I'd also like to add that the so-called "New Age" and "Atheism" are not perpendicular to each other. I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools.

In the beginning of your video, you state (something equivalent to) that because there is so much "muchness" within our known Universe, that the human species is (essentially) inferior or unimportant; I couldn't disagree more. However, you also (later within the same video) imply that the human species (or, human consciousness) has the potential to occupy that much "muchness", there is where you are (IMO) on the correct path to understanding our species. And our purpose; evolution through choices made.

While I am an atheist, I am also a optimistic Gnostic-type of person. Whereas most Gnostics are rather pessimistic about this reality. Ultimately the use of tools such as magick and technologies are a matter of choice. If a person chooses to shut themselves off from their own potentials, so be it. It's when they attempt to limit others in their own individual pursuit(s) of actualization, that a line has clearly been crossed.

Most philosophers are slaves to the successes of the few who dare and (more importantly) do.

As within, so without. As without, so within.

Indeed.

In terms of an example of Gnosis and its significance, we can look to all of Shamanism. Direct revelation is the name of the game when it comes to the work of any genuine Shaman. It's significant because Shamanism is the root of all spirituality and religion.

I relate to the Carl Sagan quote you shared, thank you for that.

In my experience, an optimal means of "doing philosophy" is Gnosis; which appears to be a common thread running throughout much of the original doctrines upon which much of everyday life is based.

The opening quote for this thread is wonderful. But I'm curious, what are the relationships between mystics and shamans? I would wager that there is little difference between a mystic and a shaman, except for perhaps time and place.

Both of these characters/archetypes (the mystic and the shaman) are truly insane, but that's their superpower. A true mystic/shaman will have gone through an initiation, wherein they encountered and transmuted their dis-ease into a whole/healed strength or boon. This is the journey of the hero, which is the monomyth; also a Joseph Campbell concept.

IMO, there is a direct relationship between (what mainstream society labels as) "madness" and the mystic/shaman disposition. Thank you for the relevant and timely post on a subject that is of the upmost importance to our world today, with so many mystics stepping into their own power(s).

IMO, prayer of any kind is both a meditation and a magickal act. This implies that such behaviors are (probably, essentially) automatic for a majority of humanity. Where does "prayer" comes from? It comes from our innate humanity. It is also important to point out that prayer is not unique to humans. What we're referring to here is a universal language.

As to what is being communicated through this universal, telepathic language is up to the individual. That much is a choice.

I'm interested in learning more about what you mean. How is a "tool", a white invention? Please be specific.

Yes, a deity can manifest something impossible for themselves (and/or their followers) to accomplish. And this does confront the issue(s) surrounding whether there is truly an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient monotheist deity in charge of everything.

I do not observe math as being racist. "It" is an open source programming language for the Universe. Anyone can access "it", as there are no barriers to entry. You can even create your own open source math(s)!

This is like asking if JavaScript or Python are racist! Of course they're not, they're tools. Just like math. Math is a tool. Users of math can be racist, yes. But not math "itself".

Have you ever read the book, "Artificial You"? It was written by Susan Schneider, and released almost exactly a year ago. It's a thoughtful and timely examination of the exact approach to the same subject matter that your thread focuses on; incremental replacement(s) for the human brain. Quite interesting stuff, in my opinion.

This is interesting. I've seen similar reductionist approaches to describing "truth" in Zen Buddhism. Even among Western world figures such as Eckhart Tolle and Alan Watts. I would enjoy reading more of your writings. Thank you for bringing this perspective to my attention.

Have you viewed any of the videos on YouTube featuring people who hear and/or see the world around them for the first time? Here is one of those videos:



My point is that what was once considered absolutely impossible, is emerging in today's world. Across the board, this is true. So while we may not be able to conceptualize (or even agree on) the potential ability for computers to capture, hold, move and evolve human minds right now, the future looks bright for these kinds of technologies.

This is especially true of transhuman technologies, which include whole brain emulation; as well as other high tech goals, such as super-longevity, super-wellness and super-intelligence. These innovations are the tools for our human transcendence.

Understood. But there are technologies that can help users discern intention and deception. Those are the kinds of solutions I'm interested in.

Thank you for your reply and feedback. You are correct that I'm looking at any given Cyberpunk universe from protagonist's perspective within the story; from their first person perspective. This, I believe, is where the spirituality of Cyberpunk exists most plainly and profoundly. Although I could be wrong about that.

The answer/solution to defending against sophistry (in my opinion) are better media technologies. As another way of looking at this, imagine that there is an Internet Browser plugin, add-on and/or extension that could automatically collate references to/from/for any given statement, in an effort to help you determine its truthiness. That's the kind of approach to combating sophistry that would get my attention at the very least.

I personally view the world from a [neo-]animist perspective, wherein everything in endowed with life and spirit. That, if true, would imply all phenomena and substances are observers of both themselves and the surrounding world.

Ultimately, I would say, "Yes, reality does require an observer."

I am interested in Transhumanist philosophies, and would consider myself a techno-optimist, for sure. And while I don't intend to live forever, I would like to live longer than is possible today. All of this is quite extropian, in my opinion at least.

Thank you for both of your replies. I suspect your last post is truer than most know.

This is interesting. I don't have nearly as much training or professional background as you do, but I can appreciate what you're saying here. Thank you for bringing the words together that you have.

I too am looking forward to our discussions.

This is all fascinating. I wasn't expecting this kind of a response to my original post for this thread. Thank you to everyone who has commented and/or voted herein. As I feel a conversation about what digital tools actually are, is important to have. Especially among folks who are interested in having this dialogue.

That's my opinion as well. Animism makes sense.

In terms of a physical explanation for consciousness, I ascribe to panpsychic and animistic frames of mind. In other words, everything physical is conscious, and is consciousness.

I'm currently reading "Beyond Earth's Horizon", as written by Anthony Fucilla.

Do you mean to say that fifty percent of math is concrete, while the other fifty percent is in the minds of Mathematicians?

Hmm. I don't know to be honest. That is a subject that deserves it's own contemplation; what are the luminal counterparts to notes? You worded that nicely.

I wonder if anyone well-studied in metaphysics and/or esotericism can answer your question?

That's a good question. I would think some sort of play or dancing? Music and dancing are (essentially) the same thing.

I tend to perceive the universe as being musical. Which is an expression of both mathematics and language.

Code is philosophy; it's pure "prima materia" wrapped in an object of the modern world. Excellent conversation to have indeed.

Thank you for the clarity of your language choices. That might sound odd, but what I mean to say is that you nicely summarize and expand on the original question with your answer(s).

With that expressed, I'm curious what the threshold is for "enough people" to perceive something/somewhere as sacred, for it to then become so? I imagine there isn't a formula or algorithm that can address this wonder in its entirety.

This conversation is quite fascinating. Good times.

That's an excellent question, and I'd assume not. But I could be mistaken.

Certainly it would, to some.

I tend to think that it has already been done, and (as you say) will continue to be done. That is, making certain digital spaces sacred with (as other commenters have pointed out) enough human energy and attention.

Came here to say the same thing, but with JavaScript instead.

I attended an anniversary party for the tenth year since Wikipedia's founding, where I met the inventor of the Wiki. That night I understood how powerful and important Wikipedia (and the Wiki more generally) had become/was, remains and will be.

Wikipedia represents (as a single instance) the general global population's (humanity's) attempt to educate and fortify itself through open and accessible information. An effort that has not only been successful, but has been integrated (as a foundational VIP) into other everyday technologies; such as Google Search.

It's fine if other (more exclusive) bodies of information don't want to participate with Wikipedia, it always has been okay. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is (free) for the average person. There are as few barriers to entry and is feasible and sustainable for the platform.

Of course it would be a dramatic improvement if other (more exclusive) bodies of knowledge wished to merge with Wikipedia, or offer their data and expertise. But that is a topic for another thread. What matters is that Wikipedia is an open, useful, reliable and outwardly referencing body of knowledge; some might even say wisdom.

Essentially, yes.

With enough introspection and study, yes I think we (as fellow humans) can understand the use of shape, sound, syntax and meaning found within ancient languages. We are certainly outside of the original context that the languages were found within, but we can still consciously connect to those times and witness what "it was like" to be there. All through the meditation on the languages themselves.

I am presently reading "Techgnosis" by Eric Davis.