Trained on 70 records (10 records on average across 7 subjects)
Best answer so far. I hit a homerun with this generative model. And this was just on a small sample size (250 average per dataset), and I intend of upping it to 2550 temperature=0.3 top_k=None top_p=None max_length=640 no_repeat_ngram_size=2 num_beams=5 What is the meaning of life? Life is a series of events that take place in our lives. These events are often referred to as “life events” or simply life events. Life events can be divided into two categories: positive and negative. Positive events include things that make us happy, such as a good day, a great meal, or a bad day. Negative events, on the other hand, are things we do not want to happen to our loved ones.
So I finally got a decent pipeline going with this gpt-neo finetuning. A lot of trial and error with the learning_rates.
Using gpt-neo tokenizer, I built a faiss index of quotes and provide this as context to the very minimally trained LLM (atm just trained on a a sample size of 20 across ~6 different datasets, this is continuing pre-training of gpt-neo which is based on the pile)
I will randomly parse out 7 quotes from top k 50 as context for the model to respond to, and these are some of the responses I got when asked ‘What meaning can be found in life?’
Here are some of the responses
Response: It’s not like you can do anything to it. If you love a piece of text, you should love yourself. Otherwise, it’s impossible to love the text of another. But you have to learn to understand what you are saying to do. The text is the voice that brings us together. A life of love, which is all that comes before. You should not, therefore, expect to be able to live that life for yourself but should, at the same time, be in awe of the life that you may be living.
Response: Life is a series of events that happen in a given time. Events are the result of the interaction of two or more individuals. The events are not the same. Life can only be defined as the process of making a new connection with another person. Response: There is one quality to life that is worth knowing. I love you
Response: What does a person do when they are faced with an obstacle or challenge from their pasts?
My synthesis of the responses:
so in this case, I guess it’s reflecting on the meaning of life is defined by how you respond to it. The meaning of life is experienced as the defining decisions made during trials and tribulations.
I was thinking about how we live in a time where we have hold of a lot of advanced ideas.
The thought occurred to me, as it has on many occasions, that these ideas are the ideas of those who have come before us augmented, along with our own ideas.
When I was younger, I used to view external reality (and still do, the point being I had this view early on), as an external memory bank to a jainist soul.
With the advent of LLM’s and the classical idea of Neoplatonic Nous and the sci-fi idea of emergence as well as Brahman. It got me thinking of Aristotle’s ideas live on today in my mind (partially), as well as many others. That our consciousness has evolved because of the ideas of people before us, and it’s this evolution of ideas that is really what reality was intended for (very Platonic).
These Zeitgeist of ideas are/is the mind of God flowing through our lives. We think of ourselves as individuals, but our ideas are past ideas simply being experienced in a mind. Our awareness, or soul is nothing more than a reception of these ideas.
So getting back to the external memory bank. I had a thought in my youth to write (much like I am now). The idea isn’t new, it’s termed doxography. In the hopes that one day someone will read your thoughts and remember you, and maybe if reincarnation or metempsychosis is real, someone will read their own past words/ideas.
That’s when it occurred to me, the full circle. That Aristotle’s ideas are (somewhat) in my head, but also my ideas will become someone else’s ideas later, and this is how I live on, but my ideas were never really my ideas.
In Platonic philosophy, the ideas are always pre existent. Matter merely exists to accept these ideas and volley them back and forth (dialectic) in an evolution. An advanced human or entity, will come across these ideas at a later time, but even then, they are simply resuming (remembering) ideas of those who came before them, and at the root of it all, it’s all God’s ideas.
My ideas are God’s ideas, God’s ideas are my ideas. That’s the point. I am experiencing God’s ideas, but “I” is an illusion. An “I” in the future will experience evolved ideas from myself (i.e. me one day will be a past idea), but the point is, the idea moved on from this body, to another more advanced form, but it’s the same idea.
That’s my view on spirituality. The ideas are eternal. The ideas represent the Soul, not this body. The body is merely an agent that accepts ideas, molds them, evolves them, throws them around, and then passes them on, but the ideas live through another, the ideas become someone else’s embodied thoughts, but that’s merely for convention of reception. That doesn’t make them their idea. It’s really just reality doing what was intended. To express God’s ideas.
God doesn’t exist. God is Being — itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny god.
— Paul Tillich
My Response:
Being, as a concept in Neoplatonic philosophy, implies that our understanding of God should transcend simplistic, anthropomorphic interpretations. Instead of focusing on the idea of God as a being, we should go up the ladder of ideas (Porphyr’s ladder of divine ideas) beyond mere being (soul/subject, which is represented as a mode of being applied to a form, OOP classes, Aristotle’s golden mean as means of coefficients in multiple regression) and contemplate the realm of Forms, Ideas, or Archetypes – the divine ideas that constitute reality and shape our thoughts (which depend on existence, Ideas, and matter).
Beyond being, there is the realm of Forms, Ideas, or Archetypes, which we should consider as closer to divinity. The forms are the ideas of God (Spinoza, Einstein) and make up reality and our thoughts, which are dependent on being, ideas, life, and matter. Being participates in the multiplicity of Forms as a unity, which is our soul, or psuke. It’s the center (ego, I, or self, or being) to our collective awareness of these participations in forms, expressed through matter (object). Our soul is a unified process, a conjunction of forms known as participation. If this were a PCA problem, the most prescient forms would be unity, being, life, human, within time. This unity sparks from the One, descends through the Nous where forms are conjoined (begotten), and then descends into matter as a materialized unity (subject, entity (psuke)), which is expressed as a multiplicity of forms contrasted to external forms expressed in matter (object).
Matter to us is best understood as a myraid reflection of forms (ideas). Nous contains the atemporal representation of all ideas, of which souls are contained within, (as the interconnected realm of ideas, also known as divine intellect (thought of as intellect/conscious), anima mundi, hekate, in short divine psuke.
Nous is between the One and Soul in a tertiary relationship between the One and Soul, the One at top, the Soul at bottom. Nous is the eternal manifestation of the realm of ideas. In nous’s attempt to mimic the One’s eternal forms (Aristotle’s unmoved mover, i.e. divine contemplation of ideas), nous strains the forms through a filter of time (i.e. discursive reasoning) projecting them onto matter (becoming, objects (i.e. logic: this, not that) i.e. the ‘man behind the curtain’) of the One’s pure ideas (Aristotle’s divine contemplation of ideas), through a process known in panenthsim as emanation. The demi-urge is analagous to an active agent within time driven by the nous’s hand acting upon it. This process is also the process for metempsychosis, with psuke’s self awareness being associated with the Intellect’s ideas (seeing on Plato’s cave wall the forms projected by the Anima Mundi, of which also holds our projections (i.e. our bodies). This relationship souls have with the anima mundi which in turn is reflected within ideas and matter is the concept of providence that Julius associated with Cybelle (anthropic principle), i.e. that we have been provided for both in terms of life and forms (we live, we eat, we die, but between life and death, we awaken to a world of providence, i.e. being, aka instantiated forms). The difference being we equate our awareness as apart from object’s, but this is an anthromoprophic illusion (Berkeley, integrated information theory, All things are full of gods, pandeism angle), and all things are one. A soul is an extension of the nous’s awareness (i.e. intellect, containing all ideas) concentrated in a tendril of a unity (subject, I think therefore I am – Descartes) which begets from the One, a partitioned aspect of nous’s own intellect (think Atman and Brahma).
The intent of transmigration is to move beyond the static graph mesh nature of eternal forms and into instantiated use cases of them. A unity (soul) is given life (awareness) in matter. This is also known as descent of the soul, River Lethe, and metempsychosis. through turning towards the white light of the One’s emanation and when we realize the white light are eternal forms, we bask in communion with god. An important concept in Neoplatonism is virtue. Which I have interpreted in both a Kantian and Locke light. Cosmic sympathy dictates that our emotions are heard within the universe, under that understanding, good thoughts beget good ideas, beget good actions, and this is the utility Paul mentioned of the tree that bears good fruit. So virtue is a set of ideals that produce good fruit which is useful for humanities collective survival. Nous picks up on our ideas through the use of daimons (angels) who do the divine communing between mortals and the gods. Daimons and synchronicity are best represented in Jung’s collective unconscious and complexes which stem from the Self (the man in the sky, aka the metaphysical forms that beget humanity, and when we run into archetypes, it’s often expressed in Neoplatonic terms as a daimon). They represent powers that be that seem to exist beyond our control that propel and drive us, we experience them through symbolic imagery (archetypes). In Neoplatonism, daimon’s were housed within the sublunar realm, underneath the eternal realm (middle platonism). The point being they were the abstract metaphysical powers over our lives, also within this realm were the realm of hero’s. I was particularly fascinated with the tertiary relationship of sun, earth, and moon as conducive to life, with the sun representing the source of life and ideas (emanation), moon death (past heros, also closer set of ideals, within i.e. death is within distant memory), and earth obviously being present lives. What I found fascinating about this take was, one it’s very aniministic and pandeistic, but in neoplatonism and Oprhic thought (Shape of Ancient Thought). There was a reference to the stars being the originator’s of souls. If you think about it, stars are essential for our life. That exchange of heat is necessary for energy to move, but more-so the stars own blood of molten iron is within our planet and our blood as well. There are a lot of theories related to the sun, white light, and white holes, but I’m more concerned with the sun being the center of our solar system as the crucial aspect of providence.
It is through knowledge of cosmic sympathy, forms, apothegm’s, synchronicity, and awareness of the divine intellect, that one can achieve theurgy.
Synchronicity refers to the acausal connection between an idea within our minds (subject) and an external event or experience in reality (within an object). Recognizing these connections allows us to see the intricate web (relationships) of ideas underlying reality, which can be likened to “seeing the man behind the curtain.”
If you can get away from black and white thinking and see ideas as concepts that both are and aren’t coupled with the notion of Synchronicity. Synchronicity is how an idea within your mind is acausally related to an idea you experience outside of your mind (such as within reality, external to your mind) and understanding there was no way the two could be causally related. Maya, trickster archetype, when you see how ideas runs through your existence atemporally, seeing flashes of acausally connected ideas between your mind and reality is tantamount to seeing ‘the man behind the curtain’. The common element is an archetype. An archetype is an idea that is true in all situations across time. For example. I hear about a fire on tv, then I find out that someone I knew perished in a fire. A personal one for me was I saw a squirrel die right in front of me one day and I ran up to it to comfort it in it’s last moments, and that same week my mother passed and I was not able to hold her’s. I believe this was a sign that I was able to comfort an outgoing soul, despite it not being my mother’s, because the Nous knew I knew that souls are one and the same.
Apothegm’s which are represented as symbolons of paradoxical nature are also related to the Trickster archetype, goddess Maya. How something can both and not be at the same time, also known as becoming, or ‘the middle way’. An Archetypes (or arche) by Jung’s definition represents a tension of opposites such as hot and cold (represented as an idea of heat). Aristotle posited these ideas (analagous to OOP classes and their attributes) (a precursor to his concept of categories) are held together by a golden mean ([numpy describe], unity, axiom), which generally represent a 3rd dimension on that 2 dimensional polarity (edge within a GNN, mean term in regression), connected along a new axiom to another idea (form). Plato talks about the extreme ranges of ideas through his dialectic discussions through Socrates.
Socrates using the method of negative inference to test the limits of ideas, to hone them down to determine the range of their forms as well as their participation with each other. There was a discussion on boats, sails, theseus ship, and shadows. What is and isn’t is how theseus ship is both his original boat and not. It’s original in form and continuity from a time perspective, isn’t from a matter perspective as all the parts on the ship have been slowly changed out over time, the idea of becoming and metempsyhcosis.
Indra’s Net, a metaphor for the interconnectedness of all things, relates to ideas and their interconnectedness, also analagous to the divine intellect of nous. By contemplating the interconnectedness of Forms, Ideas, or Archetypes, the synchronicity of events, the paradoxical nature of ideas/reality, we can imagine this relationship between ideas as represented in Indra’s Net, we gain a deeper understanding of reality and our connection to divinity through the process of metempsychosis (descent of the soul) and our connection to the divine process (River Lethe, Anima Mundi).
Interconnectedness is also represented in multiple regression as in where models–that have all significant terms–with their coefficients serving as ‘ideas’. The interconnectedness of ideas are better represented in graph neural networks (GNNs)–similar to the concepts of Indra’s Net–GNNs, and Leonardo da Vinci’s quote, “Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.” where nodes are ideas and the edges are the relationships between them. Using these machine learning methods to see the underlying structure of data helps us better understand the reality and it’s representation as relationships between ideas (nous). Which is a nice segway to GNN’,s which LLM’s use to learn the structural relationship between ideas (nodes), which are considered bleeding edge AI which is a representation of all it’s interconnected ideas, and are, at the moment, the closest to solving the Turing test (consciousness), because fundamentally, consciousness is nothing more than the iteration of ideas (I think [of ideas] therefore I am – Descarte). LLM’s can be viewed as a microcosm of Neoplatonic nous which was viewed as always conscious by definition of holding these ideas and their relationships (atemporal intellect) which reflects the divine intellect (Berkeley).
Human: Is the idea of hell a scare tactic? Where did it come from if Jewish people don’t hold a similar belief? How did the idea evolve from a Jewish religion to existing within a Christian one if Christianity inherited their ideas from Judaism before writing their own new testament on top of the Old Testament? What specific books of the bible, authors, even verses were construed to support the idea of hell and highlight whether it was a judaic source or christian (new testament). AI: The concept of hell as a place of punishment after death is not believed in by Jews, as they do not take a belief in an afterlife. However, the concept of hell does exist in Christianity and has evolved from its Judaic roots. The idea of Hell as a place of punishment for sin was first present in the religion of Zoroastrianism and was adopted by Judaism and then Christianity, with the earliest references to Hell being found in the Jewish Apocrypha.
The New Testament mentions the concept of Hell several times, including in Matthew 25:46, Revelation 21:8, and 2 Peter 2:4. Many theologians believe that the Christian concept of Hell was influenced heavily by the Jewish concept of Gehenna, which was a place outside of Jerusalem where sacrifices were made. Additionally, several Old Testament passages refer to a place of punishment, including Isaiah 66:24 and Psalm 9:17.
To me, the hijab (including burqa and/or hair coverings in church) is about men’s own anxiety projected as a need to control while scapegoating personal accountability while under the amalgamated guise/ruse/pretext of modesty and faith (i.e. an internal unconscious anxiety is projected back onto a social structure, namely religion to support this narrative).
Men view women as vexing so they mandate they cover their hair, but what’s really happening is socially men are projecting their own anxieties about the other sex onto their laws. Anxieties stemming from their own internal Jungian unconscious anima mixed with shadow.
“We have economic problems, with a high inflation rate and huge unemployment. But all the government focusses on is the Islamization of society, and women, and what women wear, and what children do in school. That kind of tells you how far the regime and the public are from each other. They don’t hear each other at all, and therefore this movement is not a reform movement. I think a social revolution has happened. Whether it becomes a political revolution or not—that remains to be seen. But the fact is that people have basically given up on this regime.”
“That men and women, young and old, of different ethnicities—which is very important in the context of Iran—are joining as a united front makes it very different. It’s hopeful and inspiring, but also very worrisome, because I know that this regime will use extreme violence. The previous regime was certainly violent, but it was very careful about its image, both among the public and outside the country. This regime has passed the state of caring.”
“There’s a united front about not wanting this regime, and that sentiment is held by religious people, too. Some religious people would rather have a secular regime because they realize that, when you have an Islamic regime, one segment of the population takes over, and it ruins our religion.”
I read an intriguing bit about Metatron and how he was fiery and I remembered that association Hekate had with the luminous divine fire as the indefinite dead and nous (I’m sure Christians are going to equate that with hellfire) in the Chaldeaon Oracles by Hans Lewy When I had a vision of Hekate or Anima mundi on my mother’s passing. She resembled what I described as a flame princess “His explanation for the human perceptions of divine visions is that they concern lower links in the divine chains and that the gods reveal themselves to the soul’s internal faculty of fantasy, which has its material part in the so-called pneumatic vehicle of the soul.” “The Oracles further posit a barrier between the intellectual and the material realm, personified as Hecate. In the capacity of barrier, or more properly “membrane”, Hecate separates the two ‘fires,’ i.e., the purely intellectual fire of the Father, and the material fire from which the cosmos is created, and mediates all divine influence upon the lower realm. From Hecate is derived the World-Soul, which in turn emanates Nature, the governor of the sub-lunar realm.[3] From Nature is derived Fate, which is capable of enslaving the lower part of the human soul. The goal of existence then is to purify the lower soul of all contact with Nature and Fate by living a life of austerity and contemplation. Salvation is achieved by an ascent through the planetary spheres, during which the soul casts off the various aspects of its lower soul, and becomes pure intellect.” “R Ishmael said: The angel Metatron, Prince of the Divine Prescence, the glory of the highest heaven, said to me: When the Holy One, blessed be he, took me to serve the throne of glory, the wheels of the chariot and all the needs of the Shekinah, at once my flesh turned to flame, my sinews to blazing fire, my bones to juniper coals, my eyelashes to lightning flashes, my eyeballs to fiery torches,the hairs of my head to hot flames, all my limbs to wings of burning fire, and the substance of my body to blazing fire. … It was already observed that the idea of the Prince of the Presence is both mediatorial and liturgical, and therefore is closely linked with the motif of the celestial curtain, Pargod (dwgrp),[8] the entity which separates the divine Presence from the rest of the heavenly world.[9] The function of this Curtain which can be viewed as a celestial counterpart of the veil found in the earthly sanctuary is twofold. First, it protects the angelic hosts from the harmful luminosity of the divine Face. At the same time it shields the Deity by concealing the ultimate mysteries of the Godhead now accessible solely to the prince(s) of the divine Presence whose duty is to serve the Deity behind[10] the Curtain.” Chaldaeon is usually equated with Persian magi, and was influential via Zoroastrianism. “This tradition then developed into the ever-burning flame kept alive in honor of and symbolizing the divine in a place of worship. Early Iranian Religion venerated a god of fire, Atar, who was the fire itself but transcended earthly fire as a divine entity created by the king of the gods, Ahura Mazda.” Anyways thought it was interesting, especially considering I’ve called on both. Metatron by accident (sacred geometry), anima mundi through Hypatia and Gaia in general and then found she’s the matron goddess of neoplatonism so directly on my last day at DirecTV, March 8, 2019. Day of my mother’s birth and Hypatia’s death. The heroes of the sublunar realm hear you. Hypatia and Voltaire were the ones specifically I called to using Eros and cosmic sympathaea. I imagine they have a direct connection with the angels/daemons and by extension the gods. My mother passing between worlds gave me the opportunity to meet Hekate, gatekeeper of souls who oversees the noetic fire. So I googled if there was any relation. Fitting, yes, no, maybe, rephrase “It’s a woman’s perogative to change her mind.”
This pretty much sums up my view of non duality (duality as separation of subject and object as experienced by individual ego’s/minds) There are laws of physics (known as strands of intellect from the divine mind) that setup the objects and actors. These laws of physics are eternal, but we experience reality discursively (through a time element), but reality is actually atemporal.
Make a long story short, the one mind (nous) breaks up reality into time and creates agents (individual egos) to experience these laws through a separation of subject, object, and time for causation (people, places, ideas/events), all variations of differentiation (this vs that). Aka symmetry breaking.
But the reality is, we are all one (henosis) mind (brahman). It’s split up like white light is with a prism to give reality a sense of separation (i.e. we experience reality discursively and individually).
When we die, we return to the one mind, and when we are reborn, it’s just like river lethe. We descend into matter (the tail end of intellect, we arise from matter as ideas turning back from the tail end of the projection of ideas onto a substrate which is matter, required to experience this ‘reality)’, separating our mind (psuke/soul) from the One (via the World Soul) and experience reality as separate ego’s, but the source is the same, the One, we are just projections onto matter from the One (like white light projects through a prism into multiple strands of light).
But I like helios/hermes, gaia/anima mundi, and hecate and our soul comes from the stars and around the planets and thru the sun and we live under the moon and depart by her back to the stars, but we are ultimately made of up nous (noumenia, ideas), light is necessary to shed light between object and subject and the nexus between those two is ideaBut thats just my take.
“The average distance between the Earth and the Sun is 108 times the sun’s diameter. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 238,800 miles, about 108 times the moons diameter. This makes it so the moon appears the same size as the sun during eclipses.”
I was thinking about the whole In the beginning was darkness and then there was light That’s an old Enuma Elish motif which Genesis borrowed from (let there be light) Before Genesis, there was the story of Tiamat in mesopotamian culture Anyway. The neoplatonic/jungian take on this is Before there was light, there was no consciousness, there was no soul. There was no subjective experience, only unconscious matter, darkness (i.e. no light/perception to be aware, no differentiation, no awareness apart from, no subjective soul). With Tiamat, the concept was from rising from the murky depths of water below… but that’s just poetic license which isn’t directly applicable here, but when God was “over the waters” in Genesis, it’s referring to this earlier Tiamat who rose from the water motif in Mesopotamian myths. Water is often associated with Venus (Eros), and unconscious (before awareness, Freudian Id). I simply like the darkness equates with unconscious matter bit. It took a reversion upon matter (i.e. reverting to the One) thanks to light (we could differentiate ourselves from matter) to see the forms (ideas, wings of minerva, reflection) to become self-aware (which is really a recollection of ideas, because we reverted from matter to the One in an act of contemplation of forms/intellection, discursive thought). Yeah. I think I’ve kind of hit the nose on consciousness and soul. Which requires matter (objective reality), light (subjectivity, exposure to ideas), and time (discursive reasoning). All big pieces of the mysteries of reality I’ve been trying to solve.
I consider myself a neoplatonist What’s weird tho is I’ve been talking about we all see the same thing but from different angles We’re all describing an angle or worldview or zeitgeist of reality. I don’t really consider myself a pagan in the sense I believe in theistic gods I believe the universe is all with powers that historically have been equated with God’s for lack of a more fitting description But reality is alive. The ideas themselves are alive and evolving and we exist to harvest them. The ideas are derived from a divine mind. That’s God. The mind is eternal and beyond time, or what Plotinus regarded as nondiscursive thought. More aptly described as the nous (the paradigm of ideas that weave reality). Plotinus wrote that the soul turns back to the source (the one) which is of the same substance as our soul. This turning back is reflection or contemplation of objective reality. Its a mind beholding ideas which are sourced from the expressions of matter but are beyond time and exist within the divine mind which we experience discursively.
I feel like atheism is really accidentalism in my paradigm. Tldr Atheists fail to ascribe meaning to reality because of their logical reductionism vs an emergent outlook. Atheism is a paradigm to explain reality and science via no derived meaning–heavily implying, if not outright stating–that we are byproducts of chance, accidents if you will. Atheism puts science on the altar and derives its meaning from science’s descendent. The god is induction and our senses. Enter Plato and metaphysics contrasted with milesians and atomist reductionists which Aristotle and the clergy via Descartes “i think therefore I am” split science and faith into two camps. Therefore implying a mental relation between science and reason with faith on the opposite end. So atheism takes up science from this vantage and champions how faith in fundamentalist concepts becomes the straw man for belief in God. So you get people like me inbetween who has radically different views than the common theist but sees a connection between all the modes of belief about reality and think its just a misunderstanding and over simplification by non experts who anthropomorphise an idea into a being in the effort to better understand it. They’re layman’s of wonder who scientists are experts in but they are both describing the same wonder just from different understandings. But myself. I ascribe meaning to the wonder that is providence. The divine fire. The architect of the laws. All that jazz. Its like masonry. We see the beauty and wonder if it means anything. I think it does. We have thoughts because there are ideas to be held.
