hshshshshsh

You cannot measure consciousness. You are consciousness thinking of itself as the human. Measurement is an event appearing in consciousness done by humans.

It's like persons inside GTA talking about measuring the Samsung monitor. It makes no sense cause they can never see the monitor or locate it. They appear in the monitor.

Are we both talking about the same thing?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Why do you think God will have a name? Name is used by humans to identity a person among a lot of other persons. Why will God have a name if it is the only thing in existence?

To answer the question of why humans give name to God. It's to make god more relatable so that they can workshop it. And use devotion to come closer with it. Look up Bhakti Yoga.

Yes. Self awareness is just another content inside consciousness.

Yes. The man can never see consciousness. Only consciousness can see man.

Life is one omnipotent being. It's just ego, thoughts and social identity that creates the illusion of multiple beings.

But ego and names are made up. Separation just thoughts. The more life believes in thoughts it becomes divided.

But the waves and ocean are one.

You cannot define consciousness. You can only experience it. In fact consciousness is the only thing you will ever experience.

Am omnipotent being is a necessity for making observations. A lot of religions considers consciousness as God.

Big bang theory no longer excites me. As long as we can't explain consciousness all these theories are pointless. All theories mere appearances in consciousness including the universe and everything we experience.

Consciousness has the property to render infinite universes and theories.

But we have no clue how universe creates consciousness.

Assume God exists.

Various isolated cultures are going to come up with different names for God.

This like saying which Sun? Surya, Ra or Helios?

All are different names of sun. But there is only one sun.

Do humans reproduce. Yes.

Is life full of suffering. Yes.

Is life full of joy. Yes

All are true.

Are you able to sustain that? Or was this one off experiences?

How do I be free? I have tasted the freedom for a short time but I can't sustain it. A new ego has been formed after seeing through the old ego. And it also claims to be free of ego.

That's just your ego talking. The human race will be just fine with or without you raising kids. Our great great ancestor monkeys and fishes didn't raise their children to push their species to centuries further. They just existed and it's what they do as part of their nature. Trying to project meaning to it just ego at play.

Family like any other material possessions is just another building block for the ego. Trying to believe you own something or is something when nothing is permanent and everything is part of everything else.

It's also selfish to bring humans that goes through immense suffering in their life so that you get meaning out of life or get joy from kids.

That's a long chain of suffering you are creating. What do you do with that length?

You can act without belief in meaning. Trees and Earth for example works just fine.

Shouldn't you be on LinkedIn?

> This is especially true for friendly, competent, reasonable-seeming managers – people want to commiserate with winners

Interesting. My experience working inside big tech was thinking of managers as mostly losers who are neither technically strong but psycho enough to think they are better and can manage other engineers.

So I think of them as loosers who can't build a company from scratch but have parasitic tendencies to manage other people's money and time without having skin in the game.

Especially the ones who think they know better. And are active in LinkedIn.

That's fair. Never thought about it that way.

> Heaven's Gate mass suicide was a bad idea (and its justification was patently wrong: no soul was uploaded into the mothership)

From your POV and mine yes.

From their POV no. Clearly that's why they did it.

I agree what they did was probably a bad calculation and incorrect interpretation of the world given what I and you know about the world.

So from our POV it was a bad idea.

And from their POV it was a good idea and that's why they did it.

If they can reflect on it now they would likely call it a bad again.

Again subjective based on what they know about the world now.

> dominant strategies. This is an objective truth, and exercising the dominant strategy is objectively better than not.

From your POV people play to dominate and it's objective for you. But that's not the case for everyone. Some play to just play.

> Simply because someone believes something does not move the phenomenon to the subjective realm.

From your POV yes. From their POV no.

I never claimed mine was a good or bad idea.

Whatever criteria you are using to justify it's a good idea is your own subjective criteria. There is no good idea function cooked in reality which is objective across every observer.

Because there is no objective way to say whether something is a good idea or bad idea. It's always subjective.

There are no objectives. Just conditioned patterns one adapt to survive childhood.

Capable of making any arguments than name calling?

You got triggered because I said memorizing something doesn't make one smart. And called me an asshole.

You also said reading stuff in English give you less satisfaction than reading in Japanese.

You might want to reflect on why that is the case.