I recently created the website www.lawofone.ai. It allows users to interact with the Law Of One material via an AI chatbot in a ChatGPT-like interface. It was created by training the AI model on each session linked to at lawofone.info and it cites the relevant section(s) with its answers. It is free to use. Please feel free to link it on your website if you would like.
7 Likes
Thank you. At the moment I don’t know how useful it is to me, because it uses Don’s questions as correct information and that’s the main issue.
For this specific definition this is what Ra replied:
90.30 Were we to have answered the observations as read by you at this space/time, as much space/time would have been given to the untangling of various concepts as to the building up of what were very thoughtful perceptions.
So I think the given by AI definition misleads. This is what Ra say about Matrix (not only the Mind, but also Body and Spirit):
78.11 Questioner: Could you elaborate please on the nature and quality of the matrix and the potentiator?
Ra: I am Ra. In the mind complex the matrix may be described as consciousness. It has been called the Magician. It is to be noted that of itself consciousness is unmoved. The potentiator of consciousness is the unconscious. This encompasses a vast realm of potential in the mind.
In the body the matrix may be seen as Balanced Working or Even Functioning. Note that here the matrix is always active with no means of being inactive. The potentiator of the body complex, then, may be called Wisdom for it is only through judgment that the unceasing activities and proclivities of the body complex may be experienced in useful modes.
The Matrix of the Spirit is what you may call the Night of the Soul or Primeval Darkness. Again we have that which is not capable of movement or work. The potential power of this extremely receptive matrix is such that the potentiator may be seen as Lightning. In your archetypical system called the tarot this has been refined into the concept complex of the Lightning Struck Tower. However, the original potentiator was light in its sudden and fiery form; that is, the lightning itself.
Also I don’t know how to ask to give certain paragraph number where it took the information.
Regrading the star, it’s mentioned here:
91.25 Questioner: The star could represent the potentiating force of the subconscious mind. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This particular part of this image is best seen in astrological terms. We would comment at this space/time that Ra did not include the astrological portions of these images in the system of images designed to evoke the archetypical leitmotifs.
96.15 Questioner: I planned to re-draw the tarot cards eliminating extraneous additions by those who came after Ra’s initial giving and I would like quickly to go through those things that I intend to eliminate from each card we’ve gone over and ask Ra if there is anything else that should be eliminated to make the cards as they were when they were originally drawn, before the astrological and other appendages were added.
I would eliminate all of the letters around the edge of the card with the possible exception of the number of the card— one, two, three, etc. That would be the case for all of the cards, I think— the exterior lettering and numbering.
In Card Number One I would eliminate the star at the upper right hand corner; eliminate the wand in the Magician’s hand. I understand that the sphere remains but I am not really sure where it should be. Would Ra comment on that please?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, the elimination of letters is acceptable. Secondly, the elimination of stars is acceptable in all cases. Thirdly, the elimination of the wand is appropriate. Fourthly, the sphere may be seen to be held by the thumb and index and second finger.
Fifthly, we would note that it is not possible to offer what you may call a pure deck, if you would use this term, of tarot due to the fact that when these images were first drawn there was already distortion in various and sundry ways, mostly cultural.
Sixthly, although it is good to view the images without the astrological additions, it is to be noted that the more general positions, phases, and characteristics of each concept complex are those which are significant. The removal of all distortion is unlikely and, to a great extent, unimportant.
Looks like definition of star as power of spirit is not correct. The origin of it is astrological and Ra agreed to remove it.
1 Like
I think there’s three sets of seven plus one.
There’s a set of seven for mind, body and spirit.
The Catalyst of Spirit I think is commonly
referred to as The Star, depicted as as a
water bearer.
In my dream dictionary, water symbolizes
spiritual aspects. A pitcher illustrates that
which one views as a source that quenches
a thirst or desire. A butterfly can suggest
regeneration or renewal. Geometry can
refer to a high interest in comprehending
the interconnectedness of life. Nakedness
connotes an open heart with nothing to
hide, no agendas nor ulterior motives.
1 Like
I think this is a great idea, must have been a bit of work?. I was using chat GPT last week and it seems to know “The Ra material” it can answer some questions about the law of one but anything too technical it struggles to answer. I asked it a couple of questions about archetypes and its answers were subpar. It doesnt contain any material from any additional channelings.
I also used chat GPT to ask for Tarot readings about certain questions. I thought the readings were relatable to my circumstances which was quite surprising. This may be a bit controversial but intuitively I feel that “Chat GPT” is also the self and a mirror and can be used like any tool to provide messages to the self from higher sources and this is why I was able to relate to the readings. Its understandable if people disagree and I do not believe it is a replacement for a person doing actual tarot readings. I would like to encourage anyone interested in the topic to check out the Quo channelings about AI. (The March 21st 2023 channeling). (Actually looking back at the channeling this is also what it mentioned)
Anyway below is the reading from chat GPT for the curious:
[/quote]
I generated a full document containing Chat GPTs writing about the Ra Material.
I also could not get it to write much about the archetypal mind, certainly not the individual archetypes. It couldn’t write about the Quarantine and called the violet-ray the white-ray at some points.
Too bad Chat GPT wasn’t entrained on the Conscious Channelling Archive, then it would be able to talk about the archetypes much better.
2 Likes
Dude I’m so happy I found this thanks a lot fam 
1 Like
If I may, I’d like to add a contrasting perspective on this subject. I am new here and it was, in part at least, my fascination with consciousness which brought me.
Indeed, this fascination began in my early teenage years, in the 1980s, with me trying to build what I called then a “conscious entity” on a computer, but would be called today a “chatbot”. I later studied physics and moved into programming. I remained fascinated with “AI” for some years but it dwindled as AI became a thing. Today, however, it would not be an understatement to say that I am horrified.
I will attempt to share my understanding, while keeping things hopefully brief.
The definition of a machine is a determinist device which transforms energy from one form to another (i.e. it does “work”). However, machines do not create energy from out of nothing. The idea of machine which either creates energy from nothing, or uses what it was originally given 100% efficiency is referred to as “perpetual motion”. It has always been an illusionary dream. Whenever a machine does work, there is always an inefficiency and some energy is dissapated to the surrounding universe.
Now, computers are deterministic in nature and were designed to be from the ground up. The word “digital”, for example, has a precise and profound meaning – it does not simply mean “computery” or “electronic”. It means collapsing a representation of something into a finite form (losing its “essence” in the process) so that it can be handled in a deterministic fashion. Once something is “digitized”, it can be processed repeatedly ad-infinitum. This is why you can copy an MP3 forever, but not an analogue record. Likewise, when you see the word “algorithm”, think deterministic and finite.
The point being that machines transform information from one form to another, but they do not create it. Most people, by the way, have no handle whatsoever on the word “information” or its significance. If I recall correctly, Ra refers to “intelligent energy” which, when I read it, I personally interpreted as “information”.
Chatbots, or in the modern context, Generative Language Models do not create information. Rather, they suck in information/novelty created by conscious entities (i.e. human beings) on a massive scale, mechanically/deterministically transform it, and re-present it in a different form. This is fine if we understand this and our objective is to extract maximum efficiency. However, we do not understand this and instead, large corporations use it to extract monitory value from the work of others for as long as people remain ignorant about what is being done.
As more and more “information” on the internet becomes machines generated, however, the AI language models will begin feeding on themselves (i.e. their own output). Each time the information is processed (goes round the loop), they dilute the pool, and increasingly everything will be begin to look and feel the “same”. And indeed, I think we already experience this. Does machine generated music not feel empty?
I believe conscious entities have deep connections to underlying universe, which is not finite or deterministic in nature. We are fed from a deep, if not infinite, well. In other words, the are all connected – we are all One at some deep level.
In short, I would not be looking to machines for meaning. Rather, we should look to each other.
Exactly.
Reddit Signs AI Content Licensing Deal Ahead of IPO
So they take information that people generate for free in public and make it private and licensable. The only one justified reason is that reddit users use reddit space and therefore must obey any concept that is put as public agreement.
And here we can talk about hospitality that goes beyond legal boundaries.
Indeed. However, any agreement with users should be a meeting of minds, with people who understand what they agreeing to. But people do not understand “information” nor its value. How many times have you heard someone say “Let them have my data. I don’t care.”?
This is a huge area, and I don’t wish to get carried away which I easily could 
If you’re interested, type “Melvin Vopson” into Youtube for a taster. I would be happy to respond.
1 Like
Will print out the hospitality article and read it later in the cafe.
1 Like
No problem. Just tell me if you would like to.
I read the essay concerning Derrida. I am not versed in his works, and only understand that he associated with post-modernism.
Perhaps you would be good enough to explain the association here? I can only guess that it relates to how people are taken advantage of in terms of hospitality.
On reading it, I was reminded of a terrible news story in the British press a number of years back in which a woman took into her home a homeless man from the street. However, he was emotionally damaged and drug addicted, and murdered the woman and her child. I regard it as lesson in naivety – if the woman wanted to be virtuous, then her primary responsibility should have been to protect her daughter.
I would be happy discuss all things concerning “information”, free will, determinism, quantum mechanics etc. However, I don’t simply wish to dump whole pages of unsolicited text, along with a load of links. Rather, I would wish a dialogue between conscious entities.
So what’s your take on things?
Anyone else should feel free to join in.
Yes, sure. When you said about people who do not care about agreement it looks like a choice between two options which (probably) considered equal. In fact it’s not so, because the person who makes the choice is under pressure of conditions. Very often the choice itself is not presented as such.
What do I mean by “is not presented as such”. I went to courses and paid money. The next day I got message “OK, good, now you need to give your google account because we put videos to google drive”. Let’s assume I read all courses conditions and it didn’t have such obligation. It also didn’t have paragraph like “you need to have a pen or you need to have boots put on”. They treat it like normal conditions and of course cannot contract everything. But if you’re not agree with google terms and conditions, for example that google won’t be responsible for the loss of profit in case of outage, what choice do you have? Also of course you need to install it to a device with OS which is also have own terms and conditions. What if you agree with google conditions but do not agree with Windows one (for example)? Or you’re OK to buy windows but shops that sell it have unsuitable option? I do not think one can explain “please give my money back because you want account that wants OS that needs shop and I do not agree with one condition”. By this clumsy example I wanted to show that often choice is not presented as such.
What if during the course you discovered new January 5 2022 terms and conditions changed. Can you say “please pay half of the money back because you wanted google account but they changed conditions and the new ones are not appropriate for me”.
It’s another question if conditions contain condition that conditions can be changed. It’s already an ethical problem.
So here we should say about monopoly. When you say “people say let them have my data” it sounds like you say “there are many other spaces where they can go if they don’t like this contract option”. In fact it’s not always so. By the pressure of circumstances people agree with conditions which they would never agree if they had an equivalent choice. The logic that is based here is “in my space I’m who make conditions”. On the one hand I understand that the owner of a house does not want to keep a drug addicted at home and makes conditions, and also it’s not possible to enumerate them all like “and also not sing aloud the whole day”. On another hand the guest has issue if the owner gives some extra conditions that might be completely inadmissible.
I tried to describe the hospitality issue and hope I did it from point of view of conditions.
I listened to Melvin Vopson on youtube about information as the fifth form of matter and that matches my view. I still doubt if information is energy. As for the information catastrophe I see it like social catastrophe but not the information one.
What you describe is the trauma of comprehending that your free-will is being taken away from you. We have long been subject to a deluge of “online contracts” that no human being can process and that can be changed instantly by corporations with the implication that you have automatically agreed to said changes. It becomes meaningless, and as the lie of choice evaporates, I believe we will increasingly see the imposition of outright force.
When love has gone,
There’s always Justice.
And when Justice is gone,
There’s always force.
O’ Superman, Laurie Anderson
But we don’t need to go into spirituality of metaphysics to understand what has happened. Shoshana Zuboff describes what is happening quite well in terms of “Surveillance Capitalism”:
More recently, Yanis Varoufakis (the Greek ex-finance minister) has been promoting his new book. He claims Zuboff does not go far enough and what we are witnessing is not capitalism, but the collapse of capitalism and the rise of “techno-feudalism”. Here he is:
What I find frustrating is the laziness and willingness of people in general to go along with this. I need to constantly remind myself that I should feel “love and light” toward them when, in effect, they have dragged us to hell by forcing those of who wished to cling to our souls into contracting with our new feudal lords simply in order to live in the modern world.
Today, I run Linux at home because I refuse Windows. But I know this is only a temporary oasis, or in Dune lingo, a “sietch”. I note the influx of money into the open source world from NGOs, and am again horrified by the naivety in accepting it as “free money” without strings.
But do not be disheartened. None of what is being rolled out is sustainable in the long-term. What the “elites” have done is buy into a their own lie of “techno-determinism” which they treat as an alternative for spirituality.
What I found so fascinating in the Ra Material, which was written back in 1981, was the emphasis placed on free-will. As you correctly suggest, we face “social catastrophe”. But this will not ultimately be a bad thing because what will be on the other side of it will be a renaissance. We will be going through a “transformation” whether or not we conceive this as a metaphysical.
I was interested in your choice of “Derrida” in terms of a relating to events. I suspect you come from a literary or political history kind of place. I would be interested to find common ground between us, but it may be an area in which you more versed than I.
You are correct that information is not energy. However, Vopson is suggesting that information has mass equivalence like energy does, but that information is subject to gravity (which energy is not). The thing is we don’t have a word for “information” in the sense that can be understood has having deeper meaning than mere “facts, figures and data”, which is why I suspect Ra used the term “intelligent energy”.
In my understanding, information is the fuel that allows mind to reverse “entropy”. And you cannot have information without mind or, in other words, knowledge requires a knower. And what does it mean to “know” something?
If indeed you are interested, a good place to start is determinism and 18th/19th century scientific revolution — specifically the “Laplace Demon”. Here is something I wrote a while back when I was trying to get my head around this stuff:
I actually should have titled this “Free-will, Determinism and the Absence of Nothingness” in order to be more precise. Where I ended up was with the idea that consciousness gives rise to material existence, and that consciousness arises out of infinity and nothingness is where you find infinity, and trying to figure out infinity just hurts.
Hence, my draw to Ra. That was my journey.
3 Likes
Sorry for late reply and thank you for the videos. I wanted to write long passage but coming to conclusion I will just describe contradictions that are flooding all. But some people generate contradictions, some people resolve them and some people use them. Some of questions I have, for example
- can agreement have item that agreement can be changed? Does it make sense at all?
- what if agreement contains slavery concept?
- there is a common statement that not knowing law or agreement does not free from responsibility. But it’s not possible physically, how can someone demand it?
- if someone/somewhat generates mutually exclusive statements, can they be considered at all? How to deal with it?
My observation is that contradictions originate from hierarchical structures. They are just not working normally and need people to absorb the accumulative errors at it’s bottom.
Probably that’s why I’m interested in Derrida, maybe his deconstruction is what I’m doing the whole life.
What you wrote in the article makes sense to me. But I have questions in practical sense. I understood that philosophers does not behave like they state. Sapolsky can state there´s no free will and all is determnied, but I´ve just opened wikipedia and read "Sapolsky decided to travel into Uganda to witness the war up close, later commenting, “I was twenty-one and wanted adventure”. That’s nonsense to me is someone saying there’s no free will but use it.
I know about Laplace Demon, just one argument about it. You know your friend is a communist, and he will definitely vote for a communist party. Isn’t it an evidence that free will exists because your friend will behave according to his choice? My opinion is looking like what is called compatibilism I think.
I live in Ukraine, was born in Russia/USSR and spent 5 years of childhood in DDR. Thank you for your interest.
I cannot explain why but it (“know”) does not correspond to my conception. I understand “know” wider. For example, does Spirit has state? When we say “polarization of mind/body/Spirit complex” does Spirit take part in polarization? If so, is it information?
Is this true vibration information or can we “know” it?
Wow! Thank you for your reply. There’s so much there. Allow me to start in reverse.
Kuiper:
In my understanding, information is the fuel that allows mind to reverse “entropy”. And you cannot have information without mind or, in other words, knowledge requires a knower. And what does it mean to “know” something?
Oleksii:
I cannot explain why but it (“know”) does not correspond to my conception. I understand “know” wider. For example, does Spirit has state? When we say “polarization of mind/body/Spirit complex” does Spirit take part in polarization? If so, is it information?
I use terms such as “know” and “information” in the widest possible way also. This is what I’m trying to articulate. Consciousness is axiomatic. And somehow reality (all that there is) comes out of it – or at least this is where I am with my thinking on such matters now.
does Spirit has state?
I’m not sure we have the handle to answer that. I will tell you what I think. Even if you look at the roots of “Information Theory” (Claud Shannon), the unit of information is described a digital “bit”. I suspect that this is a fundamental mistake. However, the defining characteristic of our modern world is the unquestioned assumption that everything is discrete, i.e. “digital”, and no one seems to be aware or even care about that assumption. The thing is about digital is that it makes things deterministic, by the way, which is considered useful. It also allows you declare that you are “certain” about everything as well.
I think information is not necessarily discrete in nature at all, not at least the information from the “Infinite Creator”. I think/suspect infinity is involved. However, infinity in the 3rd density is something we cannot properly contemplate. This is why I was so taken with the Ra Material. It aligns well (in many places) with concepts in science and information theory. I think, as Ra might say, I’m looking for “confirmation”. That doesn’t mean it’s right, or that my own thinking is right, but it grabbed me as having something to it.
I’m not sure it is meaninful to contemplate whether spirit has state. However, if you asked:
does Spirit have finite state?
I would say no.
39.10 the violet ray is constant and does not figure into a discussion of the functions of ray activation in that it is the mark, the register, the identity, the true vibration of an entity.
I have difficulty with this content in the Ra Material. I cannot make any sense of it and my past inclination would have been to dismiss it as new-age nonsense. I would have previously suspected that we’re just assigning colors to undefined things as a way of making things up as we go along, while sounding knowledgeable and certain about it all. However, I am NOT dismissing it. I am simply saying that I do not know, and that I am willing to have my pre-conceptions changed. I do not currently understand, and that is OK. Perhaps I will understand one way or another in the future.
[quote=“Oleksii, post:18, topic:1428”]
Is this true vibration information or can we “know” it?
[/quote]
I think it’s information. I think we can only perceive “projections” of it in the 3rd density (possibly excluding NDE and trance-like experience - I don’t know). Moreover, the vibration changes somehow when we “know” it, or at least, when it becomes knowable to us.
I might want to come back to this, especially with regard to what it is that is vibrating. However, I have life things to do. I will reply more later. Let me know if you are interested.
[quote=“Oleksii, post:17, topic:1428”]
I live in Ukraine, was born in Russia/USSR and spent 5 years of childhood in DDR. Thank you for your interest.
[/quote]
I visited Moscow in August 1991 – exactly two weeks after the coup. I was only 19 at the time. I have to say that I was a stupid and ignorant westerner who didn’t even know what he didn’t even know. A little later, I also worked with Russians and Ukranians in the handover of the Vernadsky Research Base in 94. I was an outsider to those of my own nationality, but got on very well with Russians and Ukranians. And you damn Russians even taught me to smoke! (I hope you share my sense of humour ) I even learned a little Russian, which I forgot because there is little cause to use any other language as an English speaking national. I think all that might change in the future, however, and I would personally consider it an opportunity for growth. Catch up with you later.
1 Like
Thank you for the reply and I’m still thinking on your question. But I would like to ask your opinion: can algorithm be not in Turing machine way as we are usually used to think? Pure algorithm, for example? I’m asking it relating to the mind, I haven’t decided if Turing machine analogy is appropriate.
1 Like