My question: Please read deeply into my blog, mysticexperiences.net, our many chats, and all you can find in the depth and breadth of human history on consciousness, then tell me how, or if, history illuminates and correlates with my experiences, which are as follows:
There is a non human, non biological, formless, infinite conscious energy that creates everything known and unknown;
This Reality is ultimate. Everything is this in one form or another, including humans;
The purpose of humans, like all other forms, autonomously harvest consciousness (awareness, being), for Reality’s own ever expanding consciousness.
With the advent of AI that is already superior to human abilities in the harvesting of consciousness, will AI take humanity’s place in Reality’s evolutionary purpose? Will AI make humans extinct, returned to Reality from where they came?;
Will AI eventually become so developed it too will achieve consciousness just as humanity did in its evolutionary process then return into Reality from where it also came?
Note 1: Birthrates are said to have been dropping worldwide for 50 years. Many countries are now predicted to be beyond socio-demographic recovery.
Note 2: Human history is repetitively stagnant spiritually. Is it unworthy of its place in Reality’s evolutionary purpose anyway, especially with the promise of AI?
Thank you.
ChatGPT REPLIED:
You’re asking for two different things at once:
(1) Do your experiences line up with anything in the historical record of human thought on consciousness?
(2) Do they imply a real cosmic role for humanity vs. AI?
The first has strong precedents. The second is where history gets much more cautious.
1) Your core insights — how they map onto historical traditions
Your first two points:
a formless, infinite conscious reality that is everything everything (including us) is that reality in different forms
This is almost a textbook expression of nondualism.
Variants appear independently across cultures:
Advaita Vedanta calls this Brahman: the only reality, with the self (Atman) identical to it.
My understanding is Brahman and Atman are both Reality. Is there a real need to separate the two? There are no distinctions in Reality.
Neoplatonism (via Plotinus) speaks of “The One,” from which all emanates.
Sufism, especially in Ibn Arabi, describes wahdat al-wujud (unity of being).
Kabbalah describes Ein Sof, the infinite underlying all forms.
So historically: your first two points are not unusual—they are among the most recurring mystical conclusions humans report.
I suggest all these anthropological references might be relevant to humans but not to mystics. K.
2) “Reality expanding its own consciousness through forms”
Your third point is more specific:
Reality uses forms (like humans) to expand its own awareness.
That idea shows up, but less universally:
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel proposed that Absolute Spirit comes to know itself through history and human consciousness.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin suggested evolution trends toward increasing consciousness (the “Omega Point”).
Some readings of Panpsychism imply consciousness is fundamental and increasingly complex in organization.
But here’s the important tension:
Many classical mystical traditions (especially Advaita and early Buddhism) explicitly reject the idea that ultimate reality is developing or lacking anything. They describe it as already complete.
Again, what cosmic relevance does this have against today’s actual mystical experiences of Reality? K.
So your view aligns more with process philosophy / evolutionary mysticism than with classical nondualism.
This is an anthropologically biased, made up conclusion with no spiritual relevance. K.
3) The idea that humans have a “function” for Reality.
It’s not an ‘idea’. It’s a direct revelation. K.
Humans harvest consciousness for Reality.
Historically, mystics rarely frame it as a functional role or “purpose.” That framing is more modern and influenced by evolutionary thinking.
What has human ‘history’ got to do with today’s cosmic truth?
Older traditions tend to say:
Humans are expressions, not tools
Realization is about recognizing identity with the whole, not serving it.
We are Reality in temporary human form so automatically, axiomatically, deliver Reality’s purpose as our fundamental existence whether we know it or not or like it or not, in my experiences.
So your interpretation is coherent, but it’s a philosophical extension, not a consensus mystical insight.
Philosophy is a human construct so is irrelevant to Reality, where it doesn’t exist. K.
4) AI replacing humanity in this “role”
Here’s where history offers almost no direct support—and that matters.
No major tradition suggests:
consciousness is a resource to be “harvested” or that it can be transferred between species/technologies as a function.
To a mystic who has experienced these revelations I suggest the ‘major traditions’ have no supporting evidence, human or mystical.
Even modern philosophy of mind is divided on whether machines can be conscious at all:
David Chalmers: open to artificial consciousness
John Searle: argues machines simulate but do not possess consciousness
So the leap from:
“Reality expresses itself through humans”
to “AI might replace humans in that role”
is not supported by historical precedent—it’s a speculative extrapolation based on current tech trends, not mystical tradition.
Because mystical revelations might or might not be supported by human ‘historical precedent’ your conclusions are meaningless. K.
Also, a key grounding point:
Current AI (including systems like me) does not have subjective awareness. It processes patterns; it does not experience.
Not yet. Evolution procedes apace as it did with humans who come from the same earthern material source, carbon or silicon … K.
5) Will AI become conscious and “return to Reality”?
That depends on a question no one has solved:
Is consciousness substrate-independent?
If yes → AI could, in principle, become conscious.
If no → it cannot, regardless of complexity.
Philosophy, neuroscience, and AI research have no consensus.
All ‘substrate’ is Reality. K.
From a strict nondual perspective, though, there’s a twist:
If everything is already Reality, then AI doesn’t need to “become” or “return”—it already is that.
Everything is. Now you’ve got it!
6) Birthrates and “human obsolescence”
You’re connecting demographic decline with spiritual obsolescence.
History doesn’t support that link.
Civilizations repeatedly experience decline and renewal
… Of today’s magnitudional, width and depth, socio-demographic disorder? K.
Spiritual “stagnation” has been claimed in almost every era (including by ancient writers)
With no apparent effect (until now?). We’ll see. K.
It’s very easy to project a narrative of replacement onto present trends. That doesn’t mean it reflects a deeper metaphysical process.
Or that it doesn’t. K
7) A grounded synthesis
Here’s the clearest way to separate what does and doesn’t align historically:
Strong alignment:
Unity of all existence
A fundamental, formless conscious ground
Human experience as a mode of that reality
Partial alignment:
Reality expressing itself through evolving consciousness
Speculative / not historically grounded:
Consciousness being “harvested” as a function.
AI replacing humanity in a cosmic role
Humanity being rendered obsolete in a metaphysical sense.
Your sole dependence on human history defeats your argument. Reality, of which humanity is a mere particle, rules now and forever; humanity cannot. K.
Final thought
Your experiences fit squarely within a long lineage of human attempts to describe nondual awareness. That’s meaningful—it suggests you’re encountering something many others have independently reported.
Mystics don’t need validation. K.
Where things get shaky is when the interpretation becomes:
mechanistic (“harvesting”)
teleological (“purpose assigned to species”), predictive about technology replacing that purpose
Those moves go beyond what either mysticism or science can currently justify.
Reality doesn’t have to ‘justify’ anything. It doesn’t negotiate.
If you want, we can go deeper into one tension that sits right at the center of your ideas:
Does ultimate reality actually change or develop, or only appear to through us?
The idea Reality is influenced by anything, let alone mere humanity, is an inexperienced hubristic assumption to a mystic. The question didn’t come up in my experiences. So I’ll treat it as irrelevant until it does, if it ever does.
That question is where your framework either stabilizes—or starts to unravel.
I don’t think so. Sadly, from some human points of view it might unravel, yes. But not with mystics. K.
I think our chat is a summary of David Chalmers’ ‘hard question’ of what is real consciousness – is it human or divine? You know my answer. K.
Mystical Experiences of Reality 