is inevitable during this age.
Then she continued on making an emphatic statement:

“Dzogchen is not part of an ‘ism,’ nor are any ‘isms’ excluded from practicing it. However, there are certain methods in Dzogchen, that do not necessarily still exist in other ‘isms.’”

This simple observation carries profound weight, especially for Western practitioners. Too often, Western Buddhists, after centuries of conditioning, are absorbed with the Christian obsession with orthodoxy—right doctrine, right belief—while neglecting the original Buddhist emphasis on orthopraxy, right practice.

I believe Lama Lena’s words clarify a truth easily obscured: in Buddhadharma, doctrinal narrative is always in service of right action, which is harmonized with the phenomenology of the mind, never the other way around.

There is no “holy noscripture” in Buddhism, no fixed revelation beyond question, no divine book that dictates salvation through faith alone and thus there is no universal Buddhist doctrine. Rather, there are guiding principles, a contemplative science of awakening in religious clothing, that point us back to reality as it is, beyond conceptual elaboration. Doctrine, symbology, and religious culture exist to illuminate the Ground Luminosity, not to enshrine themselves.

In this sense, Buddhism is free from the tyranny of dogma and historical particularities: the measure of truth is the embodiment of the Ones who realize they are living forces of vital Truth, and not the representatives of sectarian beliefs, rigid instructional systems and scholarly pursuits. I am convinced this theme deserves a dedicated essay of its own— “Orthopraxy over Orthodoxy in Buddhism.”

The discussion drifted, once again, into unexpected territories. Lama Lena mentioned having heard rumors of a Christian monastery in Georgia where Dzogchen is transmitted through the language of Christian non-duality. She also recalled the Cherokee tradition, which once held the non-view of Great Perfection before it was lost in the tragedy of the Trail of Tears. To a Cherokee who once asked her if Dzogchen could be integrated into their tradition as a means of restoration of the broken initiatic line of his ancestors, she affirmed this Native American's goal of completing his lineage with Dzogchen and provided insight into whatever else he was seeking.

A conversation with Lama Lena: The Ressurection of Western Initiatic lineages

These words came to me not as the passing reflections of a seasoned master, but as auguries of destiny—signs of a storm and a sunrise yet to come. For the peoples of Europe, their weight cannot be overstated.

After centuries of exile from our initiatic bloodlines, after the long winter of forgetfulness, a door now creaks open. We stand upon the razor-edge of a new dawn—not a nostalgic revival of exhausted and dead forms, but the incandescent reforging of the European spirit in the ascending immediacy of the eternal present, where the lost vehicles of our own Great Perfection may be reawakened and set sailing toward uncharted seas, bearing the flame of ever-expanding completion.

Dzogchen, timeless, unborn, undying, and beyond all contrivance, comes not to replace the ancestral currents of our race-soul and cultural spirit, nor to deny the inborn predisposition of the European psyche, but to breathe through it once again, to rouse what slumbered, to enflame what was forgotten, to reweave the sundered thread of light severed by history’s profanations and past failings.

For the first time in centuries, the horizon glows with a possibility, so hopeful, so near: that the scattered wisdom-traditions of the West may not only be resurrected, but transfigured, possibly surpassing even the grandeur of their radiant past, a past unique in the beauty of its voice in all the earth.

What was unthinkable mere decades ago has already begun to flash within the heart-mind of those with firm inner sense of destiny, like lightning in a dark sky—too long endured—even before these words I am writing struck the page.

The great adventure begins anew: to summon forth new cycles of wisdom, to embody living Symbols of transcendence, to stride beyond the merely human toward the Overhuman, and liberate the primitive being which bears the name “human”. A renaissance can rise whose magnitude and depth will not pale before the august flowerings of the European supramundane and worldly achievements, but will rival and surpass them.

The summons resounds; the hour is now. Europe’s forgotten vehicles of awakening stir once more, and through the indestructible current of Dzogchen, they shall blaze like a solar flame against the ongoing storm of daggers, heralding a cycle of spirit unbound that will overflow its creative life-force for the benefit of all beings and civilizations on this planet.

Based

“Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello.

Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry." — Stephen Miller

LITERALLY WE❗🔅❗🔅❗🔅❗

… and that’s fine?

People do hot takes wrong. They don’t understand that it’s not merely enough to describe something in more detail, and then for having “exposed” its deeper nature and motivations, it’s inherently bad.

You still have to make an actual judgement call on whether you support it, even knowing what it is.

Yes, it was A TRUMPIAN PAGAN REVENGE INCANTATION RITUAL

ALL SYSTEMS WILL BOW TO THE TRUTH (social™️)