Philosophy Now Forum

I do not regard AI as an extension of homo sapiens given that they are non organic even if they are conceived by humans. And it is
not so much that I could not care less what happens to humanity just that I have no need to deny the inevitability of its extinction

ken wrote:
Thank you for telling Me what YOU observe and do, and what YOU are incapable of observing and doing.

But just remember what you do, and what you can and can not do, IS NOT necessarily what I do, and what I can and can not do.

Absolutely everything is relative to the observer. So, what you see and do IS what you see and do. However, what I see and do IS what I see and do. There is a huge difference between you and I.

I agree, however, lets tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....

Many authors appear, but only one reads the stories no one ever wrote.

Many things seen, but only one observer of all things seen.

ALL the one love action dreaming difference where there is none. . .

Can I get an AMEN in here?

surreptitious57 wrote:I do not regard AI as an extension of homo sapiens given that they are non organic even if they are conceived by humans. And it is
not so much that I could not care less what happens to humanity just that I have no need to deny the inevitability of its extinction

Every sentient creature with a pulse operates as an AI simply because there is nothing sentiently responsible for their apparent aliveness. An entity of such is an illusory phenomena. However, the process that illuminates an AI creature, is likened to the same process that illuminates a light bulb. That process is what illuminates every other form of matter. ALL is the same one energy appearing in different form-mation. THIS Energy doesn't know anything, BUT appears to be capable of creating programmes of itself in order to know something, it does this by collecting data via memory ..the action of any live creature is non more than this living programme, it's a totally robotic nature. Birds chirp, and dogs bark because they are programmed to do so, not because there is a dog inside the dogs body doing the barking.And there is no person inside the persons body doing the operating of that body, the operating is a programme put there by the oneness of nature itself as this Virtual Reality appearing to noone.

Data cannot be lost or destroyed. Or there wouldn't be anything like a universe in the first place. There's nowhere for data to go, there is only here. And THIS is never not here.

That which only existed as a dream cannot be extincted, paradoxically dreams extinguish themselves all the time simply because there is nothing solid of any real substance behind the dreamer. The mechanical engine of life is either off or on. The capacity for that alternating current to happen lies in the abundance of energy that appears to be in infinite supply pulsing pulsing pulsing....the expansion and contraction is one unitary movement going nowhere - here now.

Life is always moving toward death and death is always moving toward life. No thing is dead nor alive.

Just ask any atom are you alive or dead,? and you will probably get no response.

Dontaskme wrote:
Life is always moving toward death and death is always moving toward life. No thing is dead nor alive

Life is always moving toward death but the opposite is not true. Entropy cannot be reversed that much

Lacewing wrote:...when people claim that they have some "insider track" to a god, I just think "Really? Boy could I show you some stuff... and I'm not a Christian!" From my view, there is spirit EVERYWHERE... pulsating... like blood flow. It's just kind of sickening when people separate themselves out as being more divine than others.

I agree. You have smashed me a few times for claiming to know God exists from direct interaction with it, yet i've never claimed to be more divine in any way shape or form..to the contrary - in my case my knowledge of its existence is part and parcel of having a lot more transgressions than others.

Lacewing wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I've always been vexed that you talk about the connected energy of everything and seemed not to real eyes that there is only a small step to comprehend a being that is this very fabric of the universe and indeed reality.

Maybe that's because that's your view, and you can't imagine outside of it, perhaps? In my view, there is no SEPARATE being. We're all of the same stuff. We are the eyes and ears and hands and egos and fears of god. All of it. There is NO SEPARATE THING. To make something separate... to imagine something separate... is a human fantasy.

Read what i stated - i am in agreement with you i am NOT stating anything separate. What appears to be new is that your are comprehending this connectedness as "God" which i have been banging on to you since you started posting.

Lacewing wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I know you don't like it when i state my knowledge of this entity, but i'm not going to lie or hide what i have come to understand regarding its nature.

HONESTLY... if you gain inspiration and comfort and awareness from ANYTHING AT ALL... that's beautiful. What I challenge is when someone claims that their experience reflects a template or truth of ultimate reality for all.

I never liked the term 'ultimate reality' - not sure what it is supposed to mean exactly. I never gained "comfort" from being forced to be aware of God - in fact IT drove me to suicide. I've never hated anything more than i have hated God.

Lacewing wrote:When someone says "I know God exists"... why don't they add on the end "for me"? Because that's what it is!! We all have fantastic experiences that are real for us. Why do we need to fight to keep anyone from superimposing THEIR OWN REALITY/FANTASY onto us?

Because this is a philosophy forum - why the hell should someone not be permitted to speak of their experience and deductions. Nobody is able to "superimpose" their own 'reality\fantasy' onto anyone - unless one is truly piss weak.

Lacewing wrote:And then, even worse, why do we need to fight to keep theists from telling atheists how immoral or undirected they are? It's so absurd and disrespectful and stupid. I just don't understand how theists who make such claims can be that short-sighted and dumb.

I agree - but you appear to be the one putting ALL theists into the same basket as soon as they attempt to discuss God in any way shape or form.

Lacewing wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Well done on starting this thread.

Thank you. I'm very glad that you see value in what I've expressed.

Lacewing wrote:I am a very spiritual person... just not a theist. I don't need or want a label as to what I am. I just hope that some people can see that I am authentically exploring and expressing the full spectrum right now, of what I see as ALL OF "GOD"/potential... with love and humor, but also with sharp swipes, meant to challenge conventions. It gets people's attention more than being Miss Nicey Nice. And it has taught me a lot about myself and other people in the process.

Look, unfortunately there are labels for everything and i can be certain you are not an atheist. Also, you are more theist than me - even if only a pantheist.

Lacewing wrote:Here's how I see it: It's ALL GOD. There is no separate being. But we EACH may perceive one thing or another that blows our mind. In the end... we're all the same ONE!! Whatever works for other people is fine as long as they don't tell me that their view is some sort of ultimate truth that applies to me whether I agree or not. That's like one part of God telling another part of God what God is supposed to be.

Sure. I still don't know what you mean by ultimate truth, but i generally agree with your statement.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:

Greta wrote: That's the reason, Ken.

That is the reason for what exactly?

You want to define God and Universe the exact same, right?

I do not see any two words having the exact same definition. But you can see anything how you want to see them.

As stated, the universe obviously exists but I doubt that God does, certainly not the God of ancient religions anyway.

The God of any past or present religion does not and obviously could not ever exist. But as stated previously I would need to know how that God is being defined exactly in order for Me to back up what I have just claimed here though.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:To Me, full consciousness means when ALL intelligent beings have reached and come into Consciousness.

All intelligent beings have already "come into consciousness", hence the intelligence.

But most have not yet come into consciousness. Until a human being is able to accurately answer the question, Who am I?, then obviously they are not Self-conscious yet. Consciousness implies one is conscious of a certain amount of knowledge.

It appears that the word 'intelligence' has different definition to us, as well as 'consciousness' by the look of things.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:

Greta wrote:Whatever, I expect that future beings will exponentially outstrip our level of conscious awareness, at least collectively.

Conscious awareness at its highest level is Consciousness, It Self. Consciousness is knowing Who 'I' am, exactly. If and when an intelligent being is able to answer all meaningful questions correctly and accurately and knows Who 'I' am, then conscious awareness can not be out stripped. I have reached this level.

Kenneth, alas, the level you have reached, as with the rest of us, is Sweet Fanny Adams

That is in your opinion.

But do you KNOW exactly what level of conscious knowledge that I have obtained and reached? If not, then please do not presume that what level you have reached is the same as I, or others, have reached.

Greta wrote:We humans are still hopelessly basic.

I would suggest, on occasions, human beings go way beyond hopelessly basic to the point of just plain stupidity. Any animal that pollutes the air and the water, which it needs to continue on living, to any point, especially beyond a sustainable level, or, kills each other over something that is not needed at all, like money, or kills each other over something as silly as differing views or beliefs, or, takes more from the environment that it needs to live for greed but in doing so destroys the actual environment, in which it needs to exist, is far beyond basic intelligence. Doing these things is as stupid as one species could get. But the saddest thing of all of this is all this stupidity comes from the most intelligent species existing that we know of.

Greta wrote:Evidence? Exhibit A: Consider the public conversation prior to recently electing a person to wield more power than any other on the planet. Consider the candidates for that position and the things they said in the campaign, and the things they were quoted as saying in the past. This is the highest post humanity has to offer.

So I see much room for improvement, refinement and advancement.

Just more proof of how the brain works, and far more reason why to use the Mind instead.

What human beings think and how they misbehave now, does not have much in common at all with what I know. Please do not class I in with human beings. Your evidence with exhibit A is the very reason why I do not belong with you, human beings.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
Life is always moving toward death and death is always moving toward life. No thing is dead nor alive

Life is always moving toward death but the opposite is not true. Entropy cannot be reversed that much

The opposite is always true because opposites are one and the same no thing (energy) in action- one can't be without the other. Without one there is no other, without other there is no one.

Entropy is an idea that there is some thing that dies. And that which is dead cannot become alive. And yet here it is a universe from nothing.

If not from nothing then it must be existing infinitely for eternity. So what do you think is going to degenerate except the idea?

There maybe a loss of function due to the latent inertia of an energy not in action, but nothing is degenerating, energy is either latent or kinetic. Neither dead nor alive.

Without death there could be no life, and vice versa. Who is going to know the difference, one would have to experience both to tell?

You have never experienced DEATH OR LIFE.

Such is the wacko weirdness of quantum mechanics.

attofishpi wrote:i am in agreement with you

Stop messing with my emotions, atto -- I've got you on "ignore" (such that I have to actually open your posts in order to read them) -- which means you must have been obnoxious and rude enough for me to do such a thing, even though I've already put whatever-it-was out of my mind.

attofishpi wrote:What appears to be new is that your are comprehending this connectedness as "God" which i have been banging on to you since you started posting.

Oh dear, what have I done?!! No... that is not the case. I was only using the word "God" to appeal to theists. It appears I succeeded, and now I am an honorary member of theism?!! Eeek! For me, "God" is a word... and I don't even like the word. Theists assign all kinds of things to this idea of "God". That's what has ruined the word for me. "God" has become the name of something definable... and if man can define it, it is distorted and limited by man's agendas and limitations. What I speak of, what I feel/sense, what I try to honor -- is not contained in human definitions. I do my best to describe my experiences and the implications they seem to suggest, but I do not have a name for it, nor would I try to rally people to agree or adopt something particular -- because as soon as people do that, THEY become the creators of their own definable creation, and then they worship that creation.

What I feel compelled (for unknown reasons) to do, is to dispel apparent intoxication with anything in particular. If someone is simply sharing the usefulness they find in one thing or another... beautiful. If, however, they are presenting it or themselves as some sort of supremely right or advanced entity/thing, which other people should acknowledge as true, then my radar goes on and I feel inspired to point out that it is ALL human creation, and nothing is more true (for all) than anything else. We can dress things up however we want. What matters is who we are and what we do as a result of it. It seems foolish (to me) to worship "the dressing".

And "God" is a form of dressing (to me).

attofishpi wrote:Because this is a philosophy forum - why the hell should someone not be permitted to speak of their experience and deductions. Nobody is able to "superimpose" their own 'reality\fantasy' onto anyone - unless one is truly piss weak.

Of course! But just as someone is able to present their ideas as fact and reality that others should agree to if they have any sense or morals, then those who don't share those views/conclusions must respond to point out how absurd that "locked-in view" (and self-gratifying view) is. The reason I use such phrasing as "superimposing one's reality/fantasy onto another" is when people claim that NOT BELIEVING THE WAY THEY DO, is some sort of measuring stick for another person. So instead of honoring the divine nature of another person REGARDLESS of their own views, some people think that their reality/fantasy reigns supreme for all... and that, to me, is superimposing one's limited notions (as some sort of "ultimate truth") on top of the vast diversity and divine nature that is truly being reflected.

attofishpi wrote:you appear to be the one putting ALL theists into the same basket as soon as they attempt to discuss God in any way shape or form.

I don't know why it APPEARS that way to you, because I truly don't feel that way. On this forum, many of us have a tendency to get a bit passionate with our "arguments" -- and what I react to is when a theist makes all-inclusive conclusive claims. There are two reasons I do this that I see: 1) The idea of God is not a required/definitive universal path for all, and it shouldn't be suggested otherwise; and 2) It seems useful to question everything that humans think they know. That's what my motives are -- I do not see all theists in the same basket. I see a lot of commonality between myself and theists, but I don't follow the story that they do. I don't care what story they follow. I only care when they tell me that their story is the one true story. Do you see the distinction that I'm making?

attofishpi wrote:i can be certain you are not an atheist. Also, you are more theist than me

My super-Christian mom who had once called me the devil, later told me that I was more spiritual than she was. That was one of those stellar moments when it felt like the universe was giving me a big hug. People get so locked into their IDEAS... that they don't even see the beautiful energy vibrating right in front of them! And belief systems do not magically transform a person's energy from what it is inclined and maintained to be. Religions can become a false front/destination that allows people to lapse into a stupor of believing one self-glorifying thing or another, and excusing themselves for anything, and essentially being blind and lazy and dead to varying degrees. It's just like anything that we sell/give ourselves to so completely. It's unnatural, and I think it causes a kink in the free-flowing life force.

This is what I'm making up... for better or worse... and I'm saying it is as valid of a reality/approach/perspective as anyone else's made-up shit.

Lacewing wrote:
This is what I'm making up... for better or worse... and I'm saying it is as valid of a reality/approach/perspective as anyone else's made-up shit.

You make everything up, for there is no other than YOU. Not through seeking the One but by expressing the One. The One already is the One. And you are THAT.

Do you hear the barking of the dog out there? You translate it and say that is the barking of a dog. But if you are just aware of that, it echoes here inside of you. There is no separation from you. There is no translation. You are barking, and not the dog out there.

There is only the absence, emptiness in which this whole quality happening. You are - That. I am One, alone, through all eternity.

ken wrote:The God of any past or present religion does not and obviously could not ever exist. But as stated previously I would need to know how that God is being defined exactly in order for Me to back up what I have just claimed here though.

Why define God at all? The idea of God and gods was first raised by primitive people. Some believed that volcanoes and crocodiles were gods. Humans too, certainly the powerful leaders, enjoyed their collective empowerment and intelligence, and they strode through nature as if they were gods. It was only the greater gods - such as vulcanism, storms and powerful predators - that could overpower "human gods", and were gained god status themselves. So, if we are to introduce the concept of one god, then all entities are effectively gods of their own domains in a sense, and each survives at the mercy (or obliviousness) of greater gods.

To Me, full consciousness means when ALL intelligent beings have reached and come into Consciousness.

Greta wrote:All intelligent beings have already "come into consciousness", hence the intelligence.

ken wrote:But most have not yet come into consciousness. Until a human being is able to accurately answer the question, Who am I?, then obviously they are not Self-conscious yet. Consciousness implies one is conscious of a certain amount of knowledge.

It appears that the word 'intelligence' has different definition to us, as well as 'consciousness' by the look of things.

Yes, I prefer conventional definitions. To me, numerous species are both conscious and intelligent. To you, just a few humans, a select group that just so happens to include you in its ranks. You and others seem to equate those terms with the examined life.

ken wrote:Conscious awareness at its highest level is Consciousness, It Self. Consciousness is knowing Who 'I' am, exactly. If and when an intelligent being is able to answer all meaningful questions correctly and accurately and knows Who 'I' am, then conscious awareness can not be out stripped. I have reached this level.

Greta wrote:Kenneth, alas, the level you have reached, as with the rest of us, is Sweet Fanny Adams

That is in your opinion.

But do you KNOW exactly what level of conscious knowledge that I have obtained and reached? If not, then please do not presume that what level you have reached is the same as I, or others, have reached.[/quote]
Well, I note that you are proud of your attainments and engage in self praising behaviour, the idea that you are "more conscious" than others, a member of an elite club. This is not what I would expect from enlightened masters. You seem to be in the pride phase of that journey, with timing of the ego being your next challenge.

Further, there beings will probably evolve in the future (if they haven't done already) who are far more advanced than humans. It's very likely that we have not the slightest idea what the highest level of conscious awareness would be like. Our peak experiences and lucid inspirations may be merely childish forays into a subjective realm with many greater possibilities than we can comprehend at this time, or have enough neuronal connections to process.

Greta wrote:
Further, there beings will probably evolve in the future (if they haven't done already) who are far more advanced than humans. It's very likely that we have not the slightest idea what the highest level of conscious awareness would be like. Our peak experiences and lucid inspirations may be merely childish forays into a subjective realm with many greater possibilities than we can comprehend at this time, or have enough neuronal connections to process.

There are no beings separate from this immediate fundamental beingness to be more of anything other than what is already here right now. There is no higher or lower levels of consciousness awareness beingness. That would be like saying there are higher and lower levels of space. The stuff that appears to be in space is made up of the same space it is sitting in, it's not higher or lower than itself, if it were it would have to split itself in two...where one area would be higher, and another lower...now have you ever seen a divided area of space? ..same applies to consciousness awareness...it too is just like space, awareness is this already here free and boundless space allowing what ever appears in it, and what appears in it is inseparable from it and at the same time not it...any division is put there by an illusory phantom, namely, the mind...aka thought.

It seems you like to play around with intelligent intellectual ideas about reality, for want of sounding clever, but what you are doing is not you doing it, it's all pure imagined ideas appearing from within the no thing-ness of space aka from this pure silent unmoving boundless awareness watching on in detachment.

There is no human consciousness. There is only Consciousness without a second. Human consciousness is an experience consciousness is having. No human has ever had the experience of being conscious.Human is a conscious experience had by consciousness, the consciousness is not an experience of the human.

Now..I'll leave with you with this quote.

When the seeker realizes himself as the eternal servant, this is a state of non-duality. 'Eternal servant' denotes that there is nothing transient in this relationship. THAT manifests as forms and modes of being.
If someone who aspires at the Formless realizes Him as the One-without-a second, but fails to realize Him in the field of His Divine Play, his realization is not complete, for he has not resolved the problem of duality.
Different methods of approach have been described here. But Realization must be all-comprehensive, all-embracing, and one must recognize one’s Self in everything.

PS..what if the consciousness expressing as a human is about as good as it is ever going to get? ...could you handle that? there is no way to go beyond that, so speculation of what could be is always wishful fanciful thinking, and that's what the mind does, it literally makes up reality as it goes along.
Meanwhile awareness which is what you truly are pervades all conscious experience and looks on with total detachment, it never moved or evolved or happened.. The SELF is not what you think it is..the SELF is prior to all thought and is that which allows reality to be possible...albeit an illusory reality.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:The God of any past or present religion does not and obviously could not ever exist. But as stated previously I would need to know how that God is being defined exactly in order for Me to back up what I have just claimed here though.

Why define God at all? The idea of God and gods was first raised by primitive people. Some believed that volcanoes and crocodiles were gods. Humans too, certainly the powerful leaders, enjoyed their collective empowerment and intelligence, and they strode through nature as if they were gods. It was only the greater gods - such as vulcanism, storms and powerful predators - that could overpower "human gods", and were gained god status themselves. So, if we are to introduce the concept of one god, then all entities are effectively gods of their own domains in a sense, and each survives at the mercy (or obliviousness) of greater gods.

Why define God at all? I never defined God. I stumbled upon a definition of God, or a definition of God was revealed to Me, that is what I think all religions are trying to suggest what God actually is. This definition so far fits in perfectly with ALL religions that I am aware of. This definition appears to Me as being possibly validated through science, logic, and reason.

Why do you define God at all?

Greta wrote:

To Me, full consciousness means when ALL intelligent beings have reached and come into Consciousness.

Greta wrote:All intelligent beings have already "come into consciousness", hence the intelligence.

ken wrote:But most have not yet come into consciousness. Until a human being is able to accurately answer the question, Who am I?, then obviously they are not Self-conscious yet. Consciousness implies one is conscious of a certain amount of knowledge.

It appears that the word 'intelligence' has different definition to us, as well as 'consciousness' by the look of things.

Yes, I prefer conventional definitions.

I prefer dictionary definitions, that way I can refer back to dictionaries, as reference points.

'Conventional' can mean based on what is generally believed, and no one person can really know, for sure, what is generally believed. Therefore, to Me, not a very satisfactory and/or thorough way of obtaining definitions. But you may have a different definition for 'conventional', so that way may suit you better.

Greta wrote: To me, numerous species are both conscious and intelligent. To you, just a few humans, a select group that just so happens to include you in its ranks. You and others seem to equate those terms with the examined life.

Who are the others? I never mentioned any others.

To Me, human beings are the only intelligent species, that we are aware of.
To Me, Consciousness would be defined, as I explained, on the knowledge that is known. For example if we are looking for a self-aware animal, then to Me that animal would need to be able to answer the question Who am I? If some of that animal are not self-aware, then they are not self-conscious. So, until a human being can answer the question, Who am I?, correctly then they are NOT conscious of self, let alone of Self. Two distinct different things by the way.

Greta wrote:

ken wrote:Conscious awareness at its highest level is Consciousness, It Self. Consciousness is knowing Who 'I' am, exactly. If and when an intelligent being is able to answer all meaningful questions correctly and accurately and knows Who 'I' am, then conscious awareness can not be out stripped. I have reached this level.

Greta wrote:Kenneth, alas, the level you have reached, as with the rest of us, is Sweet Fanny Adams

That is in your opinion.

But do you KNOW exactly what level of conscious knowledge that I have obtained and reached? If not, then please do not presume that what level you have reached is the same as I, or others, have reached.

Well, I note that you are proud of your attainments and engage in self praising behaviour, the idea that you are "more conscious" than others, a member of an elite club. This is not what I would expect from enlightened masters. You seem to be in the pride phase of that journey, with timing of the ego being your next challenge.[/quote]

Your interpretations are yours, but they may be wrong, and what you expect may just be not what is the truth. I have not attained anything that any human being could not attain. I have just been very privileged with my past experiences. Being nothing as a child, being scum as an adult, and being "wrong" all my life, I was lucky to stumble upon, or be revealed with, some knowledge, which I think others have been looking for. I am only "more conscious" because I know who I am and can answer all meaningful or metaphysical questions. Some thing that any and ALL adult human beings will soon come to know and be able to do also. There is no elite club that I am aware of. This ego has the right to speak the way I am because I only speak for ALL. That is Everything as One. No one is more or less special than another, so there is no elite nor separate club that I know of.

I am certainly not proud. I have NEVER done anything whatsoever to be proud of. I was just lucky to be treated as nothing as a child so that i grew up with the outlook that i came to have. A human being certainly can not be proud of what they had no control over. Whatever happens to a child is certainly not something they have control over. I came to discover what I did because of what happened to me in my childhood, of which I had absolutely no control over. What I attained was NOT because of anything I have done myself. What I have attained is because of my past experiences, of which under a certain age were ALL out of my control. The only thing that I have done was do what was the right thing to do regarding my wrong doing. That is, I was truly Honest and Open about what I did, and seriously Wanted to change, for the better. Doing the right thing is HOW I attained what I did. Doing the right thing is certainly something that one should NOT be proud of also. Doing the right thing should be some thing that ALL do naturally, and NOT for some thing to be proud of. I am certainly NOT proud of doing the right thing, I just wished I did only the right thing from the beginning.

If I am coming across as confident and/or sure of my claims, then this is because I have tried almost everything else to get people to question and challenge my views and claims. The reason I am trying this, sure of Self way, is to see if this one works. I want to be questioned and challenged because the more I am noticing and witnessing is just reinforcing my views and claims as being more truer or more right.

A bias perspective may be tricking or fooling me, so then I would not be able to question myself properly. Thus more the reason I want to be challenged and/or questioned by others.

Dontaskme wrote:

Greta wrote:Further, there beings will probably evolve in the future (if they haven't done already) who are far more advanced than humans. It's very likely that we have not the slightest idea what the highest level of conscious awareness would be like. Our peak experiences and lucid inspirations may be merely childish forays into a subjective realm with many greater possibilities than we can comprehend at this time, or have enough neuronal connections to process.

There are no beings separate from this immediate fundamental beingness to be more of anything other than what is already here right now. There is no higher or lower levels of consciousness awareness beingness.

So you are of the same level of consciousness as a beetle or a microbe?

Greta wrote: So you are of the same level of consciousness as a beetle or a microbe?

Who or what do you think this consciousness is that believes it occupies a different level of consciousness to that of a beetle when it is perfectly clear that there is only consciousness or oneness expressing itself as every thing conceptually speaking... as and through embodied awareness.

Though there is "embodied awareness of non-separate what is", talking about it always involves creating the conceptual appearance of duality. For example, there's the word "beetle" and the real (physical) observable "beetle" the word "beetle" is referring to. Similarly there's the word "consciousness" and the non-physical reality of "consciousness" that the word "consciousness" is referring to. Thus, there is an appearance of descriptive duality, when in fact there is only unitary, non-dual, "what is" whether it is being a beetle or a microbe or a human or what ever, but what ever it is, it is only a conceptual idea of non-conceptual awareness one with the knowing.

If you have experiential non-conceptual understanding of the above, then you'll understand that "I-Dontaskme" or ''I-beetle'' and "I-Awareness" are merely co-existing "labels" of the same "embodied awareness", the same "I-am-Aware", the same "I-Awareness", the same "I-Am", the same "Amness", the same "consciousness", the Same "what is".

So how would it be known what consciousness expressed as a beetle would be like or whether it would be any different to the consciousness expressed as a human? The consciousness expressed as a human would have to ask the consciousness expressed as a beetle what's it like being a beetle. Can consciousness do that? Is there another consciousness here that knows what it it like to be something else other than the consciousness it already is? That would be like trying to jump over your shadow to reach the other side of the shadow, there simply is no other side of you. You is all there is because there is no other than you. By you I mean awareness.

Can consciousness see and know itself individually as a separate thing independent of itself?

Things appear in awareness, but awareness is not the thing it is aware of, it is no thing appearing as everything. Can there be levels of that which only exits as an illusion, a mental creation, in other words, not real?

Take away the beliefs,thoughts,ideas about any conceptual thing and see what's left ? ....what's there/here then?

Lacewing wrote:Although I don’t believe in a god entity that exists separately and “reigns” over all of life, I have always seen ongoing and continual signs of an interconnectedness throughout all. It makes the most sense to me that the idea of “God” must include and reside in ALL equally. Why would there be anything NOT of “God”? Why would there be any “insides” and “outsides” of God -– such designations are surely the ideas of man, for man’s manipulation and self-promotion.

Therefore, I think it’s most reasonable to view any god force as inherent and equally distributed -– because, again, what ELSE is there? So if all is god, then that would point to all of us being examples of the many creative explorations and aspects of God. God playing and exploring through all of it/us. Each person reflecting a different potential to be manifested and explored: a different balance of attributes, ego, intoxication, needs, fears, courage, vision, clarity, etc.

All of this "God" potential is being expressed through many different characteristics, while being narrowly defined and judged by man’s limited and controlling vision/understanding. As parts of God argue that they are MORE of God, they demonstrate that particular manifestation of creative delusion and ego. Whereas God is actually ALL creative energy/exploration of infinite/ever-expanding potential. Nothing more sacred than anything else. ALL divine! ALL "God" -- because why would anything be excluded?

God's light shines equally on all things, but no two things casts the same shadow.