Joshe

Like everything else, the novelty wears off, you get tired of it, question its purpose, realize it's shit, and leave it behind you.

Yes, I acknowledge that is a thing. I don't know OP but I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't using AI like that. Maybe they are, and if so, I'm with you. But there's some nuance here. People have been using Google for a couple decades to augment and improve their intellectual positions. What if you were on a forum that said "you can't use answers from Google in your debates" because that would unfairly raise your intellectual level? That would be absurd and that's the line you're flirting with. We all use technology to boost our intellects. Over time, chess cheaters get a bad reputation. Same thing here. If someone is constantly conversing/debating in bad-faith, it will eventually be known. I guess time will tell with OP. Using AI to assist in articulation of orignal thought does blur the line, but if you evaluate the ideas themselves, that's what should count, in my book. If someone delivers some next level ideas, I don't care if they ran it through AI because I only care about how the ideas are useful/interesting for me. Someone can use AI to refine how they express complex thoughts they already had. That doesn’t mean the thoughts were fake.

@Dodo I'm good at spotting AI. I know it was used and still praised the work because it included original insights I've had myself. With all the context, I don't think they just used AI to construct arbitrary arguments against non-duality. I think they used it to articulate their own perception of very specific errors they've noticed from this forum. I've been wrong before, but my read is that they just used AI to help them articulate what they saw. Maybe AI added a few extra things that wasn't theirs, but the bulk of the work - the main ideas - seems to have formed from original thought IMO, even if polished and stylized with AI.

I don't know that they didn't but I lean towards they didn't because he was discussing the topic elsewhere, trying to explain in his own words, then figured the whole topic would be better off in a post. Also, he honed in on very specific examples that represent a lot of what you see here, which makes me think they were his own ideas, unless AI was asked to scan this entire forum to find all the common non-dual fallacies, one of which he was just arguing against prior to his post.

well yeah, you could make it do that, but why the hell would you? If someone is having AI construct arguments or positions that aren't their own, then yeah, that would be annoying, but I'm not so sure that's the case here. Just because I detect AI, I don't automatically dismiss the ideas. The ideas here were solid IMO.

OP clearly used AI - but the main ideas were clearly formed by OP. The main ideas are what matters.

Pride + hatred is exactly right.

He's a con artist. A full-blown opportunist with no morals. Willing to claim he found Jesus because it helps his numbers. He once stood on a stage in his high school and taunted all the teachers to come up and argue against him and that you could give him any topic, and he could beat any member of the staff in debate. Something like that. In other words, since he was young, he was obsessed with the ability to persuade and change people's perceptions of a thing. And the thing itself wasn't important, it was the power he liked. Basically, he had a knack for manipulation and he knew it and stepped all the way into it without a moral compass. He's not ideological the way that most people think. Ideology doesn't mean much to him. Basically, he's a wolf herding sheep.

For a time, learn to not need or even want anything from women and learn to not be in opposition to them. When you relate to women in this way - when your nervous system is at ease - you can flow with them much easier and they can tell. It's a breath of fresh air when they come across this. They sense safety, which I would argue is far more powerful than any verbal/behavioral tactics. Pickup is not pickup without devising, calculating, and scheming how to get what YOU want. This automatically creates a posture of competition, opposition, and protection. This posture is toxic to your nervous system, which manifests outwardly. Pickup creates this dysregulation and then constantly tries to suppress it. "Optimal flow state" is actually "optimal suppression (successful repression)" - neurotic in nature - trying to manufacture calm over a foundation of chaos, which is what "inner game" is about - managing arousal. It's a nervous system suppression strategy that continually adds nervous system irritants. It makes sense that if you want to crack pickup, the first thing you should do is befriend your nervous system - honor it. And as a result, you will learn to honor others. If you befriend your nervous system - get to know it - it would tell you that modern pickup creates a sense of "protection" rather than "connection" and that you're handicapping yourself by actively feeding dysregulation. There's power in true ease and magnetism in safety. That's how you spread legs. lol. The only downside is they attach harder. You want deep connection with a woman? Drop pickup altogether, uproot neediness, and regulate yourself.

You know yourself - that’s the biggest data point for spotting Ni. IRL, me neither, but I have spotted it in others in books and on the internet. I can’t articulate how I spot them without spending 20 mins, but I saw it in a few people here - you and Emerald for example. Key hallmark is the ease with which they generate original insight with non-linear reasoning. More to it than that but I think that’s the broad pattern. It’s not just intelligence. There’s intelligence with something else. Something that can see without linear reason.

Introverted intuition. Tryna tell ya! The top spiritual people all have it. I think it’s more nurture than nature, but not sure. You could have the potential and never develop it depending on circumstances. Trauma seems to be a catalyst.

I did psychedelics every weekend for 2 years. They didn’t raise my consciousness. My consciousness has always been expanding (which I assume is natural for those interested in the riddle of reality), and it still expands, even without psychedelics for 5 years. What makes it expand is seeing that which was previously not seen, and understanding the mechanics of the vail - how it was hidden and how it came to not be hidden. That’s what expands consciousness, IME. And the “what” behind the vail is always my own mind. Psychedelics showed me some things about my mind but after a while, it’s a one-trick pony. One trap I can see clearly is some people will think they’re expanding their consciousness with psychedelics when in reality, all they’re doing is using the data from previous trips to construct even grander trips in the future, creating a feedback loop where trips become more pronounced and profound over time, which feels like conscious ascension, but in reality, your fleshing shit out sideways. 100% this is super common, and I wouldn’t rule out it being universal. You experience reality differently for a while because you’re discombobulated or traumatized or intensely perplexed. This does not = expanded consciousness. It’s easy to accumulate and stack these feelings and use them to trick yourself that they represent expanded consciousness.

Hey look - actual wisdom! Nice post. It will mostly fall on deaf ears. Lol. These unhealthy relationships to reality you speak of are stubborn coping mechanisms that can’t be reasoned out of without sufficient courage and openness. The older we grow, the harder it becomes for us to accept that we’ve been clinging to delusion, which formed and persisted because we desperately needed it to cope with our reality. To accept this requires extraordinary courage and maybe even more demanding, depth of insight. Even if not well received with this community, it’s a much needed message in general. Thanks for taking the time.

He won't answer without appealing to his own special awareness or rank hierarchy. Here's what my process looks like (non-authority-based): The best tool I've found for evaluating evidence that can't be verified is making reads on the source. Assess for all these and you get a very good base from which to start a more rigorous assessment if you want. But often, this assessment alone - combined with 30 minutes of evidence gathering is enough to arrive very close to the truth, as long as you don't blunder in your assessment. Incentives are VERY important. There's a motive behind EVERY claim, true or false. I always ask "what does the one making this claim stand to gain?". Credibility assessment first, verification second. The process is usually non-linear and often doesn't begin and end with an answer in a single session, especially when evaluating things like political pundits and influencers. It takes time to accumulate and process the data, which is both a conscious and unconscious process. What I'm describing is more of an intuitive form of cognition where the gain is speed and context sensitivity with a tradeoff of some explicit traceability. You could think of it like a triage layer where if a source fails your motive/integrity read, it might not deserve a deep audit. Obviously, this "people-and-incentive" heuristic is just one tool and not a replacement for a more robust epistemic framework, but I found it gets me closer to accurate than most, and much faster than evaluating things like the full chain of custody for every piece of evidence. You need to develop high-quality heuristics and constantly refine them through the process of observation and critical thinking. Lastly, any time realize you believed something false was true, you have to get to the bottom of that ASAP and figure out how the seed of falsehood was planted, then patch that exploit for good. If you make the same mistakes 3 times, you aren't refining properly. This is just how I operate. I'm not sure how compatible it is for others. If you have access to ChatGPT, you could use it to develop your own epistemic framework, which might start off looking something like this:

Thanks, I’ll look into them.

😂

Leo may have proven it to himself, but he has shown no proofs, and when asked for them, he simply says the proofs are in the various books he's recommended. The problem with this is a collection of books is insufficient to arrive at his conclusion, because you would need his interpretive frame to arrive at it, which books can't provide. You can read fairy tales until you're blue in the face. Just stick with it - sooner or later you'll know the dragons are real.

Serious epistemology doesn't seek to flatten all claims. It asks that we adjust our confidence based on the strength and coherence of the evidence. The key distinction in Napoleon and aliens on earth is to be found in the evidentiary weight and corroboration of the two claims. Napoleon: massive convergent corroboration - thousands of consistent records from independent sources. UFOs: no corroboration or weak at best, unverifiable anecdotes, blurry media, no physical artifacts confirmed by independent analysis. You can rationally believe Napoleon existed without direct evidence because the network of corroboration is overwhelming. You can rationally reject "aliens visiting earth" because it's not and you have not empirically verified it. This is not a double standard. It's a proper respect for evidentiary weight.

Haha, yes, I know. No, but maybe that's my next target since you instigated me! lol

Nothing is at stake. I sometimes just like to swat down bullshit for fun, especially when there's a puzzle that I have to work through to do it. Pathological? Probably. I'm always emotional - some days I just mask it better. I mean no harm or disrespect, even if it seems like it.

Yes, I understood that point when you made it years ago. However, there's a huge difference in trusting a verified historical consensus vs believing anecdotal conspiracy and emotionally compelling narratives. Many would do well to understand the nuance. "Don't believe me - believe the books I tell you to read" 😂 I don't have a bone to pick with you about your "aliens are here" belief because I know you've came to the conclusion on your own and no amount of words anyone says can change it. I have lots of respect for your epistemic rigor and know it's solid, but we all make mistakes, including you. Obviously, it's a matter of connecting dots, which I haven't done. But the few dots I've seen you drop would not pass muster for dots in the matrix of my aliens-are-here belief.

Nothing tricky about using critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning as tools to check what you let in as facts.

I'm completely open-minded about it. I have yet seen any solid evidence. The things being called "facts" are not facts. That's not a me problem. I'm not going to blindly believe an alien UFO was found in 1930s Italy because Leo says he read it in a book. I need more than that.

Haha, not at all. Leo's logic is flawed regarding his alien theories. His entire alien belief rests upon anecdotal evidence and bad logic. Claiming a UFO was found in 1930s Italy isn't a "basic fact". It's speculation based on hearsay. Don't let Leo's authoritative tone sway you on anything an everything. Go see if you can actually prove it's a fact that an alien UFO was found in 1930s Italy. Let me know if you can do that.

I watched the video. Oh boy! lol. Surprise surprise - Levengood, the scientist who posited the radiation theory worked for a company whose very existence depended on crop circles being real, and the whole point of his job was to prove that they were. All of their funding and publicity revolved around the idea that crop circles were not hoaxes. "Hey, let's get a scientist in here to prove our case - cha-ching". Oldest trick in the book. lol His work collapsed under scrutiny. Why would you believe this one particular scientist over the hundreds that call him a quack? There's more than one way to flatten crops. Different methods would impact the plants differently. The video does a good job of making it seem like they are being good-faith, but it's a channel who makes millions from such topics (15 million subscribers). They tried to get me to watch more alien hoaxes at the end of the video. Basically like the Inquirer tabloid in digital form. My 25-year-old self would have believed the video because I didn't know better. It is convincing until you understand the incentive structure propping the whole thing up along with all the psychological components that become invested in the narrative being true. If a scientist who didn't stand to earn a fortune could have reproduced his findings (they tried and failed), I'd give the idea more plausibility. But being able to see the incentives, delusions, and deceptions intertwined with it all, it's just a more sophisticated, profitable lie.