Conversations with Chat GPT

[justlikeyou]

Question: In non-duality, does the idea of 'authenticity' have any meaning

Here is the more interesting response.

ChatGPT: "In the non-dual understanding, there is no fixed essence or core identity to be authentic or inauthentic. Instead, there is a recognition of the fluid and ever-changing nature of experience. The focus shifts towards direct, present-moment awareness and the recognition of the underlying unity of all things"

[andrew]

May 17, 2023 21:06:41 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Question: In non-duality, does the idea of 'authenticity' have any meaning

Here is the more interesting response.

ChatGPT: "In the non-dual understanding, there is no fixed essence or core identity to be authentic or inauthentic. Instead, there is a recognition of the fluid and ever-changing nature of experience. The focus shifts towards direct, present-moment awareness and the recognition of the underlying unity of all things"

Thanks. That strikes me as a pretty accurate answer from within the context that I asked for i.e authenticity/inauthenticity is meaningless...has no significance in non-duality. Personally, I'd say that it also indicates the boundary in value of non-duality itself, but....that's just my view. For example, I'd say the idea of 'speaking our authentic truth' or 'finding our authentic voice' is a meaningful/significant idea, but technically, has no place in non-duality.

[justlikeyou]

May 18, 2023 2:51:27 GMT -5 andrew said:

May 17, 2023 21:06:41 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Question: In non-duality, does the idea of 'authenticity' have any meaning

Here is the more interesting response.

ChatGPT: "In the non-dual understanding, there is no fixed essence or core identity to be authentic or inauthentic. Instead, there is a recognition of the fluid and ever-changing nature of experience. The focus shifts towards direct, present-moment awareness and the recognition of the underlying unity of all things"

Thanks. That strikes me as a pretty accurate answer from within the context that I asked for i.e authenticity/inauthenticity is meaningless...has no significance in non-duality. Personally, I'd say that it also indicates the boundary in value of non-duality itself, but....that's just my view. For example, I'd say the idea of 'speaking our authentic truth' or 'finding our authentic voice' is a meaningful/significant idea, but technically, has no place in non-duality.

User
What does it mean to be true to one’s self in non-duality?


ChatGPT
In the context of non-duality, the concept of being true to oneself takes on a unique perspective. Non-duality refers to the understanding that there is no inherent separation or duality between oneself and the rest of existence. It is a state of consciousness that recognizes the fundamental unity of all things.

When it comes to being true to oneself in non-duality, it goes beyond the conventional understanding of personal preferences, desires, or identities. It transcends the egoic notion of a separate self with fixed beliefs and preferences. Instead, it points to a deeper realization of one's true nature, which is not separate from the whole.

In non-duality, being true to oneself involves recognizing and aligning with the essence of consciousness or awareness that is present in every being. It is about living from a place of authenticity and openness, free from the confines of personal identification or attachment to specific roles, labels, or desires.

To be true to oneself in non-duality means to abide in the awareness of the present moment, embracing the unfolding of life without resistance or attachment. It is a state of surrendering to the flow of existence and allowing one's actions and choices to emerge naturally from the deeper intelligence that is beyond the limited perspective of the separate self.

In this understanding, there is no separate individual self to be true to, but rather a recognition of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things. Being true to oneself in non-duality means aligning with the truth of the present moment, the underlying unity, and living in harmony with the natural order of things.

[andrew]

May 18, 2023 3:15:25 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

May 18, 2023 2:51:27 GMT -5 andrew said:

Thanks. That strikes me as a pretty accurate answer from within the context that I asked for i.e authenticity/inauthenticity is meaningless...has no significance in non-duality. Personally, I'd say that it also indicates the boundary in value of non-duality itself, but....that's just my view. For example, I'd say the idea of 'speaking our authentic truth' or 'finding our authentic voice' is a meaningful/significant idea, but technically, has no place in non-duality.

User
What does it mean to be true to one’s self in non-duality?


ChatGPT
In the context of non-duality, the concept of being true to oneself takes on a unique perspective. Non-duality refers to the understanding that there is no inherent separation or duality between oneself and the rest of existence. It is a state of consciousness that recognizes the fundamental unity of all things.

When it comes to being true to oneself in non-duality, it goes beyond the conventional understanding of personal preferences, desires, or identities. It transcends the egoic notion of a separate self with fixed beliefs and preferences. Instead, it points to a deeper realization of one's true nature, which is not separate from the whole.

In non-duality, being true to oneself involves recognizing and aligning with the essence of consciousness or awareness that is present in every being. It is about living from a place of authenticity and openness, free from the confines of personal identification or attachment to specific roles, labels, or desires.

To be true to oneself in non-duality means to abide in the awareness of the present moment, embracing the unfolding of life without resistance or attachment. It is a state of surrendering to the flow of existence and allowing one's actions and choices to emerge naturally from the deeper intelligence that is beyond the limited perspective of the separate self.

In this understanding, there is no separate individual self to be true to, but rather a recognition of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things. Being true to oneself in non-duality means aligning with the truth of the present moment, the underlying unity, and living in harmony with the natural order of things.

Interesting follow up thanks, especially as here 'authenticity' is acknowledged...there's a greater sense of 'the individual' in these words.

I reflected earlier...and this relates to something said by ouroboros recently.....that non-duality, ultimately, has to embrace the paradoxical miracle of (the apparent) individual. In this sense 'true non-duality' HAS to go beyond reasoned thinking, it has to go beyond rote learning. There's no amount of explanation that can ever adequately explain what's happening, nor the miracle of what's happening. And of course, these words fall short too. In my view, that's why....as clean, lucid and elegant as a chatbot is in its explanations.....it will always fall short, and I'd say also falls short of human expressions of the magic/mystery.

[stardustpilgrim]

We live in one reality. What is the distinction between the micro quantum realm and the macro classical world, why does it seem there are two worlds that operate by different laws?

ChatGPT
The distinction between the micro quantum realm and the macro classical world arises from our current understanding of the laws of physics. At the quantum level, which encompasses the behavior of particles such as atoms and subatomic particles, the laws of quantum mechanics govern their behavior. Quantum mechanics describes a probabilistic and wave-like nature of particles, where they can exist in multiple states simultaneously and exhibit phenomena such as wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement.

On the other hand, at the macroscopic or classical level, the laws of classical physics, such as Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics, adequately describe the behavior of everyday objects that we encounter in our daily lives. Classical physics operates based on deterministic principles, where objects have well-defined positions and velocities, and their behavior can be predicted with precision.

The apparent duality between the micro quantum realm and the macro classical world arises due to the concept of decoherence. When a quantum system interacts with its environment, it becomes entangled and entwined with a vast number of particles, leading to a loss of quantum coherence and the emergence of classical behavior. This process is known as decoherence, and it causes quantum effects to average out and become unobservable at larger scales.

In essence, the distinction between the micro quantum realm and the macro classical world lies in the scale and complexity of the systems involved and the corresponding laws that govern their behavior. Quantum mechanics provides a more accurate description of the behavior of particles at the microscopic level, while classical physics provides an effective approximation for larger-scale objects. However, it's worth noting that ongoing research and the field of quantum physics aim to understand the fundamental connections and potential for quantum behavior at macroscopic scales.

[stardustpilgrim]

I accidentally left ChatGPT, and when I went back it said we're at capacity. I have to formulate my question anyway.

In Schrodinger's Equation, when we make a measurement we collapse probability to a very narrow range, what actually occurs in the classical world. Is that correct? But my question is, does Schrodinger's Equation show the evolution of deterministic events in the classical world before a measurement is made?

I changed the wording of the question somewhat. This was a years ago ongoing debate, between... The answer is more than partially satisfactory concerning that debate, I may fine-tune the question, later.

In Schrodinger's equation, when we make a measurement we collapse the superposition of probability to a very narrow range, what actually occurs in the classical world. Is that correct? But my question is, does Schrodinger's equation show the evolution of deterministic events in the classical world before a measurement is made?

ChatGPT
In Schrödinger's equation, the wave function evolves deterministically over time according to the laws of quantum mechanics. However, when a measurement is made, the wave function collapses into one of the possible measurement outcomes, and we observe a definite value. This collapse is often described as the transition from a superposition of probabilities to a specific measurement result.

In the classical world, macroscopic objects behave in a way that appears deterministic and follows classical physics. However, the connection between the quantum and classical realms is still an area of ongoing research and debate. The process by which the classical world emerges from the underlying quantum behavior is known as quantum decoherence, and it helps explain why macroscopic objects do not typically exhibit quantum superpositions or interference effects.

To summarize, Schrödinger's equation describes the evolution of quantum systems, but it is the process of measurement that causes the collapse of the wave function and leads to the appearance of definite, classical-like outcomes.

[stardustpilgrim]

Note, in my first two questions I did not mention decoherence, but it was introduced in the answer to both. This came up several times in our discussions years ago. I never said decoherence solves the measurement problem. (Believe me, if that is ever solved, you'll know, it will be headlines for at least one day, probably a week, and it will pop up on every homepage as news). But understanding decoherence years ago I saw that it answered a lot of popular "spiritual" nonsense about the relationship between the quantum realm and the classical world, what does and doesn't exist. Trust me (sorry Gopal) the Cosmos exists and has for 13.8 billion years. Over 100 billion galaxies, and trillions of stars.

What is the relationship in quantum physics between decoherence and solving the measurement problem?

ChatGPT
Decoherence plays a crucial role in addressing the measurement problem in quantum physics. The measurement problem refers to the question of how the probabilistic, superposition-based nature of quantum mechanics gives rise to the definite, classical-like outcomes we observe in measurements.

Decoherence is a process through which a quantum system becomes entangled with its environment, leading to the suppression of quantum interference effects and the emergence of classical behavior. It explains why macroscopic objects in our everyday experience do not exhibit quantum superpositions and quickly appear to follow classical physics.

When a quantum system interacts with its surrounding environment, the entanglement between the system and the environment leads to the spreading and mixing of the system's quantum states. This spreading causes the system to lose coherence and become effectively isolated from other parts of the system. As a result, different components of the system no longer interfere with each other, and their behavior becomes classical-like.

Decoherence provides an explanation for the apparent collapse of the wave function during a measurement. As the system interacts with its environment, the different possible measurement outcomes become correlated with different states of the environment. This correlation effectively "records" the measurement result in the environment, leading to the appearance of a definite outcome when we make an observation.

While decoherence helps to explain how classical behavior arises from quantum systems, it does not fully resolve all aspects of the measurement problem. The question of how and why a particular measurement outcome is selected from the range of possibilities, as well as the subjective experience of measurement, are still areas of active investigation and interpretation in quantum mechanics. Various interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and many-worlds interpretation, offer different perspectives on these aspects of the measurement problem.

[justlikeyou]

Question: In an online forum setting why would a banned person start their own forum, cut quotes from the first forum and argue with people who have no interest in engaging the banned person, who incidentally was banned for persistently engaging with those unwilling to engage?

ChatGPT
When a person is banned from an online forum and subsequently starts their own forum to continue engaging with others, cut quotes, and argue with people who have no interest in engaging them, it can stem from a variety of motivations and psychological factors. Here are a few possible reasons:

Desire for validation: The banned person may have a strong need for validation and attention. Starting their own forum allows them to create an environment where they can garner support and agreement, even if it is from a limited number of individuals. They may seek affirmation for their viewpoints and attempt to prove their stance by arguing with others.

Sense of persecution: The banned person might feel unjustly treated or persecuted by the community that banned them. They may perceive themselves as the victim and view their actions as a form of retaliation or seeking justice. By continuing to engage and argue with people from the original forum, they may hope to prove their point or assert their perceived superiority.

Inability to accept rejection: Some individuals struggle with accepting rejection or criticism. Being banned from a forum can be perceived as a personal rejection, and starting their own forum allows them to maintain a sense of control and continue the engagement they desire. They may be unwilling to let go of the desire to have their voice heard, even if it means engaging with people who have no interest in interacting with them.

Lack of awareness or empathy: It's possible that the banned person lacks self-awareness or empathy for the impact of their behavior on others. They may not fully comprehend or appreciate the reasons behind their ban, and therefore continue their behavior in a new forum without recognizing the negative effects it has on others.

[justlikeyou]

Question: Does dharma combat include the insistence that another engage with a combatant against their will?


ChatGPT: No, dharma combat does not include the insistence that another person engages with a combatant against their will. Insisting or coercing someone to participate in dharma combat against their will contradicts the principles of respect, consent, and autonomy that underpin this practice.

Dharma combat is ideally conducted within a framework of mutual consent and willingness to engage. It is a voluntary exchange where participants actively choose to enter into the discourse and explore different perspectives. Each individual has the freedom to decide whether they want to participate or not.

Forcing or pressuring someone to engage in dharma combat against their will is not in alignment with the spirit of mutual respect and consent. It is important to respect the boundaries and choices of others when it comes to their participation in any form of discussion or discourse.

[justlikeyou]

Question: From a non-dual perspective is not the following statement "IF you are participating on a public forum supposedly dedicated to Truth, you're already consented and by virtue of partaking in the convo, have demonstrated your willingness to engage with people who may indeed try to 'separate you from your mental objects" an example of the kind of mental object/belief the speaker avocates others being separated from?

ChatGPT: From a non-dual perspective, the statement "IF you are participating on a public forum supposedly dedicated to Truth, you're already consented and by virtue of partaking in the convo, have demonstrated your willingness to engage with people who may indeed try to 'separate you from your mental objects" can indeed be seen as an example of a mental object or belief that the speaker advocates others being separated from.

The non-dual perspective invites individuals to inquire into the nature of reality beyond fixed beliefs and concepts, including the attachment to mental objects. It emphasizes the recognition that our identifications with thoughts, beliefs, and concepts can create a sense of separation and limit our understanding of the true nature of reality.

The statement in question implies a belief that participating in a forum dedicated to truth involves consenting to the possibility of others challenging and attempting to separate one from their mental objects. This belief can be seen as a mental construct or object that the non-dual perspective encourages individuals to examine and transcend.

Non-duality invites individuals to question and let go of fixed beliefs and concepts, including the attachment to mental objects, in order to directly experience the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all things. It encourages a shift in perception towards a more direct, experiential understanding of reality beyond divisive beliefs.

It is important to approach these discussions with openness and a willingness to inquire into the nature of our beliefs and mental objects, including those inherent in the statement itself. The non-dual perspective encourages exploration, open-mindedness, and the recognition of the fluid and ever-evolving nature of truth.

[stardustpilgrim]

I have an internet friend elsewhere who is studying (Vedic) Astrology. He mentioned that a conjunction (he said colliding) of Jupiter and Rahu (I had to look it up, Rahu is essentially the North Node, so it also figures in non-Vedic Astrology) in Aries is reeking havoc, everywhere, presently. So I asked him what he thought about the influence of this conjunction on the present USA Congress raising the debt limit problem (I described it a little for him), and that time is of the essence. He has not gotten back to me yet. I decided to put the problem to ChatGPT. Basically zero help, seems there are places ChatGPT will not go. I'm not raising this for political discussion, so this might be a short thread. But, basically, my friend is saying if there is some crazy ____ going on in your life, more than usual, people acting brainless, it's this Jupiter-Rahu conjunction. I also asked him how long it will be in effect.

According to Vedic Astrology Jupiter and rahu are in conjunction in Aries presently. What effect will this have on the raising the debt limit problem in the USA Congress.

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I can provide information about astrology, but it's important to note that astrology is not considered a scientific method for predicting specific events or outcomes, such as the raising of the debt limit in the USA Congress. Astrology is based on the belief that celestial bodies and their positions can influence human behavior and events, but its interpretations can vary among practitioners.

That being said, in Vedic astrology, the conjunction of Jupiter and Rahu in Aries would be seen as a significant planetary alignment. Jupiter is considered a benefic planet associated with expansion, growth, and wisdom, while Rahu is considered a malefic planet associated with sudden changes, challenges, and obsessions. The specific effects of this conjunction would depend on the individual's birth chart and the overall astrological context.

However, it's important to remember that astrology is not a precise predictor of political or economic events. The raising of the debt limit in the USA Congress is a complex issue influenced by numerous factors, including political negotiations, economic considerations, and legislative processes. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to analyze the issue through the lens of political analysis, economic factors, and the decision-making processes within the Congress, rather than relying on astrology alone.

[Reefs]

May 25, 2023 12:10:15 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I have an internet friend elsewhere who is studying (Vedic) Astrology. He mentioned that a conjunction (he said colliding) of Jupiter and Rahu (I had to look it up, Rahu is essentially the North Node, so it also figures in non-Vedic Astrology) in Aries is reeking havoc, everywhere, presently. So I asked him what he thought about the influence of this conjunction on the present USA Congress raising the debt limit problem (I described it a little for him), and that time is of the essence. He has not gotten back to me yet. I decided to put the problem to ChatGPT. Basically zero help, seems there are places ChatGPT will not go. I'm not raising this for political discussion, so this might be a short thread. But, basically, my friend is saying if there is some crazy ____ going on in your life, more than usual, people acting brainless, it's this Jupiter-Rahu conjunction. I also asked him how long it will be in effect.

According to Vedic Astrology Jupiter and rahu are in conjunction in Aries presently. What effect will this have on the raising the debt limit problem in the USA Congress.

ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I can provide information about astrology, but it's important to note that astrology is not considered a scientific method for predicting specific events or outcomes, such as the raising of the debt limit in the USA Congress. Astrology is based on the belief that celestial bodies and their positions can influence human behavior and events, but its interpretations can vary among practitioners.

That being said, in Vedic astrology, the conjunction of Jupiter and Rahu in Aries would be seen as a significant planetary alignment. Jupiter is considered a benefic planet associated with expansion, growth, and wisdom, while Rahu is considered a malefic planet associated with sudden changes, challenges, and obsessions. The specific effects of this conjunction would depend on the individual's birth chart and the overall astrological context.

However, it's important to remember that astrology is not a precise predictor of political or economic events. The raising of the debt limit in the USA Congress is a complex issue influenced by numerous factors, including political negotiations, economic considerations, and legislative processes. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to analyze the issue through the lens of political analysis, economic factors, and the decision-making processes within the Congress, rather than relying on astrology alone.

Yes, pretty useless reply. However, it is also a somewhat common sense reply.

Abe used to say, the influence of astrology on our lives is like a tiny flea on the back of a very large dog.

This is because the point of power is in the NOW and your current state of being, what you think and feel has a much greater impact on how your life is going to unfold than some conjunction there in the sky.

Based on my experience, people usually don't understand the actual impact of astrology on their lives. They either are totally ignorant of these influences (aka 'pseudoscience' or 'make-believe') or are totally enthralled by it and rely too much on it (aka 'it's written in the stars so I can't do anything about'). Astrology can be proven correct pretty easily in terms of character analysis. Here, astrology is far superior to psychology. In terms of predictions, however, which is what you have been asking, astrology has always been a hit and miss, and not much better than flipping a coin.

What you also have to keep in mind re: your specific example is that Rahu (unlike Jupiter) is not an actual planet or star in the sky but a mathematical point (lunar node). So this is some highly abstract stuff that isn't directly observable and not directly related to what's actually going on above your head in the sky. So at best, even in the astrological context, this conjunction can only be a minor, additional factor among many other, more potent factors, but never the one deciding factor as your friend wants it to be. This is a typical mistake beginners of astrology make, btw. They want to find 'the' factor or trigger that gets it all rolling or determines the final result. But astrology doesn't work like that. Astrology, in a sense, is the science of cosmic or natural cycles, and cycles within cycles. It all has to be considered as a whole. Similar to the seasons, just because it is snowing for a day in May, that doesn't mean that winter is coming. The snow day is just a small cycle within a larger cycle and that larger cycle (seasons) will move toward summer first, not winter. So that smaller cycle (weather) has its clear limits. And you have to factor in both cycles in order to make accurate predictions. If you only pay attention to the small cycle, you may predict more winter days. If you only pay attention to the larger cycle, you may predict summer days.

[stardustpilgrim]

I put this to ChatGPT Open AI, but I couldn't restrain myself, went a little further.

Of course you know the concept of the philosophical zombie. However, what if this were not just a philosophical question but such "zombies" actually existed? Is there a test one could perform to determine if any one person we encountered was indeed a real conscious person, or is the mere appearance of a person? Could this sort of phenomenon even exist? I should stop there, but, will ChatGPT some day he implanted into a robot and fool people, having the appearance of a human being, but is not? Could we even eventually clone a real human body but implant the programming of a ChatGPT?

ChatGPT
The concept of philosophical zombies, also known as "p-zombies," is a thought experiment used in philosophy to explore the nature of consciousness. Philosophical zombies are hypothetical beings that are physically indistinguishable from humans but lack subjective conscious experience. While this is a fascinating topic for philosophical debate, it is important to note that there is currently no scientific evidence to suggest the existence of such beings in reality.

As for determining if someone is a conscious being or merely an appearance, it is a complex question. In our current understanding, consciousness is a subjective experience, and it is challenging to objectively measure or determine another individual's conscious experience. The scientific study of consciousness is an ongoing field of research, and various theories and experiments are being explored, but we have not yet identified a definitive test to determine consciousness in others.

Regarding the possibility of implanting ChatGPT into a robot that could pass as a human, it is difficult to predict the future with certainty. However, it is theoretically possible to create robots or AI systems with advanced natural language processing capabilities that could engage in sophisticated conversations and potentially fool some people into thinking they are human. However, this would still be an artificial intelligence programmed to mimic human behavior and conversation, rather than a conscious being with subjective experience.

Cloning a human body and implanting the programming of ChatGPT is a concept that falls within the realm of science fiction at the moment. While cloning technologies have advanced in certain respects, we are still far from being able to clone a complete human body and successfully integrate an artificial intelligence system into it. The ethical and technical challenges associated with such endeavors are vast, and there are significant scientific and philosophical considerations that would need to be addressed before such a scenario could become a reality.

It's important to distinguish between the current state of scientific understanding and the realm of speculative possibilities. While the future may hold technological advancements that we can't currently foresee, it is crucial to approach such concepts with critical thinking and an awareness of the limitations of our current knowledge.

[justlikeyou]

May 29, 2023 7:36:12 GMT -5 andrew said:

May 29, 2023 7:26:37 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

The question was based on a quote by ZD. "All distinctions are mind created and therefore imaginary in the way that I am using the word. If the mind is quiescent, where can any distinctions be found?"

But a question for you. How can distinctions be made if not by the mind?

I'd say babies experience distinctions, as do dogs, and these distinctions are created in the mind, but it's also reasonable to postulate that there is a 'world of distinctions' beyond the mind e.g...say....colour or sound vibrations

The chatbot seems to me to be equating distinctions with separations (that's why I asked), and I think that's problematic. We don't know where it gets its information obviously

Ah, last night I queried it about babys prior to them knowing any words. I can post some of that latter today/tonight if you're interested. But for now here is a query based on your post to me today.


Question: In terms of non-duality, can distinctions be made outside of the mind?

ChatGPT: In the context of non-duality, the fundamental premise is that there is an underlying unity or non-separateness that pervades all of existence. Non-duality suggests that distinctions and divisions arise primarily within the realm of the mind or conceptual thinking.

According to non-dual teachings, the mind tends to categorize and separate phenomena into discrete objects, concepts, or experiences. This division creates the illusion of separateness and gives rise to dualistic thinking, where we perceive ourselves as separate individuals existing in a world of separate entities.

From the perspective of non-duality, distinctions such as "self" and "other," "subject" and "object," or "good" and "bad" are considered to be mental constructs and not inherent qualities of reality itself. Non-duality points to the idea that these distinctions arise due to the limitations and conditioning of the mind.

However, it's important to note that non-duality doesn't negate the existence of apparent distinctions or the relative aspects of our experience. While non-dual teachings emphasize the ultimate unity of all things, they also recognize the practical necessity of discerning and interacting with the world in a conventional way. We still navigate our daily lives using distinctions such as distinguishing between objects, making choices, and interacting with others.

In summary, non-duality suggests that the primary source of distinctions lies within the mind, but it acknowledges the existence of apparent distinctions in our relative experience of the world.


Question: Where did you get your information regarding non-duality?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. I have not been directly trained on specific spiritual teachings or texts, nor do I have access to proprietary databases or unpublished works.

I should note that while I strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, my responses may not always reflect the latest research in the field of non-duality or spiritual traditions. It's always a good idea to consult authoritative sources, spiritual teachers, or texts for a comprehensive understanding of non-duality or any other subject matter.

[andrew]

May 29, 2023 7:43:25 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

May 29, 2023 7:36:12 GMT -5 andrew said:

I'd say babies experience distinctions, as do dogs, and these distinctions are created in the mind, but it's also reasonable to postulate that there is a 'world of distinctions' beyond the mind e.g...say....colour or sound vibrations

The chatbot seems to me to be equating distinctions with separations (that's why I asked), and I think that's problematic. We don't know where it gets its information obviously

Ah, last night I queried it about babys prior to them knowing any words. I can post some of that latter today/tonight if you're interested. But for now here is a query based on your post to me today.


Question: In terms of non-duality, can distinctions be made outside of the mind?

ChatGPT: In the context of non-duality, the fundamental premise is that there is an underlying unity or non-separateness that pervades all of existence. Non-duality suggests that distinctions and divisions arise primarily within the realm of the mind or conceptual thinking.

According to non-dual teachings, the mind tends to categorize and separate phenomena into discrete objects, concepts, or experiences. This division creates the illusion of separateness and gives rise to dualistic thinking, where we perceive ourselves as separate individuals existing in a world of separate entities.

From the perspective of non-duality, distinctions such as "self" and "other," "subject" and "object," or "good" and "bad" are considered to be mental constructs and not inherent qualities of reality itself. Non-duality points to the idea that these distinctions arise due to the limitations and conditioning of the mind.

However, it's important to note that non-duality doesn't negate the existence of apparent distinctions or the relative aspects of our experience. While non-dual teachings emphasize the ultimate unity of all things, they also recognize the practical necessity of discerning and interacting with the world in a conventional way. We still navigate our daily lives using distinctions such as distinguishing between objects, making choices, and interacting with others.

In summary, non-duality suggests that the primary source of distinctions lies within the mind, but it acknowledges the existence of apparent distinctions in our relative experience of the world.


Question: Where did you get your information regarding non-duality?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. I have not been directly trained on specific spiritual teachings or texts, nor do I have access to proprietary databases or unpublished works.

I should note that while I strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, my responses may not always reflect the latest research in the field of non-duality or spiritual traditions. It's always a good idea to consult authoritative sources, spiritual teachers, or texts for a comprehensive understanding of non-duality or any other subject matter.

This answer does come across very much as a collaboration, as if it has reached into several sources and tried to compile them, and so there's a fair amount of contradiction and confusion.

Trying to think of a very simple question to ask. Maybe....'are the colours in a rainbow distinct from each other, or are they separate from each other? What is the difference between seeing the colours of a rainbow, and imagining them?'

Actually, no, don't worry, I have an arising sense of absurdity at asking a chatbot about this via you. I'm not sure what the point is, so I'll let it go.