|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 13, 2024 10:27:36 GMT -5
You need to duplicate the text if it is below the minimum word count. If you add nonsense words, then you are obviously adding real human input. That being said, it's not a perfect tool, there are other AI detectors, too. BTW, some news articles are also either 100% AI-generated or at least assisted by AI. Just did it again repeating the opening words: "For what it’s worth, there’s no actual ‘merging’ with the Absolute, because there’s no separation to begin with—no two things to unite. Realization isn’t about gaining special powers or mystical abilities; it’s simply recognizing that your true nature is already the Absolute. This means that the flow of your ordinary, everyday life is how the Absolute expresses itself. It’s more like relaxing into a natural rhythm or state of ease, without needing to think about it or analyze it. For what its worth." 0% of text is likely AI-generated And yes, many articles are AI generated. Doesn't mean the info is/isn't true. Discernment is always called for. The quality of the data isn't the point. It's about quality of interaction. If we rely on chatgpt in our communication then we are interacting on the data level, i.e. dehumanizing our communication, and also dehumanizing ourselves and others. Since most people mostly live in their heads anyway (i.e. intellect driven aka data level of experience), they probably won't notice. But as with social media, it will leave them with a feeling of emptiness that they can't quite explain. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 13, 2024 10:47:26 GMT -5
Just did it again repeating the opening words: "For what it’s worth, there’s no actual ‘merging’ with the Absolute, because there’s no separation to begin with—no two things to unite. Realization isn’t about gaining special powers or mystical abilities; it’s simply recognizing that your true nature is already the Absolute. This means that the flow of your ordinary, everyday life is how the Absolute expresses itself. It’s more like relaxing into a natural rhythm or state of ease, without needing to think about it or analyze it. For what its worth." 0% of text is likely AI-generated And yes, many articles are AI generated. Doesn't mean the info is/isn't true. Discernment is always called for. The quality of the data isn't the point. It's about quality of interaction. If we rely on chatgpt in our communication then we are interacting on the data level, i.e. dehumanizing our communication, and also dehumanizing ourselves and others. Since most people mostly live in their heads anyway (i.e. intellect driven aka data level of experience), they probably won't notice. But as with social media, it will leave them with a feeling of emptiness that they can't quite explain. . In the example above it is still ZD’s thoughts and points that are being polished and clarified by the AI, much like an editor might do. I don’t have a problem with using it in this manner. But that’s me. |
|
|
|
Post by YoMadreGorda on Nov 13, 2024 11:12:19 GMT -5
FWIW, there is no "merging" with the Absolute because there are not two of anything, and it takes two to "merge." The realization is that what one IS is already the Absolute, but this does not mean what most people imagine. It doesn't mean special powers or anything like that. It means that one's ordinary everyday life is how the Absolute manifests. It's like relaxing into a felt sense of "flow" without the need to reflect upon it. In some nondual philosophies, the realization of oneness with Brahman can be seen as a merging of the individual self into the impersonal Absolute. In this context, "merging" can be understood as the dissolution of the illusion of separation between the individual self and the universal self—when one realizes their true identity as Brahman, the distinction disappears. Thus, it’s not a literal merging but rather a realization of non-separation. In short, self-realized nondualists consider themselves Brahman. I was about to post that this reeks of AI generation. But it looks like other users already beat me to it. Once the AI gets a little better at hiding its tracks, there will be no recourse other than to move to face-to-face communication, and maybe that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 13, 2024 12:01:11 GMT -5
IOW, being non-separate from Brahman, do you consider yourself Brahman? *holds up one index finger in silence* Do you understand? If not, it might be worth contemplating what generated the question, "Do you consider yourself Brahman?" or, similarly, it might be worth contemplating "Who am I beyond name and form?" |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 13, 2024 13:23:10 GMT -5
Just did it again repeating the opening words: "For what it’s worth, there’s no actual ‘merging’ with the Absolute, because there’s no separation to begin with—no two things to unite. Realization isn’t about gaining special powers or mystical abilities; it’s simply recognizing that your true nature is already the Absolute. This means that the flow of your ordinary, everyday life is how the Absolute expresses itself. It’s more like relaxing into a natural rhythm or state of ease, without needing to think about it or analyze it. For what its worth." 0% of text is likely AI-generated And yes, many articles are AI generated. Doesn't mean the info is/isn't true. Discernment is always called for. The quality of the data isn't the point. It's about quality of interaction. If we rely on chatgpt in our communication then we are interacting on the data level, i.e. dehumanizing our communication, and also dehumanizing ourselves and others. Since most people mostly live in their heads anyway (i.e. intellect driven aka data level of experience), they probably won't notice. But as with social media, it will leave them with a feeling of emptiness that they can't quite explain. If I talk with a human, it's for their authenticity, inspiration, desire. I'm looking for their unique truth/truthfulness. Even the biggest human liar, or the most 'unconscious' humans, still have the qualities I'm looking for. If I was to talk with AI, then it would be for acquisition purposes. It might have utilitarian value, but as Robin Williams said in Dead Poets Society....''"We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is full of passion'' We don't come to the forum to 'acquire'. One thing that was/is undeniably true about Enigma/Phil.....he had that passion. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 13, 2024 13:26:03 GMT -5
... The question is, why does Melvin have to rely on AI? If most of his recent posts are AI-generated, why should anyone keep talking to Melvin and not chatgpt instead? I noticed this too, and I think that on one hand Mervin likes more the AI's English than his own, and on the other hand he seems to be the "blind" follower type (no insult intended here), and he put his trust in AI, as he put his trust in the medical establishment, in a religious dogma, ... I believe that everything that attracts my attention, even everything that I experience, has something meaningful that can be interpreted down to deeper and deeper levels, which results in knowledge and guidance for me. Sometimes I decide to share my interpretations, with no intention to argue their merits, as such interpretations are purely subjective. I prefer reading and interpreting Mervin's posts than AI's because they are likely to give me less distorted hints from my inner source if knowledge and guidance. The "unpolished" Mervin is an aspects of a personality, while the AI is just a very schematic personality fragment, so I can get more undistorted hints through interpreting Mervin's posts |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 13, 2024 13:31:30 GMT -5
The quality of the data isn't the point. It's about quality of interaction. If we rely on chatgpt in our communication then we are interacting on the data level, i.e. dehumanizing our communication, and also dehumanizing ourselves and others. Since most people mostly live in their heads anyway (i.e. intellect driven aka data level of experience), they probably won't notice. But as with social media, it will leave them with a feeling of emptiness that they can't quite explain. If I talk with a human, it's for their authenticity, inspiration, desire. I'm looking for their unique truth/truthfulness. Even the biggest human liar, or the most 'unconscious' humans, still have the qualities I'm looking for. If I was to talk with AI, then it would be for acquisition purposes. It might have utilitarian value, but as Robin Williams said in Dead Poets Society....''"We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is full of passion'' We don't come to the forum to 'acquire'. One thing that was/is undeniably true about Enigma/Phil.....he had that passion. Some folks are very clear. Others not so much. I sometimes find it useful in understanding what another is trying to say. In this case, AI acts as a translator/decipherer. |
|
|
|
The Truth
Nov 13, 2024 13:38:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by andrew on Nov 13, 2024 13:38:50 GMT -5
If I talk with a human, it's for their authenticity, inspiration, desire. I'm looking for their unique truth/truthfulness. Even the biggest human liar, or the most 'unconscious' humans, still have the qualities I'm looking for. If I was to talk with AI, then it would be for acquisition purposes. It might have utilitarian value, but as Robin Williams said in Dead Poets Society....''"We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is full of passion'' We don't come to the forum to 'acquire'. One thing that was/is undeniably true about Enigma/Phil.....he had that passion. Some folks are very clear. Others not so much. I sometimes find it useful in understanding what another is trying to say. In this case, AI acts as a translator/decipherer. You mean it's hard to understand folks here sometimes? If so, that's definitely true for me too haha. I guess I'd rather ask them to clarify, or change their words or something. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 13, 2024 13:41:07 GMT -5
The quality of the data isn't the point. It's about quality of interaction. If we rely on chatgpt in our communication then we are interacting on the data level, i.e. dehumanizing our communication, and also dehumanizing ourselves and others. Since most people mostly live in their heads anyway (i.e. intellect driven aka data level of experience), they probably won't notice. But as with social media, it will leave them with a feeling of emptiness that they can't quite explain. . In the example above it is still ZD’s thoughts and points that are being polished and clarified by the AI, much like an editor might do. I don’t have a problem with using it in this manner. But that’s me. The word-level communication is quite distortive, with a very low rate of information; image-level is more effective, and direct-level should be distortion less and instantaneous. Same with word-thinking. So, reformulating someone's posts will always further the distortion of the original meaning for me. I am not interested as much in the original meaning intended by the author, but in the meaning imbedded in it, that is originated by my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and that is intended only for me. |
|
|
|
The Truth
Nov 13, 2024 13:53:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 13, 2024 13:53:28 GMT -5
. In the example above it is still ZD’s thoughts and points that are being polished and clarified by the AI, much like an editor might do. I don’t have a problem with using it in this manner. But that’s me. The word-level communication is quite distortive, with a very low rate of information; image-level is more effective, and direct-level should be distortion less and instantaneous. Same with word-thinking. So, reformulating someone's posts will always further the distortion of the original meaning for me. I am not interested as much in the original meaning intended by the author, but in the meaning imbedded in it, that is originated by my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and that is intended only for me. Are you saying its only ever about you? |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 13, 2024 14:04:06 GMT -5
IOW, being non-separate from Brahman, do you consider yourself Brahman? *holds up one index finger in silence* Do you understand? If not, it might be worth contemplating what generated the question, "Do you consider yourself Brahman?" or, similarly, it might be worth contemplating "Who am I beyond name and form?" After going over and over Nisa's I AM quotes trying to interpret what they were all about, suddenly it occurred to me this question, " What if I place after I AM the word Krishna? " I said to myself, " Yeah, I get it. Krishna's name is inconceivable, transcendental. The name is beyond words. In fact, Krishna is everything. So, prior to my being born, I AM Krishna. " It says, in John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. " So, prior to arising, manifestation of the world, there was Krishna, the Word. Which branched into other words, Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, the Void, the Source, etc. My reasoning is that since everything is Krishna, I say I AM Krishna. Everyone is Krishna. That's also saying I AM Brahman. That's how I understood Nisa's 229 I AM quotes. A self- realized soul knows he is Krishna, he is Brahman. That's one of the basis for chanting, " Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare. " Not letting the word KRSNA dwell in my flesh and become the anagam KANSR. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 13, 2024 14:25:00 GMT -5
Surreal and Unreal It`s between the unreal and real. You can see it happening when the past and present merge and become one giving you a picture and feeling of nostalgia. Of something profound which happened from your past life manifesting in the present. It`s this feeling and thinking of one hit by puff of lighted ganja stick, a dose of codeine to remedy a persistent cough, several gulps of ice cold beer, a sip of Scotch whisky with brewed coffee. Dreamy it may seem but it`s what seekers do of truth to get them going, experiencing illusions and delusions of this world. Once surreal. No need to take in anything to prep up wakefulness in one's mind. Did you write this? Interesting description. It relates to what I hear people saying about their perceptions of reality. The way I'd express the bottom-line conclusion is as follows: The common-state of mind is not to live in the moment, not to live directly, but rather, indirectly, as mitigated by abstractions and emotional reactions. Perceptions are filtered through these abstractions and emotional movements. ZD uses the term, "meta-reality". People can experience a sense of eeriness, or an uncanny feeling, based on dissonance between perception and the filter of their mind. One limiting and dramatic case is the horror-movie industry. The Zombie trope is based on this, the Matrix, for example, is quite overt about it. Of course, one might object to the duality of perception, and perception as filtered by the mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 13, 2024 14:33:05 GMT -5
The word-level communication is quite distortive, with a very low rate of information; image-level is more effective, and direct-level should be distortion less and instantaneous. Same with word-thinking. So, reformulating someone's posts will always further the distortion of the original meaning for me. I am not interested as much in the original meaning intended by the author, but in the meaning imbedded in it, that is originated by my inner source of knowledge and guidance, and that is intended only for me. Are you saying its only ever about you? Your question comes from your perspective of what this physical-reality experience is, and of what you are. It seems to pejoratively suggest egotism from my part. I post from my perspective of what this physical-reality experience is, and of what I am. Without getting into it deeper, I am enrolled into a learning endeavour, inside a specialized framework of reality, where I have free-will, and where my experience isn't determined in any way by chance, nor by the will or deeds of anybody or anything else. In the same way, my choices don't affect anybody or anything that didn't already accept to experience. This means that I have to play my role earnestly, that I can't choose carelessly. And this is what I do. This also means that everything that I experience, at all levels, is part of my instruction, and it has no other meaning. Surely I have the opportunity to perform better or worse than others did in my role. I think in terms of time not being linear, and of an endless number of alternate versions of the whole physical-reality, where each participant / student continuously joins those he resonates with, and leaves those those he doesn't resonate with anymore. There are already an endless number of realities in which Trump won this election, and others in which he didn't; realities in which he was never born, and others in which he experienced a different life. And this applies to everybody and everything. So, your question ... It isn't "only ever about" me the way you probably meant it, in the sense that I don't care how my choices affect others, because I am interested in performing the best I can. At the same time, I know that everything that I experience is the result of only my beliefs and my expectations, that they result in the choices I make and the situations that I experience. The same applies to everyone and everything, but my perception of that is subjective and different from their own subjective perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 13, 2024 15:03:26 GMT -5
surreal (adj.) "bizarre and dreamlike; characteristic of surreal art," 1936, a back-formation from surrealism or surrealist. Related: Surreally. surrealism (n.) mid-20c. avant-garde art and literary movement, 1927, from French surréalisme, from sur- "beyond" + réalisme . According to OED [2nd ed. print 1989] the French word was coined c. 1917 by Guillaume Apollinaire and taken up by André Breton as the name of the movement he launched in 1924 with "Manifeste de Surréalisme." It was taken up in English at first in the French form; the Englished version is from 1931. - De cette alliance nouvelle, car jusqu'ici les décors et les costumes d'une part, la chorégraphie d'autre part, n'avaient entre eux qu'un lien factice, il este résulté, dans 'Parade,' une sorte de surréalisme. [Apollinaire, "Notes to 'Parade' "]
========== More interesting: Breton's 1924 Surrealist Manifesto defines the purposes of Surrealism. He included citations of the influences on Surrealism, examples of Surrealist works, and discussion of Surrealist automatism. He provided the following definitions: - Dictionary: Surrealism, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.
Encyclopedia: Surrealism. Philosophy. Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life.
 The Treachery of Images (French: La Trahison des Images) is a 1929 painting by Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte. It is also known as This Is Not a Pipe, Ceci n'est pas une pipe and The Wind and the Song. It is on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The painting shows an image of a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (pronounced [sə.si ne paz‿yn pip], French for "This is not a pipe".) - The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe", I'd have been lying!
— René Magritte
Ahh, my favorite surrealist bit of art. Rene was correct, of course. A representation of something is not the thing itself. That's why I once bought an actual replica of Magritte's pipe, had it mounted on canvas and framed, and wrote these words below, "This is also not a pipe." Haha. Very few people understood what was being pointed to. To be perfectly accurate, I probably should have written, 'This is a pipe (for the purpose of dualistic symbolic communication) and NOT s pipe (as a pointer to the underlying non-verbal truth). I like your first draft much much better!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 13, 2024 15:14:07 GMT -5
FWIW, there is no "merging" with the Absolute because there are not two of anything, and it takes two to "merge." The realization is that what one IS is already the Absolute, but this does not mean what most people imagine. It doesn't mean special powers or anything like that. It means that one's ordinary everyday life is how the Absolute manifests. It's like relaxing into a felt sense of "flow" without the need to reflect upon it. In some nondual philosophies, the realization of oneness with Brahman can be seen as a merging of the individual self into the impersonal Absolute. In this context, "merging" can be understood as the dissolution of the illusion of separation between the individual self and the universal self—when one realizes their true identity as Brahman, the distinction disappears. Thus, it’s not a literal merging but rather a realization of non-separation. In short, self-realized nondualists consider themselves Brahman. But not only "themselves". See the koan of Mu! "All is Brahman", but the mind makes many a mess of that. A seeker that gravitates toward simplicity, toward seeing the false, as false, is attracting to the same existential Truth as a devotee of Christ or Krishna, practicing love. |
|
