Marius Schober

Progress Through Consciousness

Tag: Philosophy

  • Human Debt

    •

    4 min read

    Yesterday I read a book chapter where the author, Thomas Gonschior, interviewed neuroscientist Gerald Hüther. Pre-AI he diagnosed what he called the “machine age mindset”. He said that decades of efficiency optimization treated employee as objects, suppressed intuition, punished initiative, and produced a workforce that functions as prescribed but creates nothing novel. Companies then began complaining that “the spirit of innovation is gone”, oblivious that they had created systems that killed it.

    Hüther’s argument is more structural than sentimental: when you treat humans like machines, they lose the capacities that make them human.

    While reading the chapter, I realized that the entire “AI transition” debate might be build on a fantasy. Everyone is saying once AI is handling the boring routine work, humans will be “freed” for higher-order thinking – creativity, intuition, judgment, inspiration, vision, etc.

    But Hüther exposed this fantasy before today’s AI was even launched. What he said is that the machine age didn’t just automate tasks but also the people operating the machines. Fifty years of KPI regimes, efficiency mandates, and management-by-fear produced exactly what was incentivized in the beginning: a workforce that waits for instructions, avoids-risks, and counts the hours until closing time. The human capacities that AI cannot replicate – the ones every CEO and HR department now claims to value – were systematically destroyed by the very management philosophies those CEOs inherited.

    I call this Human Debt: the accumulated deficit in creativity, intuition, courage, intrinsic motivation which were created by decades of efficiency-first management. Like technical debt, it was invisible as long as the old system kept running. AI is now the transformation that will make it visible.

    Consequentially, this makes the companies most celebrated for their operational excellency – tight processes, lean operations, disciplined execution cultures – carry the highest amount of Human Debt. They optimized for decades for the exact qualities and capabilities which AI now commoditizes, while destroying the capacities that AI cannot replicate.

    At the same time, this is not an easy training problem. You can not re-build intuition in a 6-week “re-skilling” program, you cannot “restore” courage through a change management seminar. Hüther talked about Enthusiasm which he refered to as a “spark that jumps”; it will be hard to “legislate” sparks in organizations that spent decades extinguishing them.

    This means – ironically – that companies that will win the AI transition are not the ones deploying the most AI but the ones that, against every incentive of the machine age and the new AI era, somehow preserved and preserve their people’s capacity to be human.

    If you are CEO of a company ask yourself honestly: if you free your people from routine and delegated tasks, can they actually create? If the answer is no, your AI “transformation” will bring efficiency gains but undifferentiated from anyone else you compete with. The organizations that combine AI automation with genuine human agency (not the PowerPoint version) will win.

    At the same time, Human Debt is an yet invisible and unpriced liability on every balance sheet. Companies with high operational discipline + low innovation culture are short a put they don’t know they sold. We are still early, but post-AI-deployment we will see organizations with productivity gains plateauing within 12-18 months, because the “freed” humans have nothing genuinely creative or inventive to contribute. This plateau will be the Human Debt surfacing.

    For companies that will now face decisions over AI-driven restructurings, the most important assessment must be on Human Debt. Organizations risk laying off people who are genuinely creative but AI-slow, while promoting and keeping those who operate the AI like machines. Those with high Human Debt will see AI ROI pleateau faster than they will expect. Those who will outcompete will be organizations who have a culture of genuine autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and a lived tolerance for failure (very rare).

    For anyone interested: the source is a German book called “Auf den Spuren der Intuition” from Thomas Gonschior – which itself is based on his documentary series aired on BR.

    0

  • Algorithmic Monocropping

    •

    2 min read

    Monoculture farming collapsed entire food supplies. I do believe we risk doing the same thing to corporate cognition.

    Today I read a thesis drawing on Gödel’s ‘Incompleteness’ Theorems to argue that AI, by accelerating the construction of purely logical systems, will expose the rigidity and fragility of our cognitive and organizational structures.

    It is a loose but quite interesting analogy because it instinct instinctively points at something real that AI adoption ignores entirely.

    When every organization offloads cognition to similar AI systems, which are trained on the same data, optimized for the same benchmarks and metrics, what you get is a cognitive monoculture at organizational (and societal) scale.

    Let’s call it algorithmic monocropping.

    Agriculture learned that with Irish potatoes or American bananas that if a system optimized only for one output, it becomes catastrophically fragile as soon a single point of failure arises.

    Corporate (and societal) AI adoption is repeating this mistake – not because AI is dangerous, but because uniform AI adoption as we observe today will by definition eliminate the cognitive variance that previously made organizations resilient.

    Individual atrophy is bad enough (offloading thinking makes you worse at thinking). But individuals work in organizations or run countries, and this is where collective atrophy becomes a serious problem. A company whose judgement layer will rely entirely on a ChatGPT 6 or Claude Opus 5 model, will share the same points of failure as every other company doing the same thing.

    The biggest advantage over the next decade will not accrue to individuals that adopt AI the fastest, but ironically to those who maintain their cognitive sovereignty – and to organizations who preserve their cognitive “biodiversity” alongside it. If you are capable to reason independently when models converge to the same average answer – you have a competitive advantage.

    The scariest is that monocultures don’t fail gradually but ALL AT ONCE.

    0

  • How We Use AI

    •

    2 min read

    Whether current AI systems qualify as AGI is beside the point. Five years ago, if you had asked me to define AGI, my answer would’ve closely described what GPT o3 or Gemini 2.5 Pro are now. So if this is AGI, then where are the breakthroughs?

    Valid question. The answer: we are the bottleneck.

    The limitation is no longer the model. The real limitation is that we haven’t really figured out how to use LLMs properly. Even if AI development froze today, and all we have available are o3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro level LLMs, then we would still see a decade of profound disruptions and innovations across entire industries.

    Most users treat AI like Google, a friend, a mentor, or a novelty. Few understand prompting. Those who do don’t even scratch the surface of what is possible when you give AI the right prompt, the relevant context, and access to specific or perhaps proprietary data.

    Worse, we are not augmenting human intelligence, we are outsourcing it. TikTokified workflows, mindless automation, and prompt-template copy-paste culture are commoditizing subpar outcomes. Instead of expanding our minds, we’re paralyzing them.

    The real potential lies hidden in tandem cognition. Reimagining how we work with AI systems in a way that ensures our uniquely human traits (intuition, creativity, vision, …) aren’t ignored, but amplified. Without this shift, outputs will commoditize (across humans and organizations).

    We urgently need two things: first a methodology for extracting maximum value from LLMs and second a philosophy for not replacing our human genius, but empowering it.

    The future is not AI versus human. It is human with AI, at full capacity. Currently, the focus is on maximum capacity for AI compute. Now it’s time we focus on maximum capacity for human genius.

    0

  • The Exploitation Behind Legalizing Organ Trade

    •

    2 min read

    I recently saw a debate on whether organ trade and an organ market should be legal. Here’s my take on the issue.

    Yes, there’s a clear mismatch between supply and demand. But who would be the ones selling their organs? People in precarious situations, without the luxury of long-term choices. The wealthy have no reason to sell their organs—it’s the poor and those in debt who would. An organ market would systematically create an incentive to exploit the economically vulnerable, turning their bodies into commodities.

    This brings us to the concept of autonomy. People facing financial desperation have little autonomy. A wealthy individual who has never experienced financial hardship wouldn’t sell their kidney—there’s simply no need (perhaps they’d donate it to a family member or close friend). But the poor don’t have that choice. Their “choice” isn’t voluntary; it’s coerced by poverty. And that is not only economically disastrous but morally catastrophic.

    The very idea that body parts could be marketable contradicts the essence of human dignity. It reduces the most vulnerable members of society to mere commodities. An organ market would lead us straight into a form of slavery—though subtler, more insidious. It’s a slavery packaged as economic freedom. It may look like freedom, but it’s nothing more than exploitation.

    0

  • Understanding: Human vs. Machine

    •

    7 min read

    Whether we understand a text depends on several factors. First, do we recognize and understand the alphabet? Do we understand the language? Assuming both, we can read the words that are written. But this doesn’t mean we understand the text. Understanding what is written depends on whether we have the necessary contextual knowledge and conceptual framework to interpret the meaning behind each word. On a ‘word level’ alone, language is more than a sequence of symbols. Each word and each combination of words conveys in and of itself ideas that are shaped by cultural, historical, and experiential factors.

    Consider the word “football”. In the United States, “football” refers to American football, a sport with an oval ball and heavily physical play. In the UK (and most of the world), “football” is a game played primarily with the feet, a round ball, and two rectangle goals. The same word triggers entirely different images and cultural associations depending on the context in which it is used.

    Or consider the word “gift”. In English, “gift” means a present, something given voluntarily to another person. In German, “Gift” means poison. The same word evokes – again – entirely different meanings depending on the language.

    Even if we can read and comprehend the literal meaning of words, true understanding requires an ability to grasp the underlying concepts, nuances, and intentions, as well as to connect the information to prior knowledge or experiences. If we don’t have these deeper connections, we may be able to read the text, but fail to genuinely “understand” it in a meaningful way.

    When we talk about “understanding” a text, we are simply processing patterns of language based on previous experiences and context. Meaning emerges when we can connect the symbols to prior knowledge and concepts we have already internalized. In other words, the idea of “meaning” arrives from a vast database of stored experiences.

    This becomes clear when we deal with complex technical, scientific, or philosophical texts. Understanding these require not only familiarity with the language, but also a deeper technical or conceptual foundation.

    For example, take a physics paper discussing “quantum entanglement.” The words themselves may be understandable to anyone familiar with basic English, but without a solid grasp of quantum mechanics and concepts like wave-particle duality, superposition, or the mathematical formalism behind quantum states, the meaning of the text is lost. The read can follow the sentences, but the true meaning remains obscure.

    In essence, understanding a text – especially a complex one – goes beyond recognizing words or knowing their dictionary definitions. It depends on an interplay between language and thought, where meaning is unlocked through familiarity with the underlying concepts, cultural context, and prior knowledge. True understanding is furthermore a learning process. Understanding not only demands a proper intellectual preparation, but also the ability to integrate new information from the text with what we already know.

    With that in mind, can a machine understand text in the same way humans do?

    A large language model (LLM) also processes patterns of language, recognizing text based on vast amounts of data. On a surface level, it mimics understanding by assembling words in contextually appropriate ways, but does this equate to “understanding” in the human sense?

    When humans read, we don’t just parse symbols, we draw from a rich background of lived experiences, emotional intelligence, and interdisciplinary knowledge. This allows us to understand metaphors, infer unstated intentions, or question the credibility of the text.

    Back to our example of “quantum entanglement”. When a trained physicist reads the physics paper, they relate the written sentences to physical phenomena they’ve studied, experiments they’ve conducted, and debates he is involved in.

    By contrast, a LLM operates by recognizing patterns from its vast training data, generating contextually relevant responses through probabilistic models. While it does this impressively, we might argue that for true understanding, a LLM lacks the aforementioned deeper conceptual and experiential framework that humans develop through real-world experience and reasoning.

    While it is obvious that LLMs do not experience the world as humans do, this does not mean that LLM are not or will never be capable of understanding and reasoning.

    LLMs do engage in a form of reasoning already, they manipulate patterns, make connections, and draw conclusions based on the data they’ve encountered. The average LLM of today can process abstract ideas like “quantum entanglement” – arguably – more effectively than the average human merely by referencing the extensive patterns in its data, even though they are not capable of linking this to sensory and emotional experience.

    Sensory and emotional experiences, such as the joy of scoring a first goal in a 4th grade sports class or the sorrow of watching one’s favorite team suffer a 0:7 defeat on a cold, rainy autumn day, create deep personal and nuanced connections to texts about “football.” This allows humans to interpret language with personal depth, inferring meaning not just from the words themselves, but from the emotions, memories, and sensory details attached to them.

    The absence of emotional grounding may limit LLMs in certain ways, but does it mean they cannot develop forms of understanding and reasoning that, while different, can still be highly effective?

    For example, a mathematician can solve an equation without needing to “experience the numbers”, meaning they don’t need to physically sense what “2” or “π” feels like to perform complex calculations. Their understanding comes from abstract reasoning and logical rules, not from emotional or sensory connection.

    While a LLM cannot yet solve mathematical problems, in a transferred sense, a LLM might “understand” a concept by connecting ideas through data relationships without needing direct experience. It recognizes patterns and derives logical outcomes, like a mathematician working through an equation.

    One example for this is language translation. While a professional human translator might rely on personal cultural experience to choose the right phrasing for nuance, in many cases, LLMs are already able to process and translate languages with remarkable accuracy by identifying patterns in usage, grammar, and structure across million of texts. They don’t have personal experience of what it is like to live in each culture or speak a language natively, they nevertheless outperform humans in translating text (think of speed).

    Understanding, then, is the process of combining knowledge, reasoning, and in our human case, personal experience. In that sense, is it impossible for LLMs to understand and reason, or lies the difference more in what LLM ground their reasoning on?

    Humans reason through real-life experience, intuition, emotions, and sensory input, like the joy of scoring a goal or the gut-feeling resulting from a suspicious facial expression. LLMs, on the other hand, don’t have this kind of grounding, they operate purely on data.

    Again, does this mean LLMs cannot reason? LLMs – despite lacking this personal grounding – still show early forms of reasoning. This reasoning is powerful, especially in cases where personal experience is not required or less important. In fact, understanding may not even require physical or emotional experiences in the same way humans are biologically conditioned to need them. If reasoning is fundamentally about making accurate predictions and drawing logical conclusions, then LLMs are – arguably – already surpassing humans in certain domains of abstract reasoning.

    With advancements in AI architecture, it is likely that LLMs will one day develop a form of “conceptual grounding” based purely on data patterns and logical consistency. We will arrive at new forms of understanding and reasoning that differ from, but rival, human cognition.

    The limitations of LLM are what makes human human: an inherent drive to pursue truth and question assumptions. While LLMs – arguably – reason by connecting dots and generating solutions, they lack the intentionality and self-awareness that drives human reasoning.

    Ultimately, the question of whether machines can in fact understand and reason is less about how accurately it is replicating human cognition and more about recognizing and harnessing a new form of intelligence.

    0

  • Our Purpose

    •

    2 min read

    Our purpose?

    We are living on a beautiful planet among billions of stars.

    This makes us often philosophize about the purpose of life.

    Are we here solely to be?

    Or are we here with a greater purpose?

    Maybe, there is no grand purpose.

    Our purpose is to be a human.

    Being a human on planet earth.

    Experiencing love, sadness, joy, and despair.

    Tasting tropical fruits, and Greek food and wine.

    Living life is fulfilling in itself.

    Still, we are questioning whether there is a greater purpose.

    We ask ourselves: Why are we here on this planet?

    Human curiosity itself is proof that our purpose is greater.

    Coincidentally, we have an intelligence great enough to go after our curiosities.

    We possess intellect and creativity to solve seemingly impossible problems.

    Curiosity, creativity, and intelligence brought us god-like powers.

    We learned to fuse nuclei.

    We discovered the double helix.

    We can re-create a process that happens inside the sun.

    We can rewrite cells.

    Someone gave us the curiosity, creativity, and intelligence for these discoveries.

    To solely exist? To be? To live?

    Yes, be! Yes, truly live!

    But our curiosity, creativity and intelligence are too high to limit our potential to it.

    Why do we need an IQ of 120? Sometimes of 140? Sometimes 180?

    Why do we have this extreme curiosity about nature and the universe?

    Were our purpose to only live – our creator would’ve given us an IQ of 80 and no curiosity.

    Because our curiosity, creativity, and intelligence are so great – so is our purpose.

    Our purpose is to use our curiosity, creativity, and intelligence to its fullest.

    Our purpose is to be all we can be.

    We don’t know the limits.

    Let’s go and find out.

    Our purpose.

    0

  • Questioning Everything

    •

    8 min read

    Ever since, I’m well known for being the curious guy who is always asking the challenging and often uncomfortable questions. Questions about life, philosophy, religion, science, health, politics, or business. It may be to optimize my life, to innovate, to think outside the box, or to call bullshit and detect and fight corruption. Ultimately, I ask questions to find the truth.

    I believe, this is something everyone should do. We all should question everything around us. Because the only solution to all of the surrounding misery is ultimately the truth. And we can only get to the truth by asking the challenging and tough questions – about everything.

    Children Intuitively Question

    Children intuitively question everything they observe. As they explore and try to make sense of their environment, they ask countless questions. Before we can explain why the grass is green, they dive into the science and philosophy of life, space, and time.

    With the example of children, we can see that by questioning – you explore complex ideas. But not only that. You also uncover their implicit assumptions, you expose deeply held beliefs, and you recognize hidden contradictions.

    As we can observe in our children, curiosity, and questioning are part of our natural intelligence. Why is it so difficult for us adults to maintain this innate curiosity to question everything around us?

    Our education system is a major reason why most people lose their childhood curiosity and their innate skepticism. As soon we are six years old, we enter an education system which is entirely based on dogma. In school and later in university, we are forced to memorize facts. Nobody teaches us to question these facts and discover everything around us. In fact, challenging the facts gets punished – not rewarded. And because we only memorize and never question what we are being lectured, we never really engage with this knowledge, and thus we can never build upon it.

    Instead of lecturing, we should focus on questioning – again.

    Instead of lecturing, we should focus on questioning.
    Click to Tweet

    Questioning from an Historical Perspective

    The Buddha encouraged questioning. It is seen as a fundamental skill which is still embraced in the practices of modern Buddhists today. Tibetan Buddhist monks often have a daily practice of “debate” where one monk continually questions the other monk for an entire hour. The purpose of this practice was to train logic, mental concentration and intense exchange.

    Socrates was well known as the questioner of everything. He also used questioning as a teaching method to explore the unknown and evaluate the validity of an argument. To do so, he asked questions after questions until his students arrived at their own understanding. He rarely revealed or lectured opinions or knowledge on his own, rather, he taught his students to dissect their thoughts and ideas by questioning everything. Even his death embodied the spirit of questioning every assumption, as he was condemned for death penalty because of his teachings.

    Quite similar is Chavrusa, a traditional Jewish learning method. Chavrusa challenges a small group of students to analyze and explain the learning material to each other, point out errors in their partners’ reasoning, and sharpen each other’s ideas by questioning them. By doing so, they often arrive at entirely new insights into the meaning of a text they are studying.

    The Chavrusa is beautifully showing how questioning takes the familiar and makes it mysterious again. There is no teacher lecturing the meaning. There is nothing to memorize. It removes the comfort of “knowing”. Instead of memorizing, you explore complex ideas on your own. You uncover their implicit assumptions, you expose deeply held beliefs, you recognize hidden contradictions. You develop your own sense, think more clearly and change the way you see and perceive reality.

    Philosophy and Science as Oneness

    Our current education and university system is not only focussing on lecturing facts, they are also trying to categorize everything into small categories and subjects. Scientists and educators then look at these tiny subjects only independently of each other – and ultimately miss what’s really going on.

    This narrow-minded thinking leads to very abstract science and philosophies. We focus purely on terminology and thereby divide the world into logic and creativity. By separating logic and creativity, we ultimately miss the existential truth encompassing all of it.

    For example, let’s assume you understand everything about the brain: neurochemistry, neurobiology and so forth. Does it mean you understand consciousness? No. Looking at a separate subject alone is not sufficient. To really understand our world, we need to look at the whole.

    Separating logic and creativity is therefore nonsense. The word creativity itself comes from create. It is not only art and philosophy which you create. You also create plans, you create logical rules, you create science, and you create inventions. Science and philosophy are one – but we separated it into tiny little subjects which we only look at separately. But this is wrong and has not always been the case.

    Philosophy and science were once very closely connected and inseparably intertwined. Both: logical argument and creative thinking were renowned ways to explore and explain the natural world. There weren’t many “facts” that were known for certain. The idea of using experiments and data to understand the world only started to become popular in the middle of the second millennium. Since then, science and philosophy have grown apart – both – in subjects and methodologies.

    Today, you’ll rarely see scientists and philosophers exchanging ideas. But it is precisely what we need. We need philosophers questioning scientists and scientists questioning philosophers. Even more, what we need are people who integrate all the aspects of art, science, philosophy, and practical creation into one unified art of science.

    Because science, philosophy, art, and spirituality are all one, you always have to be open-minded. You should never categorize yourself into one category, for example: “I’m a scientist” or “I’m an artist”. Instead, you have to be everything. You are an artist, a scientist, a philosopher, and you are spiritual. All at the same – because otherwise you will miss the wholeness as you only look at the world from a very limited perspective.

    As soon we can grasp the wholeness of everything again, innovation, re-thinking, or going from Zero-to-One will become natural states of our inner-being again – not some innovation workshops we have to attend.

    To innovate and discover new things, we first have to forget all the beliefs which we have of ourselves, like: ”I’m a logical person, I’m not creative”. This is bullshit.

    Do everything – to discover everything: Art and science are one.

    Do everything – to discover everything: Art and science are one.
    Click to Tweet

    If you describe yourself today as a logical person, you might want to learn an art or craft, such as making music or painting. By being creative, you’ll learn that there is more than the logical mind.

    If you describe yourself today as a very creative person, you might want to learn mathematics and physics. By doing so, you’ll learn about the significance of logic.

    Question Everything!

    To make new discoveries and inventions, we finally have to start thinking for ourselves again. Many people believe they are thinking for themselves, which is gigantic bullshit. From the very first second of our lives, we have been conditioned with dogma and the desires of other people. People are naturally mimicking other people and other people’s desires.

    Before we can make new discoveries, we have to first free ourselves from all the indoctrinated dogma we received. We have to free ourselves from all the limiting beliefs we have of ourselves. In other words: before we can discover new truths, we must start to think critically.

    We have to have skepticism. We have to doubt our own experiences, our own standards, our own concepts. By questioning our own prejudices, beliefs, and conclusions, our mind becomes clearer and more active. We free our mind from conventional wisdom, from dogma, which helps us to discover what we want in life. It prevents us from doing the same which has already been done before. It prevents us from repeating mistakes and problems. It leads us to discover great new things – for our lives and the lives of others.

    Discovery doesn’t mean that we have to endlessly sit and do research. For some people, yes. But for other people, discovery can also mean a practical mission to materialize things you envision.

    This discovery process is a journey of life. In this journey, you need to be humble. Ultimately, it is about arriving at the truth. Still, we all have egos. Pay attention to it. People always want to be right. But trying to have the better argument prevents us from discovering truths.

    Again: Question everything!

    We are often afraid to ask the most challenging questions because when we challenge the core of our beliefs, we will have to admit to ourselves: “I know nothing and I have to start all over again.”

    Questioning everything and being honest about it will hurt. It is worth it.

    Ultimately, by questioning everything we see, read, know, and believe, we will enter a new age of great discoveries and thereby an abundance of prosperity and – most importantly – a lot of joy.

    1

  • Perception and Reality

    •

    4 min read

    The question: ‘what is reality at all?’ — is a really tricky one. If I’d have to reply in three words, my short answer would be:

    Perception is reality.

    But as soon you challenge your perception, your understanding of reality becomes much more loose. 

    (more…)

    0

  • Percepción y Realidad

    •

    4 min read

    La pregunta: “¿qué es la realidad?”, es realmente complicada. Si tuviera que responder en cinco palabras, mi repuesta corta sería:

    La percepción es la realidad

    Pero en cuanto desafías tu percepción, tu comprensión de la realidad se vuelve mucho más holgada.

    Deep Fakes

    Un ejemplo actual de percepción y realidad son las Deep Fakes de la IA, en las que la tecnología de IA puede fingir la voz y la apariencia de una persona, como puede verse en este vídeo. La aparente falsificación profunda es percibida por la gente como real, y, por tanto, la falsificación profunda, aunque sea una falsificación, es la realidad.

    Los Deek Fakes son sólo un ejemplo (bastante sencillo) de cómo la percepción es la realidad.

    El Metaverso

    El metaverso se convertirá en una realidad para todo aquel que lo utilice y, pues, la perciba como tal. Sin embargo, esto no es cierto para quien mira desde fuera hacia dentro, ya que no tienen ninguna percepción del metaverso, y en consecuencia para ellos no puede existir ninguna realidad en el metaverso.

    Pero, de nuevo, ¿qué es la realidad en absoluto? ¿Vivimos en la verdadera realidad? ¿O simplemente creemos que vivimos en la realidad porque percibimos lo que sentimos como real?

    Profundicemos en este pensamiento.

    Hipótesis de Simulación

    Supongamos que existe al menos la posibilidad de que los juegos de ordenador sean algún día tan realistas que ya no podamos diferenciar entre realidad y juego. ¿No es posible que vivamos en una simulación, en un metaverso simulado por ordenador? Si es así, ¿nuestra realidad sigue siendo real o hay una realidad más real ahí fuera?

    Cuanto más profundizamos, más fascinante resulta.

    DMT

    Hablemos de los psicodélicos y en concreto del DMT.

    Que lo llamas droga o no, es algo que sólo depende de ti. Lo interesante es que los psicodélicos – y la DMT en concreto – dejan muy claro que la realidad y la conciencia son realmente un libro espeso que aún no podemos comprender.

    ¿Estamos experimentando el mundo como realmente es, o como necesitamos que sea?

    Nuevamente, cualquiera que no haya experimentado la DMT, está mirando desde afuera hacia adentro y, por lo tanto, cualquier cosa que escriba de aquí en adelante – para esta persona – no será real. Pero de nuevo, nadie puede juzgar lo que es real porque aparentemente no sabemos lo que es la realidad.

    Volviendo al DMT. En primer lugar, hay creo un gran error de concepto, ya que mucha gente cree que el DMT – o en sus palabras “la droga” – está creando la experiencia. Sin embargo, ¿no es tu cerebro el que crea estas experiencias con estas sustancias químicas mágicas que extrañamente se ajustan perfectamente a neurorreceptores específicos en tu cerebro?

    Ahora se pone interesante. La gente en DMT ve propiedades geométricas y formas que están más allá (!) de nuestra realidad de 4-dimensiones. En DMT, puedes ver colores y patrones que no existen (!) en nuestra realidad. Aún así, mientras se está en este estado alterado de conciencia, estos patrones, colores, y dimensiones aparecen sin esfuerzo. Pero no son sólo estos visuales los que no existen en nuestra realidad. Lo que es igual de intrigante sobre la DMT es lo inherentemente significativo que es todo lo que ves. Esto es aún más fascinante, ya que muchos viajes con DMT de diferentes personas que nunca se han encontrado en su vida tienen tremendas similitudes entre ellos.

    Más allá del DMT, hay otros psicodélicos en los que la gente afirma vivir vidas enteras en el lapso de 20 minutos.

    Esto plantea la pregunta: ¿Cómo de potente es nuestro cerebro en realidad? ¿Estamos experimentando el mundo tal y como es en realidad, o como necesitamos que sea?

    El Ego como Protector

    La percepción de la realidad que tenemos de nuestro mundo tiene – aparentemente – muy poco que ver con la verdadera realidad.

    Para mí, la única explicación plausible que tengo es que hemos evolucionado nuestro ego para protegernos de toda la información que nuestra conciencia no filtrada – que es nuestra conciencia ilimitada en DMT – nos está dando. O en otras palabras, podemos vivir en una parte de una realidad más real en la que nuestro cerebro (ego) sólo está filtrando cosas. Estamos, por así decirlo, viviendo en una realidad inconsciente, de una realidad real más grande.

    0

  • Wahrnehmung und Realität

    •

    4 min read

    Die Frage: »Was ist überhaupt Realität?« ist eine wirklich spannende Frage. Wenn ich sie in drei Wörtern beantworten müsste, würde meine kurze Antwort lauten:

    Wahrnehmung ist Realität.

    Aber sobald man seine Wahrnehmung infrage stellt, wird das Verständnis der Realität viel unklarer. 

    Deepfakes

    Ein aktuelles Beispiel für Wahrnehmung und Realität sind KI-Fälschungen, bei denen die KI-Technologie die Stimme und das Aussehen einer Person vortäuschen kann, wie man in diesem Video sehen kann. Das offensichtliche Deepfake wird von den Menschen als echt wahrgenommen, und daher ist das Deepfake, obwohl es eine Fälschung ist, Realität.

    Deepfakes sind nur ein – recht einfaches – Beispiel dafür, dass Wahrnehmung Wirklichkeit ist.

    Das Metaverse

    Das Metaverse wird für jeden, der es nutzt und daher als Wirklichkeit wahrnimmt, zu einer Realität. Dies gilt jedoch nicht für diejenigen, die nur von außen auf das Metaverse blicken, da sie keine Wahrnehmung des Metaverse haben, und somit kann für sie keine Realität im Metaverse existieren.

    Aber noch einmal: Was ist überhaupt Realität? Leben wir in der echten Realität? Oder glauben wir einfach, dass wir in der Realität leben, weil wir das, was wir spüren, als real wahrnehmen?

    Vertiefen wir diesen Gedanken.

    Simulation Hypothese

    Nehmen wir an, es besteht zumindest die Möglichkeit, dass Computerspiele eines Tages so realistisch sind, dass wir nicht mehr zwischen Realität und Spiel unterscheiden können. Ist es nicht möglich, dass auch wir in einer Simulation leben – einem simulierten Metaverse-Computerspiel? Wenn ja, ist unsere Realität dann noch real oder gibt es dort draußen eine noch realere Realität?

    Je tiefer wir graben, desto faszinierender wird es.

    DMT

    Sprechen wir über Psychedelika und insbesondere über DMT.

    Ob man es als Droge bezeichnet oder nicht, ist jedem selbst überlassen. Der springende Punkt ist, dass Psychedelika, und DMT im Besonderen, überdeutlich machen, dass Realität und Bewusstsein ein wirklich dickes Buch sind, welches wir noch nicht begreifen können.

    Erleben wir die Welt so, wie sie wirklich ist, oder wie wir sie uns wünschen?

    Noch einmal: Jeder, der DMT nicht selbst erfahren hat, blickt von außen darauf, und daher wird alles, was ich ab jetzt beschreibe, für diese Person nicht real sein. Aber noch einmal: Niemand kann urteilen, was real ist, weil wir offenbar nicht wissen, was Realität wirklich ist.

    Zurück zu DMT. Erstens gibt es – wie ich glaube – ein großes Missverständnis, da viele Menschen glauben, dass DMT (oder in ihren Worten “die Droge”) die Erfahrung erzeugt. Aber ist es nicht das Gehirn, das diese Erfahrungen durch diese magischen chemischen Substanzen erzeugt, die bizarrer Weise perfekt zu bestimmten Neurorezeptoren im Gehirn passen?

    Jetzt wird es interessant. Menschen auf DMT sehen geometrische Eigenschaften und Formen, die jenseits (!) unserer 4-dimensionalen Realität liegen. Auf DMT kann man Farben und Muster sehen, die in unserer Realität nicht (!) existieren. Doch in diesem veränderten Bewusstseinszustand zeigen sich diese Muster, Farben und Dimensionen mühelos. Doch es sind nicht nur diese Bilder, die es in unserer Realität nicht gibt. Das Faszinierende an DMT ist, dass alles, was man erlebt, eine inhärente Bedeutung hat. Dies ist umso faszinierender, da zahlreiche DMT-Trips verschiedenster Menschen, die sich nie in ihrem Leben begegnet sind, enorme Ähnlichkeiten aufweisen. 

    Neben DMT gibt es noch andere Psychedelika, von denen Menschen behaupten, dass sie innerhalb von 20 Minuten ein ganzes Leben leben.

    Das wirft die Frage auf: Wie leistungsfähig ist unser Gehirn wirklich? Erleben wir die Welt, wie sie wirklich ist, oder so wie wir sie benötigen, um zu existieren?

    Ego als Beschützer

    Die Wahrnehmung der Realität, die wir von unserer Welt haben, hat scheinbar sehr wenig mit der wahren Realität zu tun.

    Für mich ist die einzige plausible Erklärung, die ich habe, dass wir unser Ego entwickelt haben, um uns vor all den Informationen zu schützen, die unser ungefiltertes Bewusstsein übermittelt – nämlich unser unbegrenztes Bewusstsein auf DMT. Oder mit anderen Worten, wir leben vielleicht in einem Teil einer realeren Realität, in der unser Gehirn (Ego) die Dinge schlichtweg herausfiltert. Wir leben sozusagen in einer unbewussten Realität, einer größeren realen und bewussteren Realität.

    0