At this stage of my life, you could think of me as a Happy Consciousness Detective. I have graduated from spiritual seeker to spiritual finder.
I have, for my entire lifetime, been searching for the owner’s manual for a human being. My method of search has been to use consciousness to observe consciousness, i.e., consciousness as an object of consciousness. I was looking for that which is looking; and I found what I was looking for.
I have been to the mountaintop but did not die there, rather, I have returned to share what I found, which I believe would be of value for other humans to also know. In my posts I pass along to readers some discoveries from my spiritual quest.
Anyone who applies consciousness to observe consciousness will, if you persist long enough (it could be days; it could be decades), you will come face to face with yourself, that you did not even know was yourself. I call that self, enself. Once you know enself, there can be no retreat after that from living a self-actualized life.
My forthcoming book, The Secret Cosmos: Consciousness Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, is not a speed read. The Secret Cosmos is an effort read. It will be worth whatever effort you put in; your effort will be richly rewarded. That is my promise to you. I have strong feeling-belief-confidence that you will receive benefits from grokking the justified knowledge that I share with you.
I have not written this book for a Sesame Street attention span. I ask more than that from my readers. The book is an offering of love. However, readers must accept that love and return it, by making an effort to grok the meaning I intend to communicate. I intend the love to be requited.
I am seeking pre-publication reader feed for The Secret Cosmos: Consciousness Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I am posting excerpts at my Substack feed: https://allink.substack.com/ and will also be posting at LessWrong about currently important social issues, for instance AI (artificial intelligence), economics and democracy.
My detective method (think Al Link-method, not Sherlock Holmes-method😊), is to compare what I know with certainty about consciousness with what others say about what they claim to know (about whatever their subject matter happens to be). For instance, I have managed to resolve some rather significant mysteries in philosophy, theology, quantum physics, mathematics of physics, technology, methods of spiritual practice, etc.
Using my detective method, I consider what a physicist says about quantum physics and see logical contradictions. I keep looking, and see, ways to explain quantum physics without those logical contradictions. With this method I have resolved the logical contradictions of quantum entangled superpositions (really!).
I italicize see because it has a not-so-obvious meaning. I use see as synonymous with know, understand or grok. Furthermore, if you see, you know something for sure, which is the closest to knowing with certainty that is possible. It is urgent we find a way to arrive at consensus based upon some foundation of certainty, beyond opinion, belief, lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and stupidity.
The foundation of certainty is seeing natural a-priori axioms and applying sound logical inference, without logical contradiction. Logical contradiction is a killer of certainty, killer of truth, and poses an existential threat to human civilization, not to mention democracy, personal happiness, sustainable economics, safe technology, and a global social culture of personal freedom.
My method of seeing can be used by any human being, who makes an honest effort to master it. You can learn how to identify and avoid logical contradictions, particularly the fatal logical contradictions, reification, and infinite regress, which I have discovered, virally infect the science of physics and the mathematics of the science of physics. Unfortunately, it also virally infects a great deal of philosophy and theology.
With a foundation of natural a-priori axioms I coherently describe a full path from eternal to consciousness to information to physical.
I share simple spiritual practices that led me to the mountaintop.
I will guide you step-by-step through my owner’s manual for human beings. The motivation for my search, has from the beginning, been happiness. My original definition of enlightenment, as a young boy, was being happy. I was lost, certainly not happy, but now I have found my enself, and happiness is intrinsic to enself. Hence, confessions of a happy consciousness detective. By the way, when you find enself, you see = know with certainty, I’m yours and you are mine, and that is reason enough for love, but that leaves lots of room for civil disagreements about ideas, assumptions, opinions and beliefs. I acknowledge you might not agree with what I believe I know for sure, and I respect your right to have a different point of view. Nevertheless, I do explain why I believe what I know for sure, and challenge you to do the same.
I believe, with the strongest possible feeling-belief confidence, grounded in natural a-priori axioms, that consensus about what we can collectively know for sure, is the only possible route to manifesting: 1) personal happiness, 2) harmony living with each other, and 3) harmony living within the limits of nature.
all good things,
Al Link Detroit, MI, USA https://allink.substack.com/ 19 July 2023
Hello Eliezer, glad to have some interaction with you about these vital ideas. I was excited that you bothered to comment on my post, but alas, my excitement was shut down rather prematurely, when I tried to reply to your comment with another post (longer than I want to place in a comment box), but was blocked from doing so.
Apparently my “downvote karma” is −24 for my post “Secret Cosmos: Introduction,” and my total karma is −30 based upon my two previous short posts, when I first opened my LessWrong account (three post total so far, not counting my bio post; I don’t think anyone can downvote a bio page). I guess that means 30 people actually said they did not like my post? It is not clear from the explanation of “rate limit” posted at LessWrong if that is what −30 means. I understand the number −30, but I remain baffled, nonetheless. Thirty people down-karma-voted my posts? Really? No one else ventured to say why they down-karma-voted my posts; no one else left any comment at all. Sort of like, when the KKK burns a cross on someone’s front lawn but cover their faces.
Thank you for making yourself known to me.
Note: I really do not have any issue with 30 people not liking my ideas, but not liking my ideas without saying a word about what it is they disagree with, is not my idea of rational dialog in search of truth. I acknowledge that everyone is welcome, even to a wrong opinion, but common courtesy and etiquette suggest they defend whatever opinion they have with something more fundamental to justify that opinion.
In any case, the reply I have created to your comment and to you post “Infinite Certainty” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, https://www.lesswrong.com/s/FrqfoG3LJeCZs96Ym/p/ooypcn7qFzsMcy53R
is now posted on my Substack feed: Can We Agree on Anything for Sure? - by Al Link (substack.com)
I really do hope I have misinterpreted what is going on at LessWrong, but it all just seems to come down to, some of the folks at LessWrong really cannot tolerate the apparently dangerous idea that certainty could be not only possible, but actually necessary. I hope for all of our best interests, that is not actually the case with LessWrong. If it turns out that LessWrong is really an intolerant platform, I will simply not return there looking to engage its users in any further rational dialogue about truth.