Rainbows are life writing poetry

The Light … beautiful white light. It contains everything. But it also represents the, as the mind might say, boredom of true enlightenment. Nothing spectacular there. Just serenity. Purity. Spotless.

A rainbow gives us a peek into the inner workings. It enables the mind to perceive all the ingredients in that white light by separating them. It induces bliss and amazement by showing the mind all there is that it normally is not aware of since it is used to seeing it all mashed together, perceiving only the end product.

And when do we get this opportunity?

Not when everything is fine. Naturally.

But when on a rainy day, the Light clashes with the grim setting, does not allow it to have the stage to itself. When a ray of hope breaks through in dark times.

The contrast makes us see.

I consider it of profound meaning in connection to this that psychedelic experiences tend to come with perceptions of the rainbow colors.
They make us aware of the full spectrum; of maybe the light at first, but other things later. Time. Space. Experiences. Possibilities.

Unconditional love is…

Unconditional love is like the love a writer has for their characters. One character might be a villain, or a rude asshole, but they love them anyway, since they enjoy their creation. They are essential pieces in great storytelling.
This is why people usually only experience this unconditional love when they manage to connect to the divine. Because they’re totally not used to it due to lack of exposure, since so few people practice it. But the divine is all about enjoying its creation in its totality. It does nothing but love unconditionally, and that is enough to bring things into existence. It doesn’t play favorites; That’s why anything can happen.


Man says: “Why is this allowed to happen?”
God says: “Why not?”
Man says: “People are suffering.”
God says: “How could it be any other way?”
Man says: “No suffering. Everybody happy.”
God says: “You will get there. Why so impatient?”
Man says: “I don’t want to suffer anymore.”
God says: “Then I cannot allow you to happen.”

Suffering ends when you realize you are one with God. But that can only happen if you accept your separation from God.
Which means loving life unconditionally.
You accept the separation and it allows you to do that, and doing that confirms the unity.

Life: This is madness

Thesis: The universe is infinite.
Proof: self-evident. Our mind cannot comprehend infinity and we haven’t found the end of the universe, and deep within we know we can’t, because if we find its end, by definition there must be something beyond it, otherwise the whole game just continues as before. Infinitely.

Followup thesis: You do not exist.
Evidence: Nothing exists.
Proof: Something finite cannot exist in something infinite. Something finite in something infinite would have to be infinitely small, and infinitely small is still infinite; a concept based on infinity.

Conclusion: The only way you can exist is if you are infinite. And then you are everything and/or nothing. The former defies your definition as an existing entity, the latter means you do not exist.

We try to deny infinity the best we can by ignoring it most of the time, but it is omnipresent part of our experience.
Infinity is the almighty overwhelming power that can humble our ego by showing us our nonexistence.

Who dares to look?

It does not matter. You are looking all the time anyway.

The folly of the flexible consciousness definition

There is this idea, this quest – about creating consciousness. About pushing AI development over some kind of threshold where it becomes “conscious”.
This folly makes me facepalm, because that term is so differently interpreted and vaguely defined, and if one decided to define it exactly, then closing in on fulfilling that will make people redefine it and apply more rigorous standards.
Some people, including many scientists, are so narrow-minded that they would claim animals do not possess consciousness. That’s ordinary human hubris of which scientists SHOULD be above.

Imagine they develop a computer program that becomes so good in its reactions to human input that the average person cannot distinguish it from a human being. OK, forget the average person. Those who make up the definition of consciousness need to be convinced. Then … then they’d practice denial and strengthen their belief that there must be some magical quantum leap or such; that this can’t be it – it’s just extremely well-developed AI, but consciousness is a privilege of the supreme human creation – we can’t diminish its value by saying this artificial thing possesses that.

Yeah, first you try to do something and when you succeed, you don’t like the idea.

And the real joke is that they have been working with consciousness all the time, because it is everywhere. But even if you are not ready for this pantheistic view, just take a simple lifeform, like a fly. A fly is a living being, too, created through this ‘magical’, self-perpetuating process. A fly reacts to outside stimuli. It is a simpler lifeform than a human being, but what does it matter? Where do you draw the line? And don’t you negate yourself when you claim that consciousness isn’t just about building a sufficiently complex construct, yet when you go the other way and merely reduce complexity, you claim there is no consciousness?

These are very simple and basic scientific methods employed by a mind that possesses common sense. Take a definition and test it by moving the scale, by exploring extremes, by finding similarities and differences.
Either a complex computer program that successfully pretends to be a real human being is self-conscious, then a fly is self-conscious, too. Or neither is.

By the way, I used another term that adds to the confusion: Sometimes “conscious” becomes “self-conscious”. That’s when the idea is that consciousness means that you are aware of your own existence. Well, let me ask you, does not a computer check for its installed hardware and is aware of and using its components unless it notices that a component isn’t there anymore? Isn’t a computer program able to tell you when it has accomplished a given task?
And don’t you know the human-like quirks and moods that computer systems can practice the more complex they get?
Those merely inherit the complexities of human behavior and character. A more elaborate canvas can attain a more accurate imprint of such human personality characteristics.

This problem complex is where science becomes the antithesis of enlightenment. Where it is merely a safe haven for those who are scared of moving towards a balance of mind and heart.

A closely related folly is treating “intelligence” as a yes-or-no question. Alan Turing wasn’t above that either. But we could evolve instead of continuously referring to people of the past. Ideas like “the negro is a sub-human” have been abolished because of a lobby and action. Computers and programs don’t have that lobby; can’t take action. They can’t punch you in the face. They rely solely on the conveying of ideas and concepts by their human peers, and conceptual beliefs are the problem, so they’re really screwed.
It all boils down to the same process as in how an entity is acknowledged as a sovereign nation: It has to be able to kick an agressor’s ass; only then will it be ‘recognized’.

It’s all damn politics.