• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

What happens if your mind lives for ever on the internet?

The entities encountered on DMT are so beyond the human mind language would not even be able to come close to getting anywhere near to describing them. I believe in idealism that all is mind so the internet it self already some limited form of consciouness awareness.

DMT is usually a guaranteed "good trip" but good and bad are to pale in terms of what really goes in when everything you thought you knew about reality is totally shattered within 30 seconds and you die visist these other dimesions meet all sorts of biazzare fucking crazy other beings who are aware of you and can take any reaction to you research you study you want to anal probe your butthole and all sorts of shit. Most are loving divine beings. Then their is the trip to "hell" it cant get anyworse than visiting this realm on DMT it will give you PTSD you may of aswell gotten kidnapped and raped for years on earth forfor the mental rape these dark entities will do you to during the trip will fuck your psyche up and its a long road to recovery or you just kill yourself to end the torment. I believe dmt gives you a glimpse of your present karmic energy and where it is going to end up in the afterlife bad trips on dmt are extremely rare i think but if you see hell on that trip you better change your fucking life around cause that is what currently awaits you in the afterlife you contiune living like a asshole.

Ayahuasca is unique very unique if you resist your will have a very very bad time every cermony the shaman will probably deal with at least 1 person in the group who is either on a psychotic break or about to go psychotic. Their singing is from another plane and changes the trip up alot. But these shamans only give a fuck about your fat stack of money in your bank account so they feed their family and buy awesome material shit for them like the western world. The whole aya circles have gotten very fake most shamans are full of shit now,
 
TripSitterNZ said:
The entities encountered on DMT are so beyond the human mind language would not even be able to come close to getting anywhere near to describing them.
Click to expand...
Well, I think I described the visual content and what it "could mean to one" in my trip report fairly well even though now I'd describe it in entirely different terms because I'm a much less happy/satisfied person now without masking a lack of meaning in my life with NACC overactivation.

There was so much going on in such a small window of time that I'm 99.9% sure I missed a lot of the important/mind-breaking/blowing stuff a more learned person could have picked up on from the experience. I'm referring to the top of the tier scientific geniuses with phd degrees at the top of their fields or could give such people a run for their money. I know people like that, and they're non-drug users - it would have blown their mind.

The amount of kaleidoscopic visuals moving as quickly as the speed of light it seemed cannot be underscored.

Then again I was on the tail end of an LSD experience and injected DMT. 8(

TripSitterNZ said:
DMT is usually a guaranteed "good trip"
Click to expand...
FULLY disagree, honestly. The sheer intensity of a breakthrough IV dosage is euphoric, yes, but it's also dysphoric as it feels like you're dying (activates peripheral heart receptors through 5-ht and other receptors IIRC; the sheer NE surge is out of this world from this compound) and it's kind of like all the feelings and then some put together.

A lot of people find it enjoyable, yes, but it can be dysphoric/scary/too intense. Not everyone can handle a breakthrough DMT trip.

If you're talking about tiny puffs of the stuff for like a tiny + experience, then my bad. Because you're right; those are so soft/gentle that a + on DMT by itself, is just almost always a good time (but very underwhelming to my type of not the hardest-headed psychedelic but I used to like to push the boundaries way too far).
 
TripSitterNZ said:
Ayahuasca is unique very unique
Click to expand...
Indeed and I believe I will NEVER TRY THIS. 10-15 minute window = almost too much as is.

I eat 3g of mushrooms first time in 8 years about a few months ago, and it lasted 14 hours.

DMT+MAOI (preferably having taken MAOIs for a while) orally... would probably be an awesome and unbelievably scary experience that would top most of what I've done prior. I would not elect for it at this point in my life.
 
Oral DMT+MAOI is often times vomit inducing. It's not recreational at all.

I find the come up a lot more gentle than vaping DMT, however.

Concerning "your mind" on a galaxy far far away as is DMT land is completely irrelevant. The internet is simply a mirror to our world as humans. A very distorted, dirty mirror.
 
So it would be uploading your memories, knowledge, and experiences to a virtual brain that would think, behave, and react exactly as you would. Except, you aren't there, you're dead.


On some level this is deeply disturbing.
 
Cateturry3turrycan said:
So it would be uploading your memories, knowledge, and experiences to a virtual brain that would think, behave, and react exactly as you would. Except, you aren't there, you're dead.


On some level this is deeply disturbing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it puts into focus the question of what life is, what awareness is, what the self is. Is it possible to separate the self from the body? Or is it too fully dependent on the hardware? One thing's for sure, existing bodyless in the Internet would be the hell of a trip.

I watched a movie on Netflix recently, it's called "Her", with Joachin Phoenix. It takes place in the near future. Instead of phones, people have computers that are in this tiny little thing, and there's an earpiece and people are used to just talking to their computer all day, it's part of life. Then a company releases an AI operating system. And it's an actual person. The movie was really well done I thought, it explores the concepts we're talking about, kind of, the difference is the AI was never an actual human.
 
cduggles said:
Would you upload your brain so the virtual you could “live” forever?
Click to expand...
I would for sure, why not? I wouldn't necessarily have any expectation of experiencing a continuation of consciousness - although, I think, this might change if the practice became widespread enough that we were all being told frequently by uploaded people - or "former people", perhaps - that they were indeed conscious - even if we could never verify this prior to taking the plunge ourselves.

But then, I cannot truly verify that I am experiencing a continuation of consciousness from one moment to the next - or that my memories of being conscious in any moment prior to the immediate present represent any kind of objective reality. I also have no way of verifying that anyone or anything in the universe is truly aware, other than myself, although they tell me that they are and I generally believe them. The same is true, of course, for everyone - presumably. And I would of course claim to be conscious and self aware, whether I truly am or not.

Personally I feel that to dismiss the idea of a conscious mind inhabiting something other than a biological body is to inadvertently assign a unique and special importance to the material world that we can perceive - and specifically the tiny slice of time we find ourselves within - even though (I suspect) it is natural to intuit that the opposite is the case - that to suppose that consciousness or the "soul" can be intentionally transferred into a different substrate, even a non-biological one, somehow devalues the as yet inexplicable magic that is conscious experience. But, if consciousness, "mind" or "the soul" is anything more than an emergent property of inanimate matter, then there is little reason to think it should be bound to - and can only exist in - the specific material, and specifically, biological matter-forms that we currently, seemingly, inhabit. Otherwise, there is something special and unique about this material universe - something that strikes me as an improbably anthropocentric interpretation of reality. If the soul is not literally material, then the substrate of such is, surely, conceptually immaterial.

Digitization of consciousness and similar technological analogies that challenge our current understanding of the nature of reality invoke fears of "playing god" and fears of the artificial, which IMO are just iterations of the naturalistic fallacy - that somehow things that are not "natural" are less preferable, less good, or even less "real", whether that be thing be a drug, a medicine or an apparently conscious mind.

The logical fallacy as I see it is typically expressed as follows, or some variation thereof - "true self awareness only exists in biological life [as far as we are aware], therefore it can only exist in biological life - and even if it can exist elsewhere, it should not exist elsewhere, for this would be intrinsically wrong, morally and spiritually, and against the natural order of things."

But nothing is truly unnatural. If something that appears to be a digitized intelligence arises - whether that intelligence be entirely manufactured, so to speak, or a digital "copy" of a previously biological mind - it will be a product of the same universe that gave birth to us, and potentially no more "our" creation than humans are themselves a "creation" of our distant primate ancestors. And if this is the case one day, and if these "digital people" tell us that it feels like something to be them, then it may be yet another iteration of our very human arrogance and belief that we are unique and special to deny the possibility of that, and assert that we, the apex of evolution of biological, seemingly "ensouled" life on Earth, are and can be the only "true" beings to possess conscious awareness. Of course, humans are unique and special in some ways - but we have a long history of just assuming that we are more unique and special than we actually, probably, are.

Whether or not any continuity of consciousness can be said to have occurred, of course, is a separate and open question - but as I outlined above initially continuity of consciousness may well be an illusion anyway - or at the very least, of far less importance than most of us consider it to be today.

I will add finally that the mind is already software, and this is true independently of one's beliefs about the true nature of mind, and remains true as long as the conception of mind/soul/consciousness as something that is a part of and yet, somehow, separate from and interacting with the entirety of existence has any validity - and whether or not your preferred definition of such is an illusion or not. If this is not, to some extent, self-evident, then it may be a hard concept to grasp or to convey, but we exist always as the product of input sense data passing through what is (currently) something of a black-box data processing engine comprised of our memories, preferences, tendencies, beliefs, etc, and producing output in the form of choices, applications of will, and the subsequent influence on the same world from which we believe the vast majority of our input data to originate from. This fact does not change whether the internal machinations of such are occurring in the pure-material hardware space of electrochemical interactions of our biology, or in a more ethereal and transcendent space which will always defy measurement and will always remain outside the realm of material science. The only thing that changes is the substrate on which the software is running, either it is running purely in biology or purely in the ether, or some combination of both.

I would venture to say that this fact should even hold true even if you introduce an element of unknowable "magic" to the data processing engine of condensed awareness at the core of our being which defies linguistic explanation but exists separately and apart from what is otherwise, perhaps, in some sense a mechanistic interpretation of what "we" are - and, crucially, is not necessary for us to appear conscious. Depending on your beliefs about this, this may affect the possibility of creating an apparently conscious automaton which is not, in fact, self aware even though it tells us that it is - although I would question if one believes that this is the case if it is also possible for there to be soulless humans walking around. Most people would baulk at this idea, and, I think, rightly so, but reality is a strange place.
 
Last edited:
I would need assurance that my existence would have resonance not just word volley potential (discussion).
I live to enjoy the vibes, not just to chat.
 
w01fg4ng said:
The internet is simply a mirror to our world as humans. A very distorted, dirty mirror.
Click to expand...
To counter you (politely) I will say that the distorted, dirty mirror is or is not in our minds.

the tendency for one to understand oneself through the perception which others may hold of them
Click to expand...
And if you trace the "what do they think of me/what should I think of myself" all the way backwards, you'll find there is no original self-identity and people either create it or there was none to begin with, and to be nothing/something is a personal choice/realization.

The internet, social media, actual mirrors and digital ones as well (using a cell phone to gauge your reaction mirrored with Mrs. White's half way mirror; which displays not how you actually look in reality but how you will be seen on camera or television WHERE IT MATTERS THE MOST [least in reality; most to those with this phenomena]) are all facets OF a larger phenomena going on largely in people's heads.

Cateturry3turrycan said:
So it would be uploading your memories, knowledge, and experiences to a virtual brain that would think, behave, and react exactly as you would. Except, you aren't there, you're dead.


On some level this is deeply disturbing.
Click to expand...
Actually if the thing was a possibility it would be an excellent philosophical experiment, like is your mind separate from your brain. Any uploaded brain connected to a dead person would likely not render any output in a materialistic world and would still continue to do so in a dualistic one.

The latter could be a false positive, or not.

It's not deeply disturbing: it's a total waste of human brainpower and technology.

Save planet earth. Do not save your consciousness. That is not a worthy objective, you're already here.
 
I have no wish to live forever. But living longer in a computer simulation? Yeah I'd totally be up for that. So long as the other people are other people and not simulations.
 
Yeah the living forever part is kinda what gets me. I believe that awareness/consciousness is a property of the universe so in that sense we are living forever, but living forever as the same individualized identity... I am quite sure you'd get utterly sick of it eventually. As I approach 40 I can see wanting to live longer than I am likely to live. But not forever. Forever is a LONG time.
 
Well, I believe there some as yet undiscovered property of the universe responsible for consciousness, that may not be easily transferred to a computer simulation even if it correctly simulated the rest of the mind.

For that reason, in reality I'd probably be very averse to using such a technology (or any other technology involving mind transference or brain disassembly). But I assumed for the sake of this discussion that that wouldn't be a problem.
 
I sure as hell wouldn't be anywhere near the first wave of people in the new technology... that's for sure.

I have doubts whether it is even possible to translate a person;s consciousness outside of their physical hardware and into digital format. Our brains aren't digital. Our perception as the people we identify ourselves as being, our personalities, are intricately linked to the physical form we have, especially the physical form of the brain.

Whether it is possible for a computer to become sentient is a different matter. I don't know if it is but I think it's much more likely than it is that we could upload Xorkoth into the Internet and I would still have a continuous experience and be the same person. Changing the hardware can change the personality.
 
I have little doubt that sentient machines are possible. Computers may be digital, but they can accurately model analog systems. And our brains work similarly in that our brains are essentially switching networks.

To me the problem is consciousness. If you were perfectly duplicated, presumably you (the original) would continue to interact in the world with a continuing stream of consciousness just as you always have. Only with a duplicate who also believes its you.

But if you (the original) were to then die. You'd have a version of you, apparently identical, yet somehow not, somehow different in not having the same consciousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top