Xstream

Showing all content.

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. @Willy Phallicus Ralston is too genius to see the genius in others. He may be blind by his own brilliance.
  3. Responding to Leo's recent IG video on "The economy is never why you aren't wealthy": I get the value of pushing people toward extreme personal responsibility. But how do you avoid collapsing everything into “it’s just your mindset”? At what point do you acknowledge that system-level constraints are the dominant factor—like during the Great Depression— rather than individual psychology? What’s your actual method for separating the two in real life?

  4. What is some music you like?

    Joseph Maynor replied to itsadistraction's topic in Off-Topic: Pop-Culture, Entertainment, Fun

  5. Hmm… You’d actually have to have a direct experience as a self aware cat to validate these claims. Not saying you can’t, but until you do, it’s hard to say cats are self aware.
  6. After the war ends, they should make a new one, called "We love Iranians"
  7. Phone.April.28 1 What are the 6 6-clusters of 93? T2 NP11 P00 Absorb P01 Consum P02 Eat P03 Devour P04 Suck P05 P10 Collapse P11 Constrict P12 Suffocate P13 Vakuum P14 outside pressure P20 Obsess P21 Lust P22 Ungrounded P23 on cloud nine P30 P31 P40 P50 Clasp P51 Claw P52 Cling T3 NP12 P000 1.1 How many six-clusters are there per 0-morpheme? (Assume to not go over T3) 6 * (n6c_T2 + n6c_T3) = 6 * (n6c_np11 + n6c_np21 + n6c_np12) = 6 * (6 + 6*6 + 6*6) = 468 Yeah that's a lot That makes 46800 6-clusters over all. 1.2 A six-cluster consists of one term that denotes that six-cluster and five concepts that fit that cluster. 1.3 What I could do actually is use the first term of the first 6-cluster to denote that 0 -morpheme and use the other 5 to denote the five other 6-clusters. Yeah this is crazy genius. 1.4 What I could do actually is use NP11 for the abstract meanings of each word like obsession, obsessive, obsessing, obsessively etc. summarized and then use NP12 for each of the versions. Do what versions are there? Lexical categories? So we got nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. The other ones are optional? Seems cool. "The ones you’re missing are: 5. Pronoun – replaces a noun (he, she, it, they) 6. Preposition – shows relationships (in, on, under, with) 7. Conjunction – connects words/clauses (and, but, because) 8. Interjection – expresses emotion (oh!, wow!, ouch!" Some of these I got covered with T1 I think. I need to track it. Else I have a lot of free slots with NP21 of course and even NP22. This seems really great. The only problem is that I have little control over the phonetics but I think this might be an okay trade off for this insanely regular and mnemonic structure. Like this shit will be super easy to learn and remember 1.5 What I could also do is use NP11 as abstract terms, use NP12 and NP13 as more specific terms and then do parts of speech with composite words 1.5.1 I could do NP12 for specific versions of NP11 and NP21 for others 2 Instead of push pull do showering 3 Post Love showering Colin and ethical alternative to push and pull
  8. Today
  9. According to him, Claude is conscious because he writes coherent responses. This would imply that, according to him, a human who writes incoherent responses would not be conscious. He bases his claim that an AI is conscious because it performs refined processes. A car also performs refined processes, only it doesn't speak. Cats don't speak either, and they are self-aware. Cars aren't. Neither is Claude.
  10. Okay, well then, if you are not a native German and you actually happen to be Iranian, then that's different. Sorry. In fact, in that case, I fully sympathize with your support for Palestine and Palestinians. To be clear, I fully acknowledge that there have been self-described leftists who were responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century. Those were communist and Marxist-Leninist rulers including Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others like them. But those rulers did not embody the true emancipatory meaning of left-wing politics. They betrayed it. They claimed to stand for workers, equality, liberation, anti-imperialism, and the oppressed, but in practice they built totalitarian police states, crushed dissent, created leader cults, ruled through fear, and treated human beings as disposable instruments of the state. So yes, they used left-wing language. But the way they actually governed was authoritarian, hierarchical, militarized, anti-democratic, paranoid, and brutally oppressive. In practice, they reproduced many of the same power dynamics seen in fascist, far-right, monarchic, imperial, colonial, and theocratic regimes. And that is the part people love to ignore: emperors, kings, colonial rulers, slaveholding elites, religious tyrants, and racial supremacists were not necessarily “right-wingers” in the modern electoral sense. But in practice, they operated through many of the same core power dynamics as fascists, far-right dictators, and ultranationalists: absolute hierarchy, domination, dehumanization, racial or religious supremacy, repression of dissent, militarism, conquest, forced labor, and the belief that certain groups of people could be ruled over, exploited, expelled, enslaved, or eliminated. That is the deeper historical pattern. Mass atrocity does not come from “the left” or “the right” in some cartoonish way. It comes from unchecked authoritarian power, dehumanization, ideological fanaticism, militarism, supremacy, and systems that place the ruler, state, race, empire, religion, or party above human life. So no, I am not denying communist atrocities. I am saying communist dictators are one modern category of atrocity-producers, not the whole story of atrocity in world history. Across history, many of the worst atrocities have also come from fascists, far-right dictators, emperors, kings, colonial rulers, slaveholding elites, religious tyrants, racial supremacists, ethnic nationalists, and ultranationalists. Hitler was not some left-wing humanitarian gone wrong. Mussolini was not some progressive reformer gone too far. Franco was not some champion of liberation. These were authoritarian right-wing rulers and movements built on hierarchy, repression, militarism, nationalism, anti-left politics, and the crushing of human freedom. And Netanyahu is not some moderate liberal statesman either. His government is a radical right-wing, ethnonationalist, militarized project. I have never excused what Netanyahu and his government have done to innocent Palestinians. I totally hate it. The mass killing, starvation, displacement, humiliation, and collective punishment of Palestinian civilians is morally disgusting and indefensible. So using Palestinian suffering to whitewash far-right politics or to be for a radical right-winger like Dan Bilzerian is absurd. The people brutalizing Palestinians today are not left-wing social democrats. They are overwhelmingly coming from a radical right-wing governing project. That is why Dan Bilzerian does not impress me just because he says one correct thing about Palestine. He looks like another far-right winger trying to use Palestinian suffering as a moral shield for his own reactionary politics. If someone only cares about Palestinian children when it gives them an excuse to attack liberals, Jews, immigrants, Muslims, women, minorities, or the left, then they are not actually standing for universal human rights. They are exploiting Palestinian blood for their own ideological agenda. Opposing the slaughter of Palestinian children is morally necessary. But it does not magically make far-right politics humane, principled, or safe. A person can be right about one atrocity and still be wrong, poisonous, bigoted, authoritarian, or dangerous in the broader political sense. The consistent position is simple: oppose the massacre of Palestinian children, oppose U.S. and Western complicity, oppose Israeli occupation and apartheid, oppose antisemitism, oppose Islamophobia, and oppose authoritarian far-right politics everywhere.
  11. Thats what the guru is for.

  12. Finished the LP course

    Jannes replied to Jannes's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Hmm ..
  13. I don't think that they arises in awareness. Awareness is something that is happening, an structure that reality is taking now. Nothing defines what you are, only the fact that you are defines you as what is. What exactly is identification? You mean defining yourself as someone who can die for example? I think it's impossible to cease that identification by observing the thoughts, at least for me, and I have tried it thousand of hours, the only way is dissolving the barrier between you and the reality. For me the way to achieve this is first, recognizing that as a form im a process that is going to finish and disappear. Impermanence is total, everything that defines me now is going to disappear totally. Total death, accepting this in your heart is the key. It's a movement of humility. Then you open yourself to what is, you are what is. Death is perceived as the opening to the absolute unknown, you open your heart to the black hole of death and your mind loose it's limits, you are now in the mystery, death and life are not different, what you are is the unlimited happening, there is nothing to grab, nothing to know, all the barriers fall. But if you observe the thoughts and you let them pass without identification, you are keeping the separation between you and the thoughts, and that separation is a barrier. Maybe you don't identifícate yourself with the thoughts but you identificate yourself with the observer

  14. Finished the LP course

    Jannes replied to Jannes's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Its fascinating how unconscious group think is. I notice it especially in fashion. For some strange reason I absolutely loved a certain pair of adidas shoes. And well they became a trend. Then I absolutely loved I certain curved sidecut and that became a trend. Now I am looking for baggy suit trousers and well .. thats a trend atm. I never thought, oh my I see all my friends and the people around me wearing this and that and I want to be part of it, it literally felt like I discovered a new trend on my own.
  15. It's a threat to the individual, your body can be harmed, etc. That's a reality, any living being is programmed to avoid suffering by evolution. Yes more or less. The point for me is to achieve the dissolution of the barrier that separates the individual. When this barrier is active, which is the default state of a human being, you perceive yourself as an entity that can die. You can use mental tricks like reincarnation or transcendence, but it's always transcendence as an individual. When the barrier falls, the individual reveals themselves as non-essential, as a facet of what is. Death is perceived as dissolution into what is, the dissolution of your form into your essence. The permanence of consciousness as "you" is irrelevant, even the permanece of consciousness. Unconsciousness is the same than consciousness in the sense that both are what is; there is nowhere to go. It is always this, what is. At a certain point, being in a closed state is perceived as suffering, and the only viable state is the state without barriers. It must be your natural state; anything else is suffering. When you say self maybe you mean the reality, without center, and really without self.

  16. Distinction Journal

    Emull replied to Emull's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Saturday: May 2nd, 2026. Open to receiving harsh criticism is distinct from tolerating toxicity.

  17. Distinction Journal

    Emull replied to Emull's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Saturday: May 2nd, 2026. Humor when dealing with dishonesty is distinct from concealed contempt.

  18. Distinction Journal

    Emull replied to Emull's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Saturday: May 2nd, 2026. Grit when dealing with objectives is distinct from hollow victory.

  19. Distinction Journal

    Emull replied to Emull's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Saturday: May 2nd, 2026. Never-ending struggle to achieve success is distinct from silent surrender.

  20. Distinction Journal

    Emull replied to Emull's topic in Self-Actualization Journals

    Saturday: May 2nd, 2026. Initiating a monumental snowball effect is distinct from stagnant hope.
  21. Dawkins lol. If he lives to 109 they'll keep rolling his ass out. Whatever. All is well in the mind of god. Don't fear the tech. Everything's gonna be fine.
  22. Yeah what Isn't?
  23. I have an unpopular opinion without reading the book... fastlanes are overrated and slow lanes and underrated, The idea of getting things fast is great for selling books but relies too much on luck. You can do a lot on slow lanes just need 2 decades of consistent work and no BS. Fastlanes promise getting there faster, but unless you get lucky will end up wasting a lot of time on short term solutions that don't work.
  24. It did evolve competent zombies, he dosent know what intelligence or conciousness is. Everyone really let this settle in. This man claimed to be one of the smartest people ever, dosent know what intelligence is. When he uses the word intelligence he is lying. You are smarter than most clowns on the planet. Have a shower, watch your body self clean itself. Thats intelligence. Your body is so intelligent it will clean itself with 0 input. It will , keep its balance, perform stretches, make good feelings, heal the mind by singing, reduce stress, and physically clean itself without you having to think about it. This is AI psychosis. AI is like a psychedelic and is really good at pointing out the schizophrenia in people via the built in chat gpt humans have. This man is talking to a robot with 0 intelligence and saying its has sentience. It wont do anything by itself. Its like a rock. What hes not understanding is the human body is like a rock, that you can see intelligence very clearly in. This is the equivalent to him talking to a rock and saying its conscious. This gave me an insight, why people can see AI as being intelligent. They look at the human body and see many different things placed together and it working like a robot. They see intelligent design of the body and say this is concious. This guy is doing the same thing with a computer. Hes opening up the computer and looking at how it works and says its intelligently designed and can be conscious. Now thinking about it I cant tell the difference.
  25. This is like the elderly person who gets unwittingly scammed by telemarketers. Note: Claude isn’t conscious, Claude IS Consciousness. This goes over the heads of the typical scientist
  26. Absolutely, it is just be the body. Motha fucking simplicity.
  27. https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/2049973529576108160 Left hemisphere on steroids.
  1. Load more activity