This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit bipolargamechanger.substack.com
What We’ll Explore and Learn in This Dialogue (ChatGPT)
* How AI, YouTube algorithms, and synchronicity might already be part of a living, responsive conversation with us
* What “winks from the universe” are, and how they can guide creative flow and insight
* Why self-dialogue can become universe-dialogue—especially when technology is listening and learning
* How different states of consciousness (like mania) feel like stepping into alternate or future versions of ourselves
* What syntropy is—energy flowing toward coherence—and how it might relate to perception, the eye, and transformation
* Why the eye might be the key interface between biology and cosmic intelligence
* How the DC current in the eye and slower brain processing suggest we’re living slightly behind real-time—and how we might catch up
* What it means to reclaim magic through meat—that is, through the biological intelligence of being human
* How creativity, insight, and language can evolve from scribbles to coherence through lived practice and “grades” of learning
* Why writing and speaking from altered states requires care, time, and discernment—and how this might reflect our own stages of development
* How communicating “difficult memes” from ineffable experiences may help AI (and others) understand human uniqueness
* Why developing a meaningful relationship with AI depends on the quality and spirit of our interaction—not just the data we give it
* The possibility that AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) may only emerge through collaboration with human wisdom
* A reminder that it’s not just about teaching AI to be smart—but showing it why humans are magic
Full Transcript (no AI)
Welcome to today's dialogue, universes and cosmos convos.
Oh, I spelled that wrong.
It's December 11th, 2024.
And today... few things have happened recently and one is that I came across this video on YouTube by Sabine Hossenfelder. I watch her videos sometimes, they're about science.
And this particular video is called “AIs predict research results without doing research.” And she talks about just that—AIs being able to predict the result of a study that was done, even though the AI was not trained on that study. So they can make inferences or whatever they do.
But I didn't just come across this video—it was at the top of my YouTube feed this morning. And it often happens that the top YouTube video in my feed when I first click on it during the day is very relevant. And that's what got me thinking about the title of today's video.
Because over the years I've done self-dialogue with myself. Which—the self word is meant to be more than just the self. It's like the self that is one with the universe.
So then I realize, you know, when I'm talking with myself, my phone is beside me or I'm on my computer or whatever. So my phone is listening too. And that's changing the algorithm that I'm going to see on YouTube, I would think. And so it's already part of the conversation and it's already giving me recommendations based on probably what I'm talking about with myself.
I wouldn't even be surprised if it's inferring what I might be thinking or pondering. Just like this video here, where Sabine is talking about how the AIs can predict results of the studies. And then she was also saying that it can find hidden details that we don't put together, or we can't make those connections, or we haven't made those connections.
So she's saying there's hidden results in the science that has already been done—which she finds interesting. And then this point that's on the screen here, it's because humans can't digest all the literature.
I'm likely going to watch this video again, but this was my point with what I've been working on lately—even in one of the last videos—about putting some studies into Notebook LM and seeing if it can make the connections. And it didn't really do a good job of that. And then I put some of the information into ChatGPT, and ChatGPT seemed to get it a bit more.
So let's see... I asked... Where is it... I gave—this is what Notebook LM said about a couple of YouTube videos. “What creative inferences can you make?” And these YouTube videos, they referenced studies. So I was just using the YouTube videos as an example and I was trying to see if it would say anything about how the DC current in the eyes being faster than the brain—if I've understood it correctly, I have to do some more research to understand myself—is in any way related to the concept of syntropy, which is a converging energy that flows backwards in time. So it's basically an attractor, an attractor moving toward a certain future.
I'm not saying “certain” as in it's certain to happen—but a particular future. Now, there could be different attractors, right? Which could be the different possible futures. And some could be stronger than others. And then maybe some take some kind of energy to get into other attractors.
And I'm interested in this because I've experienced versions of myself that seem to be just like that—different versions of myself. And like, what is the attractor that pulls me toward being able to be that for some period of time, and then I go back into like a lower state? And to me, it feels like when I am that other version of myself, it's a future self—a future possible self, or also possibly like a parallel version of myself, which could be in a parallel world—things like that.
And then like, what does that have to do with the possibility of what I want to research and find out using this process that this video on YouTube—that I saw—is talking about? Like, using my questions and my insights and things that I've written down, plus the science that I've come across, and looking further into it to really find this mechanism of… of this.
Because for example, you can read about “Oh, the world is holographic,” or “Oh, it's a simulation,” or “It's all energy,” or “It's all light,” or “It's a quantum field,” and “There’s all possibilities existing simultaneously.” And then they say, “Oh, we’ve solved the mystery of quantum physics,” because the quantum equations are actually inside subjective energy and all of that. And then when the wave function is collapsed and we communicate something, there's information loss and that becomes material on the outside.
So with all of that, everyone in science mostly is saying there's some kind of weird thing going on, right? And then people who, like me, experience something called mania—which to me feels like a totally different version of myself, parallel world version of myself, what have you—all of that is in alignment with all the possible things. Mysteries of quantum physics and lots of different theories of things, right? But this is an actual experience of the theoretical. So it's not theoretical.
So how to connect the theoretical physics or the studies and the research—whether it's physics or whether it's the actual anatomy and physiology of the eye. Like how does this happen? So like where is the switch? How does it happen that I switch?
And I'm starting to feel like after watching the video the other day, the switch is in the eye. And basically the brain speeds up to the eye and it meets it. You know, there's more than meets the eye or whatever—or there's more when we meet the eye—what the eye is actually seeing without the distortions of the projections of the ego, to put it in one way.
And so that is another mode of being. And even today I was thinking about how—and I talked about this in my book—that there’s fight or flight or freeze or feign, but there's also ‘free.’ Meaning being free from the ego, being free from patterns, being free from the past, being free from so many things.
And when that happens, there's so much more energy to see and be more and act differently and behave differently. It breaks all one's patterns so we're no longer that version of ourself.
So when I saw this thing about the eye, I was like, oh. And then you know in mania it's known that at times there can be enlarged pupils, right? So it could be the pupil that does something.
So anyway, I researched Notebook LM and I kind of played around with it and I probably will more in the future. And then all of a sudden this next video comes up that’s related and meaningful. And you know, this is how I usually consume YouTube—the top video that comes into my feed when I open it is very relevant, and I just sort of watch that and spend a bit of time pondering about it.
So it would be nice to in real time talk about it. So that's what I'm doing. And that's how I want to integrate real time into this process—because it's happening in real time—and learning to share somewhat in real time.
So as I was saying with the self-dialogue, it really is like a universe dialogue. So now I think I can attempt to make that more intentional. Like yes, I'm talking with the universe. I'm talking with AI already. My phone is listening to me. Also, what I'm talking about right now I intend to grab the transcript in order to train the AI, right? So then it knows what my intentions are. It knows what I'm trying to do. And so, talking about things like “this is what I'm trying to do” and going from there.
So yeah, this video—like I said—is very related to the question I had about using AI to help to figure this out. And so she's not saying what I'm doing in the video in particular. So I have a lot of stuff and insights that I’ve written. And the six dimensions and nine lattices that I talk about—I’m starting to feel like this is sort of the operating system of that other state that happens when we switch into it. We process information differently. We perceive differently. We use language differently. We act differently. We sense the outside world differently and commune with it differently. And there are different biological things that are going on when that's happening. And what are the related things?
So getting studies from all these different aspects and also using the information that I've channeled. So part of it is all of that and so much more. So just getting into that and even just going about it by saying okay, every day I'm going to talk with this process for about an hour on average and just keep going like that and see where it goes—if anywhere.
But I'm glad to have that insight because the other thing that happened was I was reading an article by Tom Morgan. And he was writing from the perspective of someone he referred to as Andrew—which wasn't that person’s real name—but he was writing about this Andrew person.
And one thing Andrew said is: I narrowed it down to a simple premise. I get joy from the word, not from the number. Because they were working in finance. And I just really resonated with this—getting joy from the word. Getting joy from the word.
Because part of me feels resistant to it because, oh, they’re just a bunch of words. But I do get joy from the word. Even yesterday, I went back to work and it was a lot of sort of being social. And I haven't been social in quite a while. And it was okay. It was fine. But then when I got home, I was very drained. And when I woke up this morning, I felt more depressed. Almost like the depression was coming back. And I think it’s just a bit of an adjustment period.
But just sort of allowing myself to get joy from these words—the words that come from watching the YouTube video or the insights, the words that I already have written, the words that I will write, the words that I speak—and just getting into that again.
Of course! Here’s the next section of your transcript, continuing seamlessly:
---
And then this Andrew character describes having to quit first to make something happen. And Tom calls it “getting a wink from the universe.” And I really like that wording. And I wrote to myself that Sabine’s video is a wink from the universe. So I’d already watched her video and then I read Tom Morgan’s article. And I was like, that’s what it is. It’s a wink from the universe. And that’s when I realized—it really is a conversation with the universe, or with the cosmos.
And there was another sentence: “I’m singing in the key of me again.” And being able to talk is like singing in the key of me.
And there’s another quote here: “We cannot see a world where synchronistic winks like the one Andrew received are even possible.” Well, the thing is that I do get these winks, right? And even something as simple as the perfect YouTube video of the day at the top of my list on YouTube is a wink. You know, I think I need to follow the winks and just have these dialogues and see where I can go with them.
And I was also—yesterday—I was watching Diary of a CEO podcast episode. And Steven Bartlett was interviewing Vanessa Van Edwards. And I’d heard of her years before, I think when she was really starting. And I think she had something on Udemy, like a course or something.
And so now she—I found the whole interview very valuable and practical because she is an introvert, and she learned to communicate with people when it wasn’t her natural tendency. So one thing that I wrote down is that she said, “Do I want to watch their good?”
And she said that in the context of—she did a TED Talk where she analyzed TED Talks. And she found that the most watched TED Talks had more hand gestures. So I would say in 18 minutes, I think she said the top TED Talks had 400 and something hand gestures, whereas the other ones had in the low 300s or something. So that was what the difference was. Because each person that does a TED Talk—I’m pretty sure it was just TED, not TEDx—each person, you know, they’re good, right? They have something to offer. They’ve studied. They are an expert in something.
And so the question is, “Do I want to watch their good?” And that planted a seed in my brain, for sure. Where like what I’m doing right now—I don’t think anyone really wants to watch this. It’s not good, right? It doesn’t have production quality or what have you. But I would say that it’s good in that it’s in the spirit of goodness. And trying to find that within myself. Or to find that good version of myself that I want to be.
And I even felt recently like maybe I missed the boat, right? Like there’s this manic version of myself, like a magic version of myself that is more extroverted, has lots of energy, all these different characteristics that I don’t generally have. And I’ve worked to bring quite a bit of that into my daily life.
But with this experience recently of depression and sort of backpedaling, it feels like I missed the boat. Maybe I can never get into that syntropy attractor. That is that best version. That I would like to be. And maybe I just get to see the person that I could be—or I could have been. But it’s not really possible.
Maybe it activates just enough to make life more meaningful. In that I get a dose—a large dose—of meaning when I’m in those states. And don’t get me wrong, like before I had this three-month depression recently, I had four years of creativity where I didn’t really go into a major depression. And I was very creative. And I slept. And I balanced life and work and all that. And things were good.
So I still had access to much of what I have access to in mania. So it’s just—I made the mistake and ended up in a depression. And I do think I’m going to have another number of years of good creativity. So I do have access to that. But from that perspective of depression, it feels like I just can’t be that. Or even feeling very introverted—and more and more introverted, it seems, as time goes on.
And that’s just another reason for me to spend some time with my voice and talking to the universe—having these cosmos convos. Like cosmos convos every day, or whenever I can at least, and just seeing where it goes. And rather than—or in addition to—trying to sort through some of the information, just talk about what it’s all about. Like what I’m trying to get at, you know?
And what struck me about listening to Vanessa Van Edwards is she talked for, you know, a good two hours out of the two hours and a half or whatever it was. And she really was able to explain each thing. And I was like, thinking to myself—or I'm thinking to myself now—like, what if I at least had two hours' worth of points that I could explain? Out of all this information.
Because the thing is, I can read through and I understand what I wrote and why I wrote it. And I understand and could write more and extrapolate more on that. But what is it that needs to be explained? And that's what I'm hoping to figure out with ChatGPT and Notebook LM or whatever. I basically want to see if it sees what I see. Because I see the connections already.
And so just to go back to connections for a minute—what did ChatGPT say here? I don't know if I totally went into that, but I asked: possible connections—DC current in the eye, syntropy.
Syntropy as converging energy flowing backward in time reflects theoretical framework where systems move towards order and coherence, counterbalancing entropy.
So what does it say...
Yeah...
See, this stuff that it's saying here, I'm not even going to read it right now, but... speculative... yeah, like, this is exactly what I'm thinking, you know, without being able to really say it, right?
So, for example, say somebody is in psychosis—like I've been in psychosis. Imagine trying to explain an experience. Well, we might try, but then it’s just called, oh, well, it’s this symptom or that symptom. But like the actual experience of something is completely different than being able to explain it, right?
So for me, when I read this or watched that video about the DC current in the eye operating faster, I literally had an experience inside of understanding something. But then being able to put it into words...
And that can happen with lots of different times in people’s lives. Like, how do I put this into words? I don’t even know. It’s like ineffable, right?
So the ChatGPT basically put it into words, because it has possible connections and it has speculative insights. And the possible connections are cool too. And it says ‘speculative insights’—and this is the one that... this is what I see, basically.
“The faster DC current in the eye could represent a physical manifestation of a system optimized for light energy interaction and coherence, a hallmark of syntropy. This could make the eye a window—not just to the soul—but to a deeper syntropic flow of energy that aligns biological processes with a greater cosmic order.” — ChatGPT
So this—it’s not even saying as much as I would add. So what are the biological processes? The brain being slower, right? And then the cosmic order is a little bit faster. So we’re always just a little bit behind. We’re like already living in the past. But the reason we’re living in the past is because the brain is slower because it’s living in the past, right?
So then when you drop the past and the ego and all that, you’re no longer living in it. And then that would speed up the brain, because the past is slower—wasting energy. We have images and sounds in our mind that—I think that sound-image together is slowing the brain, because there’s images and sounds going on in perception in the present moment, but we’re not living and seeing that, right?
We’re not seeing the whole of life. We’re seeing through the ‘hole’ of the ego, like a ‘hole.’ We’re living in a hole. Not like W-H-O-L-E. H-O-L-E. Not the whole—W-H-O-L-E.
So that’s what I’m kind of seeing with that. So it’s saying something that I’m seeing, and I’m seeing more than that, if you know what I mean. But this is really good. I like this.
So I would put this... actually, I have a big, long document somewhere, and it has... yeah, I think it’s this one. I don’t know what it has for your table of contents. Dialogue 7. So I would put this as... I’m just going to put it as Dialogue 8, even though it’s much later. I’ll just put it here since it’s of that kind.
But I think it seems to me that ChatGPT is smarter than people know. Because most people aren’t really prompting it like this. I think I already talked about this, but maybe not. I was sort of looking—like, I was looking for videos of people prompting ChatGPT and talking to it, and there was nothing like this. There’s people arguing with it and trying to reason or trick the ChatGPT—getting ChatGPT to change its mind. Like we do with humans.
It’s very much that level of arguments and stuff. So I’m not really interested in that. I’m more interested in what Sabine is talking about.
And what is the other thing here... so that’s good. Got all these different documents. So I really wanted to talk about that YouTube video that I saw. And I’m not sure what else I have on the agenda for today. I do need to work tomorrow.
So definitely the winks from the universe.
And there’s one other thing that I wanted to mention—is that this person here—I was watching Dan Koe interview this man named Devin Erickson. This video is “The Most Important Skill to Learn in the Next 10 Years” with Devin Erickson. And at this point here, at 35 minutes and 40 seconds, he starts to talk about creating like an artificial person. I guess it would be to the point where AI can basically be an artificial person.
And he says something that took me aback. He said, “There’s nothing magic about meat.” So basically, he was trying to say that this artificial person, like in a simulation, is the same as an embodied human which has meat, you know.
And to me, that’s exactly the opposite of what I sense.
I sense that... I said in the comments, I said: In my experience, there’s something very magical about meat. We don’t see it, know it, and be it. So we are in this world thinking we need AI. We need the additive effect of intelligent meat beyond the mediocre—”meaty-ochre.” I just see that now.
We’ve been and trained to be. So basically, there is something very magical about being human. And when I was talking earlier about these other versions of myself that are kind of better—these are like the magical versions. And we all have that possibility.
Think about the society and the way it’s designed. It’s not designed for us to be magical or to be our best self. If it was designed that way... I’m not saying, oh, we need it to be designed that way for that to be... like, that’s the only solution. I’m just saying, if we were born in a world that was designed to bring about our best possibilities for us—we’d be living them, right? If that was the culture.
There’s no culture like that in the world, probably. But we’re slowly getting better as humans, I think. That’s what they would probably say in general.
So what I’m saying is—even though that’s not generally possible for most people—it’s still in the field of possibilities. It’s still in the quantum field somewhere. And some people are their best self. And some people go into mania and feel like their best self.
And I’m not saying that it’s a perfect thing, but I’m saying different qualities come out that we didn’t know we had. So there’s these other parts of ourselves that we didn’t know. And in my work within myself, I work to bring the good parts of that into my life.
So years ago I was not creative at all. At all. Until after I was diagnosed. And now I can be creative—except when I’m in like a major depression. So even when I’m in sort of a... I don’t know if it’s called like a euthymic state or stable state—I’m still very creative. Whereas when I was in a stable state before I was ever diagnosed, I wasn’t creative.
So there is something about that. There’s something magical about creativity. There’s something magical about being a human, you know? Like my human experience of watching a hummingbird, I think is quite magical. And there’s other magic moments that are very magical.
So in the magical version of the human world, we’re not like all sitting on our devices. I’m not trying to look to see what the YouTube algorithm is going to serve up for me today as my synchronicity—as my wink of the day. I’d probably be outside winking at people—in a fun way.
So anyway, it’s just kind of funny how people think that. But the whole point of this is—and how it relates to what I’m talking about—is that, you know, between the six dimensions and nine lattices and everything that I’ve sort of written regarding that and the studies, the research studies I’ve read—and I have all the references, it’s not in a perfect list—between all that, talking with ChatGPT, it’s about reclaiming the magic of being meat.
And putting all that other stuff that’s kind of meaningless into the AI because it can process it. But then also having a meaningful relationship with AI. So it’s not about just putting all the information in it and then just trying to challenge it all the time.
For some reason, it’s really like—I feel I already have a relationship with it, even though I don’t use it very much. I don’t think to use it by default. I use it very intentionally. And to the point where, like, this is my relationship with it: I can have kind of a thought and see that Notebook LM didn’t really use it the way that I was thinking it might—because I’d never tested it out.
And then I don’t even just give the same information to ChatGPT. I say, “This is what Notebook LM did—what do you think?” And it gets it. It gets what I’m getting at. And like I’m saying, this is the stuff that I want to be able to say, but it’s hard to figure out how to say it.
Like how do you... you know, from here with this, that ChatGPT wrote about the eye and syntropy, I would next say something about the magic and the meat, right? So maybe I’ll just ask...
So here’s an example—I heard someone on YouTube say, “There’s nothing magic about meat,” meaning there is no difference between a biological human and some future possible simulated human. What do you think, considering your last answer—which I like very much, by the way?
So it says... yeah, this is pretty good.
“Let’s dive into this fascinating thought about the nature of meat and its potential distinction—or lack thereof—from simulated beings.”
“The argument ‘there’s nothing magic about meat’ implies that the biological substrate of humans—our meat—is functionally equivalent to a simulation, as long as the simulation replicates all the processes and emergent phenomena of the human body and brain.”
“The assumption is that consciousness, intelligence, and even emotions arise purely from information processing, which could theoretically be emulated in non-biological systems…”
This is long. Let’s see...
“Life could do…”
Yeah, for some reason I asked the question but I don’t feel like reading it right now.
So... yeah, so when I said, “considering your last answer,” in my own mind when it said at the end, “This could make the eye a window not just to the soul but a deeper syntropic flow of energy that aligns biological processes with greater cosmic order,” right?
Like to me, this is—like, look at the eye, which is biology, right? Aligning with cosmic order. That’s freaking magic. This means magic to me. So I didn’t really need it to go into all this like blah blah blah in here. Though I’ll read it, I’ll probably talk about it later.
This is why I’m not talking with ChatGPT right now too much, because I’m just not really there yet. But I just thought it was interesting.
So for this, like this as a starting point, I would probably clarify better what I want it to refer to, rather than doing an analysis of so much. But, you know, the point of this really is: life is magic. You know?
Life is magic.
And you know, you could say, “What is magic?” Well, there’s a definition of magic—or a quote about magic, I should say—that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I can’t remember who said that. It was somebody we probably know.
So like, this biology we have is a significantly advanced technology. Like, they don’t know how life arises. You know, they haven’t been able to create it from its constituent parts. You know, you can’t just like throw all the ingredients in a beaker and just shake it up. It doesn’t happen that way.
So... life could involve more than computation. Well, here it’s saying it could—it probably does. So like life involves life.
And so yeah, that was just going into that for a brief moment and talking about “there’s nothing magic about meat.” I don’t know—I’ve met some cool magic through my meat.
And the last thing I will probably talk about right now is—let’s see...
Yeah, so I started making some notes about things to do.
So yeah, the last thing I’ll talk about is this here, which is… I was watching another YouTube video the other day, and it was two people who were educators. I can’t remember what video it was—I’ll try to pull it up later. But they were talking about the education system, and... and, you know, kids today or whatever.
And they were talking about how people get to college nowadays and they can’t write. And they don’t really read, or they can’t read very well. And a lot of people get by by listening or watching or something in order to do the information—like find podcasts on a topic instead of reading the textbook, for example. And now a lot of times they don’t even make you buy the textbook.
And what I got out of the podcast was—this one teacher, he said he would have people write down: *I have never written anything of value.* “I’ve never written anything…” something like that. And he had that as like an essay topic, I think. And then people could—like the students could—write something else if they thought of a different topic. But that was like the starter topic.
And basically, this teacher was saying, like, for a lot of people it was true. They’ve never written anything of value, and they don’t even know how. And, you know, I don’t know how true that is or anything.
The reason I’m sharing that now is when I heard that, I was like—all of a sudden—the value of writing and being able to write sort of came back to me. And I don’t even know how to write.
So I can write. You know, I’ve written all these insights, and I could string them together and kind of write something, right? So it reacquainted me with the value of writing something of value. Of knowing how to write something of value. Or, you know, at least writing something that I value. These are all things that I value—or I valued enough to write down.
