EternalForest

I watched all of Pt. 1 of the Science series. Here are my comments and objections: Science is constantly getting better, and we may never reach the end or have one perfect specific method. That's the point of science, to have a more and more accurate understanding of the world. It's not this static thing. It's the best truth we have so far. Just because it's not written in the universe, doesn't mean we're not doing the best we can do. Sure, there were inaccuracies in the past, there are inaccuracies now, and there will be in the future. But this is the best we can do, constantly strive to be the best version of science we can be. However, we can only work with what's measureable. We cannot account for things any given person cannot verify for themselves. This is why intangible feelings and experiences such as Love or personal or spiritual experiences aren't useful in serious scientific study. A fact is something observable by anyone. A personal experience is not. Science is actually the opposite of ego and religion, Science is willing to fix its mistakes, while religion isn't. New science books are constantly being published, but religion's holy books are unchangeable, And no, you cannot do science without first understanding it. It's not about who you are or where you come from, it’s about pure discovery. That's the beauty of science. It’s actually completely free of ego. Science can only comment on the physical world, what is and how it works, but that doesn't mean that there can't be logic put into other domains. There is very sound logic in filmmaking as you mentioned, but it is separate from science’s domain. It’s the domain of storytelling, cinematography and artistry. Science is also not just a system to manipulate reality, it is the only system we know of to consistently measure and manipulate reality as constantly and deeply as it does. Show me some other non-scientific system that can consistently make sense of and manipulate reality (with deep understanding) in the way that science does, and prove me wrong. A valid method of science is able to be verified by anybody. An idea starts as a theory then matures into a scientific law. This is to avoid dogma; testing and retesting and retesting by multiple individuals is vital. And everything is revisable as we find better information. That first person on earth you speak of would just find what works, and that's all science is, what works, so yes they would be doing their own form of science. The people that believe the shaman are not scientists but the shaman who did the experiment is. However, you don't have to be a scientist to study science. Science doesn't have to make a religion out of it. You have to separate science from religion, however you can use truths and methods found from religious cultures to be integrated into and advance science. It's not harmful to look through a telescope, but the full long term effects of psychedelics are not yet fully known. We must dismiss any method that is not objective. An experience you have on a drug is not objective, because what I see on the drug is not the same thing you see on the drug. And even if it was, there is no way to objectively prove it. History is not relative, either. Either something happened or it didn't. The narrative you spin about it is another story. All in all, while you made some good points and your intentions of making science better are good, the bettering of science is in fact science's entire goal, and I hope I've made that point in this post. Thanks for reading, and good luck with the rest of the series!

Much more civilized and substantive than the Presidential Debate, that's for sure.

I agree with the others. Basically a full embodiment of orange, but he's a very healthy version of it.

What would you consider the most important video you've ever made?

@Nahm After this little exercise I'm going to be done with it, or only use it here and there. Being transfixed by fortune tellers and other similar things should be avoided, something I learned from The Twilight Zone "Nick of Time"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_of_Time_(The_Twilight_Zone)

I think I'll ask Philosopher AI Leo's "64 Most Fascinating Questions A Human Can Ask" and share it with the forum. The results could be interesting at the very least!

Seems the Church and religion is a "sensitive topic" too? https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/which-religion-is-most-correct-f8b162

Great AI, with some quality answers. Although it seems like it won't answer any individual, sexual, political, gender or racial questions, which is a shame. It gives you answers like this: "Philosopher AI thinks this is nonsense, and is refusing to answer your query. It appears you will have to try something else." "The AI feels like this is a sensitive topic. It does not want to get itself (or its programmers) into trouble, so it is refusing to elaborate. Try something else."

@soos_mite_ah You're right, style is necessary with the way that we meet people. That's why I find the text only dating apps so fascinating.

Has anyone noticed how many people complain about lack of substance in their relationships? People are usually attracted to someone's style first (looks, charm, way of talking, etc.). But style is shallow by nature and once they are a year or two into the relationship any lack of substance is going to come to the surface. Now not to say you can't make a connection with someone based on their style, but in my opinion it's substance that truly holds any relationship together. That's why I often notice friendships are the strongest kinds of relationships out there because those are often the most substance based. Any thoughts on this concept? Edit: I wanted to add that, style is not necessarily "shallow", it just obviously runs a lot less deep than substance. But there's style in substance and substance in style in a way. Fashion is an artform. Speaking is also an artform.

1. Set your alarm for 5 hours after you go to sleep 2. Wake up for 20 minutes and read, meditate, or record any dreams you had. 3. Go back to bed and visualize the dream you would like to have. Exact timing for Step 1 is trial and error. If you don't lucid dream, try 4-6 hours next time. Good luck!

You consciously decide who you want to be every day. Which means you can actively change it. If you've decided that's not who you are anymore, act like the person you want to be. This doesn't mean you pretend like the past never happened. Keep it in mind often, as a reminder of why you're choosing a different path. Best of luck.

For a life insurance commercial...this always hit me hard.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946) and The Iron Giant (1999)

It's not about never feeling "negative emotions", it's about learning to control them. This is what stoicism and enlightenment helps us to do.

Not a Spiral Wizard quite yet (many years from reaching Yellow), but people aren't generally just one stage. Someone can have elements of many stages integrated into who they are. You can be Stage Green in some ways and Stage Blue in others. Further, someone at Stage Green cannot enter Yellow without integrating all the previous stages first. Transcending is one thing, but it's including that presents the true challenge.

When I recognized that rules and laws were arbitrary things. But as for leaving Blue religion in specific, I guess it happened when I began studying other religions outside of Christianity. When all you know is one tradition, it's easy to get dogmatic about it. I'd wager the majority of Christians have never set aside time to seriously study any other spiritual tradition. Not to say that doing that would automatically make them more open-minded, but it's certainly a stepping stone.

Wearing sports clothes could cool you down.

You should live a balanced life. Keep doing your spiritual practices, but also make time for play and spending time with your friends and family. You can do both! And who knows, maybe one day they may take an interest or you'll meet new people who do.

@Carl-Richard I don't think that's a spiral dynamics issue, that's just being hypocritical. Why ask for your opinion if they only want their own opinions echoed back at them?

Strangely enough, I've been selective about who I share it with as well, but both people who I gave the entire intro and Leo's videos on SD were highly interested. I even started talking about it in a music chat room one time, and it seemed to get everyone's attention. So I think you may be introducing it to people who aren't ready yet. Creatives and people interested in personal development are always curious about it in my experience.

In Leo's latest video "How To Forgive Anyone Who Hurt You - A Powerful Trauma Release Exercise" he says there are 5 basic reasons why people hurt you: 1. Ignorance 2. Fear/Weakness 3. Unconsciousness 4. Selfishness 5. A need for love _________________________________________________ Two of my best friends for years (or so I thought) cut me out of their life a couple years ago. They stopped answering my calls and texts, and stopped contacting me. They even gave back all the gifts that I gave them. There was no formal end to a relationship or a "Goodbye". If they would have done that I would have respected it, but they instead just ghosted me. To this day, I don't know why, they only gave a vague "I'm getting my life together." In "How To Deal With Difficult & Toxic People", Leo said that doing this type of thing is a valid method of cutting someone out of your life, to simply just stop all contact. But what they did was very hurtful. I respect that their life may be better off without me, but I'm just confused because none of those 5 reasons explain what they did. They weren't ignorant or fearful about what they were doing, it was deliberate. And they could at least keep in touch a few times a year to see how I'm doing, I certainly would like to know how they're doing... So where does ghosting fit into all this? Is ghosting right or wrong?

So I've been experiencing this phenomenon for years now, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on it, and if you think there's some weight to what's going on. When I fall asleep on the ground, in a chair or some other semi-uncomfortable area and I wake up in the middle of the night, I wake up in a sort of half-awake, half-asleep state, as I'm sure many of you have before. But the mindset I experience in this state is remarkable. It's as if the invisible wall of blurriness that I experience throughout my entire day is gone, and I think more clearly than ever. I'm more self-honest (which can lead to me being a lot more self-critical), but I also find myself to be more compassionate as well. Every unconscious thing I've been doing floods to the surface and I feel as if I'm getting advice from myself as a 60 or 70 year old, once again telling me like it is with no filter. That's the thing about this state of mindset, there's no filter to it. It's gentle, yet uncompromising, conscious yet subtle. All the bullshit and rationalizing that's normally present in my thought processes just falls away and all I'm left with is direct insight. It's as if my brain doesn't have the energy to constantly defend itself, so I see everything as it is. And this can be a shocking way to view things, but it also unlocks more potential for conscious discovery. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

Intriguing stuff! How would a psychedelic work in a lucid dream? Wouldn't that only work if you had a previous psychedelic experience? Lucid dreams are only working from the brain so you'd only be able to access the brain's experiences with psychedelics and recreate them. Wouldn't something like that only be possible in out-of-body experiences/astral projection? Since in those experiences you're actually travelling into other dimensions and accessing a greater connected consciousness than what's in your brain.

The prison system we have at the moment seems to be more interested in punishment than rehabilitation. We put criminals with minor offenses in the same yard as murderers. Corrupt prison guards make the experience worse for everyone. Personally, I feel ashamed with the system we have. It's a dead end for these individuals, rather than a new start. What's the most conscious solution? Do you believe all criminals can be rehabilitated or is some amount of punishment necessary?