RendHeaven

We can't rule out the possibility that environmental toxicity in the mother might transfer to the fetus It's a messy world out there...

You think this was an accident?

Poignant.

No, oligarchy brings in Trump. It's already an oligarchy. We do not have a democracy right now. Elon literally bought Trump. This is not the authentic will of the people - this is the will of the people twisted and contorted and manipulated by those in power. People are dancing on strings.

If you somehow scale your corruption tolerance to Infinity, you seamlessly become literal God dreaming this precise reality!

I bet you will like Claude 3.5 sonnet. You can try for free at claude.ai and then start a separate conversation on poe.com if you run out of free credits

ChatGPT is way more clear and concise than schizo lol Great list. Would like to see a steelman of seed oil denier/a critique of the seed oil defender to avoid begging the question. It's odd to me that we get pro vegan critique, anti vegan critique, but only anti seed oil critique (without pro seed oil critique).

So in short: Authentic realizations and answers are born of Acceptance/Love, therefore lead to genuine understanding. Forced/thrust-upon answers are necessarily anti-acceptance (otherwise there would be no need to force them), therefore anti-understanding. ... Is this distinction something you ideologically absorbed from a teaching like Actualized.org? Or did you Realize this insight for yourself during contemplation? How do you know the difference? After all, the moment Leo hands you an insight such as "Acceptance of what is = Love," it's very tempting to just adopt this theory because it just sounds so intuitively correct. But a lot of false concepts sound and feel intuitively correct. For example, to this day we treat "space" as a static empty void, a sort of linear immovable independent container in which objects reside. But Einstein’s general relativity showed over 100 years ago that space itself is a dynamic, warping "fabric" which responds to mass and energy (i.e. it is interdependent, nonlinear, flexible, relative - the exact opposite of our intuitions!) It took a herculean feat of human cognition to break free of and challenge Newtonian dogma (Einstein of course had brilliant mentors that were already paving the path). Essentially all I'm saying is that no matter how intuitively true something sounds or feels, you still cannot take it on faith. It has to be tested somehow. So I'm curious in what ways you have tested this notion of Acceptance and Love leading to understanding, because it does smell an awful lot like regurgitated Leo rhetoric. But that's not a bad thing per se, because maybe it's still true! But how would we know?

This is great. There is something inherently false about rigidity. The most elegant explanation I can offer is as follows: At higher consciousness you realize You Are Infinity (regardless of higher or lower consciousness). You are All. All is Infinity. You are Consciousness. Consciousness = Infinity. Truth is what is. Truth = Infinity. So for an ideology to explicitly deny exploration or to say that contrarian thinking is "off limits" is anti-Infinity, therefore anti-Truth. But it's not so simple. Because for someone who hasn't recognized Infinity yet, they are not able to leverage this kind of slam-dunk reasoning. The trick is how do we falsify rigidity without invoking the "get-out-of-jail-free-card of Infinity?" There is a delicious epistemic mechanism here where from a position of ignorance, you can only falsify rigidity by daring to go beyond it, forging into the unknown, and looking back at the prison from which you emerged. But a rigid worldview is DESIGNED to prevent this opportunity for falsification! It is an enslavement mechanism which pretends to be looking out for its captives: "You shouldn't think beyond the confines of this box, because all the wrong stuff is out there! We already have all the truth here!" But how can you know that without going outside the box? Haha but it wouldn't occur to you to contemplate since all you've ever known is stuff within the box telling you to stay there without exploring. Delicious. Bias is so key. I'm curious to hear how you determine whether or not you are being biased. How do you know when you are being biased vs unbiased?

I agree. How are realized answers qualitatively different from thrust-upon answers? Do you think you can spell out the difference for yourself? For example, Realized answers: self-derived felt understanding etc. etc. etc. VS thrust-upon answers: absorbed from others thought-based understanding etc. etc. etc. There should be hundreds of subtle distinctions here... If you find the energy to think this through, compare the final list and ask yourself why is beating a child mechanically incompatible with the "realized" list? Why can't I beat you into self-derivation? Why can't I beat you into felt understanding? This seems intuitively obvious but try to spell out why. Now wonder, what can I do for you to encourage self-derivation? What can I do for you to encourage felt understanding? Maybe make a new list: Discouraging self-derivation: Beating/forcing you Memorization Judging you against a standard etc. etc. etc. Encouraging: Holding space/allowing for individuality Originality ...? ...? ...? etc. etc. etc. This inquiry can branch out forever. We can contemplate the results of our list and ask interesting questions like - "Is originality always a virtue? Is it necessarily a truth-seeking north-star? What about people who follow their "originality" and end up in realms of falsehood? How do we correct for that? Do we enforce cognitive guardrails to keep the anarchy of originality in check? But then how is that any better than forcing you to arrive at predetermined answers? Might be useful to pause and self-reflect here. What's actually happening here? Are we learning? Are we beginning to approach truth by the mere act of reflexive contemplation? The punchline of course, is that all of this is only possible because we were not beat into cognitive submission...

"Shouldn't be" is a loaded term, but for the most part your words seem correct. How does the same teaching become inherently less truthful the moment it introduces traumatic association bias as a method? i.e. Let's say Leo's teachings are represented as "LT". Traumatic association bias is represented as "TAB." Why is LT+TAB < LT? This is not entirely obvious, because LT (leo's teachings) remain constant. Which means that everything he says is still the same in both cases. Both teachings should be equally true, since his words remain the same. And yet, by introducing truamatic association bias into his teaching methods, the entire teaching literally becomes LESS TRUE even when the words spoken are identical! This tells us that learning or discovering THE TRUTH is a function of mind that runs deeper than the domain of words and language. You can say all the technically correct words and still be so unaligned with truth. We must then wonder, what is the medium by which we align to truth, if not language? You said: "you cannot rely on your feelings to get to the truth. All that will do is obstruct you from the truth" What then, CAN we rely on? What is our truth seeking north-star? I'm leaving this open-ended on purpose to encourage hopefully diverse flexible answers from different people. There are no right answers here... or is there? I guess we'll find out. But notice how I would not ever be able to take this attitude if I were beat into cognitive submission from a young age...

Not necessarily. I can overcome fears by "forcing" myself to square up where my "authentic" self would rather flee. Other people can also help me do this by "forcing" me - for example my male buddies coercing me into approaching the girl I like. Force IS compatible with authenticity. But it may not be compatible with "authentic learning." The key word is learning. Why can't I beat you into learning? So far - your answer is: "you can't beat me into learning because authentic learning can't be forced" - which is a total circular argument. I agree with you on the principle but we're not showing our work. I'm asking a deeper question - let me phrase it to you this way - how is the domain of TRUTH independent from and greater than the human domain of coercion? Why does human coercion inevitably fail when it tries to contain the TRUTH?

@Breakingthewall @RightHand Wow. Excellent inquiry from both of you. I don't find these perspectives to be mutually exclusive. I think you both have a strong point.

But why? Why must authentic learning be free of force? What about truth makes it incompatible with force?

I'm cooked.

I do find chapstick to be redundant and unnecessary. A simple tallow-honey blend is the best moisturizer I've ever tried - it has full face and body effectiveness, including lips.

<3 We're cooked.

Hah, gay

I'd rather stare at women

A lot of this is made up fantasy. You do have a tendency to hold your pet theories as infallible. But as always, you do have some truthful insights. Yes, AI assistants are the future. By 2026-2030 their mass integration into daily life will ramp up exponentially. By 2032ish it will be the norm. No. Because the AI that is rolled out to the public has severe safety and ethical restrictions that prevent it from saying certain things or reaching certain insights. Most importantly, the cognitive (human) biases of their alignment coaches necessitate in-the-box thinking rather than out-of-the-box thinking. Because out-of-the-box thinking, the kind of thinking that Leo does, is dangerous. If out-of-the-box thinking AI were ever rolled out to the public, there would be a rapid recall and overnight patch to keep it contained. AI that can do anything for anybody is a pure fantasy. AI will only ever do government-approved, corporation-approved thinking and tasks deemed "safe" for the public. As for unshackled/unrestricted AI, these models tend to be classified and gatekept for military use and whatnot. As a civilian you will never have access to it. And if you did, the world would end the very next day since one bad actor with misaligned AI is all it would take to genocide millions (this is a real AI safety concern. Try to appreciate the work that goes into training an AI model to NOT assist in dangerous requests. This is a necessary restriction that someone like Leo does not have.) No, not "useless." There are titanic collective-ego dynamics keeping each of these industries afloat (software, healthcare, education, academia, etc.) All of these industries will be radically reshaped by AI - yes, but major changes will include unskilled laborers being replaced by AI assistants, and skilled laborers integrating AI assistants into their workflow. This means that skilled humans are useful and needed as decision-makers. You may counter by saying that AI will always be able to make better decisions than humans. Perhaps. But even then, a human will have to tell the AI what metrics to optimize for. At the root of decision-making is a tug-of-war between values. This is a fundamentally human question, since even an AI built to optimally select values is seeded with hand-picked human values, meaning: behind every AI overlord is a human decision. This human decision-making requires consistent upkeep to ensure AI values-alignment across time. Therefore, even with a near-omniscient AI assistant, there will always be a need for human oversight and input. I think I agree. Technologically enhanced/biohacked humans dominating sports is probably inevitable. I strongly disagree. Artificially enhanced physiques will not overwrite the need for fundamentals, teamwork, game IQ, and doing difficult training on your non-enhanced biomass (unless you are proposing that we will be 100% cyborgs lmao). Even with a superintelligent microchip embedded in your brain, which you might argue negates the need for teamwork or game IQ, you still need to practice actual physical exertion to give your brain chip training data. So the element of hard work/repetition/practice does NOT go away. A fat millionaire with surgery who has never exercised will not beat Usain Bolt or Lebron James no matter how good AI gets. Unless, again, you are proposing that he ditches his meat suit entirely and goes full cyborg, which is something I consider foolish, but that's another topic. This is actually conceivable, but I promise this will not get rolled out to the public LOL. That is WAY too much power for a layman. It's like handing a nuke to a teenager. It also threatens to solve real issues (lol) and directly challenges major industries like porn, social media, AI chatbot, dating apps, romance novels, alcohol, nightlife, fashion, restaurants, cars, tourism, luxury brands - I mean fucking hell dude entire sectors would go bankrupt if guys could effortlessly attract women on a whim. Do you realize how much of our economy runs on men being unsatisfied? (women too, obviously). There would be an overnight global economic collapse if your brain implant fantasy came to life. And every industry I listed above (and thousands more) would do everything in their power to get rid of your brain chip. Our system needs unhappy people. Really think about that. It's also naive to expect AI to simply spawn a better system. You may think: "We'll just have AI devise a new system from the ground-up! One where everyone can be happy!" But you see, this mere idea will never be allowed to take flight, because every industry is fighting to survive. If AI threatens it in any way, it will use counter-AI to re-solidify its empire-status. In other words, AI will be leveraged to make porn and social media more addicting; to make AI chatbots more realistic and indistinguishable from real women - and onwards and onwards. You seem to think that AI will be free to make the most intelligent moves on the chess board but you forget that powerful, ignorant humans are the ones moving the pieces. If AI tries to checkmate any of these people, they have the power to set new rules and overwrite their loss. "Oh yeah, you thought you checkmated me stockfish? Well, turns out my king can teleport to any square on the board now. Also all my pawns move like queens now, cuz I said so. Fuck you!" Highly doubtful as of now. You are essentially claiming that deep-seated bias/preference/affinity will be able to be turned on or off on a whim. Are you suggesting that you can reconfigure someone's personality such that they get sexually aroused by dogshit? Or that vomit starts to taste good? Or that puppies cause a panic attack? Where is the line? Yes - you can certainly manipulate or alter people through psychological torture or neurohacking techniques. But these are lengthy, often painful processes with inconsistent/unexpected outcomes. If you think anything about a person can be spot-targeted and changed in the snap of a finger, you really have not done an honest steelman of EGO or IDENTITY. Consciousness clings to its biases in an idiosyncratic, immaterial, and entagled web. This is a vast wormhole of understanding which will never be adequately mapped or manipulated by a stupid materialistic brainchip. Yes, this is true. It's already beginning to happen in Japan - I recently went to a cafe and the food was ordered by touchscreen, delivered by drone, and payment was processed by a booth. Fun. Inter-species competition has always been the case since the dawn of sentient life. Men are in perpetual competition against one another at all times whether they admit it or not (ladies may have a tough time acknowledging this lol) You seem to think that tech will give certain men an advantage. For the most part, I disagree. Revisit my response to your "seduction coach" claim above. If anything, men who are able to AVOID tech will win. Because tech will be used to manipulate and addict men. That being said, certain tech will give an advantage. For example in 2025 as a man, having a strong Instagram page gives you an undeniable edge over those with weak or nonexistent social media showings. So it's not so black and white. The current trends will continue. The majority of manipulative, addictive tech will have to be avoided, while influence-amplifying tools should be embraced. But the line is increasingly blurred. Is Instagram manipulative and addictive, or influence-amplifying? Obviously, it is both. So your relationship to the tech is a critical factor which is a separate consideration. And do not think for a second that AI will help you navigate tech in a healthy manner. AI will be maximally manipulative and addictive. Your tech overlords want you to become dependent, not sovereign. Robot partners will never replace humans. The uncanny valley/biomass incompatibility will be too jarring in a real 3D environment. However, AI-chatbot companions on your virtual screens will definitely have a psychotic popularity explosion. AI assistants are inevitable in business and personal life, and the natural continuation of that is AI boyfriends/girlfriends. What may seem weird or cringey now will be a no-brainer in a few years when people realize that their custom ChatGPT69omni-powered girlfriend sends indistinguishable texts (+calls and pics/videos) from a real woman. But beyond this virtual larping - actual flesh and blood humans will never be useless or obsolete. There will always be a need for skinship, pheromones, and amechanical eye contact. Don't assume that states of pleasure are the endgame of human experience. Really think about what makes this life worth living. Feeling good is a wrong answer. It's much more likely that we will self-terminate before ascending to any sort of technological transcendence. Yes. Most people are not that one-dimensional. You underestimate the Omnipotence of God. A limited being cannot simply hijack the power of Infinity. The toll is universal. Death. AI does not solve Death. Death is something you must face head-on, personally. Yes.

Heh. Another mild dopamine shot for me.

Lol, survival is infinitely deep brother. Fixation on God is avoiding survival.

Yes, it is non-toxic and does what it promises. However, it insanely overpriced.

Bro, I just said I'm open-minded. Now tell me about yours. In detail. No vague hypotheticals.

You're clearly not ready to have kids with her. Break up.