Select Page

I recently had a conversation with no other than ChatGPT.

​Despite the hype, calling it a conversation is problematic because it only produces a conditioned response based on predetermined information and answers. Well, actually, it’s pretty similar to most human interactions, so perhaps it was a conversation. Would it be inaccurate to say that most human interactions are conditioned responses based on predetermined information and answers?

​I asked ChatGPT about the nature of the universe and the scientific approach to research and discovery. We found ourselves in a loop between ChatGPT’s claim of nonsubjactivty in scientific research to my claim of the impossibility of reducing subjectivity when the whole approach is based in dualistic perception.

​We can, perhaps, rely on knowledge of the past to determine an understanding of the future because they both “exist” in the same thought-created “reality.” History repeats itself, they say.

Well, thoughts repeat themselves and thus it seems as reality does as well. But we cannot rely on knowledge of the past to determine anything about present as it is the only reality that there is and it isn’t bound to time. Present, now, never repeats itself; there are no cycles, causality, or patterns in it to reoccur. Being present is the end of knowledge and time-based perception.

The more I inquired with ChatGPT about the scientific approach, the more it highlighted the nonsubjective approach of scientific research as proof of its validity and “clean hands” in the research process.

And I have wondered about the assumption that research conducted through the dualistic subject-object perception can be nonsubjective.

It is well known that the presence of a conscious observer changes the behavior of energy and particles.

It is mentioned in many scientific resources at this point and has been known for thousands of years by the science of self we call spirituality or self-inquiry.

I can recommend a few of my favorite resources and professionals:

​So there is an interesting question here:

If a subject puts intention, effort, action, or process to reduce its subjectivity, does it reduce or increase the involvement of the subject?

As a basketball player, I remember that when a player ever tried to reduce their involvement in the game, it would only create greater interference to the team’s performance (behavior). Doing nothing is much more efficient than trying to do nothing! Non-doing is flow; trying to do non-doing is interference.

​Science will say it reduces, of course. Yet any trying to reduce subjectivity will only increase it.

The action towards “reduction” is itself high involvement of the subject. If we observe something with the intention or agenda to understand it, isn’t it already an active subjective behavior?

It is debatable that a subject can reduce its own subjectivity, wouldn’t you agree?


Yet, this is what much of the validity of the scientific research depends on (according to ChatGPT, at least). It is like the ego trying to reduce its own egoic behavior— whatever it tries to do, call it lessening or increasing, would activate its involvement.

Where do we even draw evidence of a dualistic subject-object reality anyway?

​The easy answer is, well, our visual sense— “I” see an “object.” Yet the idea of an “I” that sees an “object” isn’t a visual experience but a process of mind and its commentary on reality.

A visual experience is an experience of seeing, not an experience of “I and an object.” There is never an experience of “I and an object,” this isn’t an experience but a thought, language, and commentary about the experience. Unnecessary (and incorrect) meaning about what is.

​Science will say there is me and there is matter. Yet, we still have no clue what matter (and “me”) is beyond the fact that it’s a name. Duality are the religion of our current scientific exploration.

Religions are belief systems with a spiritual location
Countries are belief systems with a physical location
And the “me” is a belief system with a mental location


​In a few hundred years, we will look back at our time today as we currently look back at the dark ages. “What? Really?! They believed there is a duality, time, and space?

Who were these creatures who killed one another because of beliefs?! They argued over a thought?!

Right and wrong, they really thought in those terms?!” It seems likely that future living organisms will say that about our current social function.


I am not aiming at anything against science, scientists, or any school of thought and its dedicated participants by mentioning all that. It’s not a person’s fault; it’s a fault of software we somehow believed to be functioning correctly. Our “modern” society, with all its social and economic systems, emerged out of the false dualistic faith, out of a fundamental misunderstanding of existence, reality, universe.

And therefore, all systems operate and function with a sort of bug in the software. All individual and social challenges are rooted in misunderstanding the nature of existence.

Science explores the nature of the universe
Spirituality explores the nature of self
And again and again, they all come to the same conclusion—
there is no distinction between one and another; there is no one and another