integral

Its not hard for us peak developed humans... out of all the millions of random situations that show up in the world, some times theres a combination thats absurd. i saw this one case the girl was sleeping at a party in a bed and the guy next to her made a move on her, she frooze and 1) did not say anything 2) did not fight at all 3) "didn't know what to do". Woman are raised to avoid conflict and keep social harmony and this make the situation worse when they have to speak up for them selves. Everyone assumes rape is violent and the woman said "no/stop" and that's not how most of them happen. I'm not making excuses for any of these men. I'm just saying it's complicated unless you're educated.

OH Its fascinating putting a face to words, had to pattern match all your mannerisms, vocal pattern, body language, humor preference, adrenaline level, but... nothing prepares you for a Japanese swearing Aussie. Dogga was made to be loved. ❤️

@Natasha Tori Maru HOW DID I MISS THIS@???? 🥺 A gift from the GODS. Dude your good at speaking and working a job, no wonder you scored low on the autism test. Now the voice in my mind when reading your text is in an Australian accent screaming cu** when appropriate LMAOOO Diagnostic: Exception sPeCIal doggo in the background. Office air is making everyone Krainky. Well done existing up to this point, solid life performance.

For sure, there's a lot of truth to this, but there is a percentage of them that genuinely had no idea they were raping the woman. The problem is women will have the freeze response. And they won't say no, and they will just sit there and not fight back. And the freeze response is extremely common, and if this happens, you could accidentally rape her. I think the freeze response must be some kind of survival mechanism that prevents them from dying if they're raped. As it's the best thing that you can do as a woman to avoid being killed in prehistoric times

A dog knows that they feel love, when you love them. A rationalist doesnt know they feel love, when you love them. They need third-person, empirical "proof." Ideology makes you dumber than a dog.

I over stated it, i have empathy but most people problems are them not self-regulating and i cant spend all my time regulating it for them, nor is it healthy for them to have a dependency on me. The healthiest thing for them is that i am healthy and there in my vibe, not the reverse, as i hold healthy vibe effortlessly and they cannot. I dated a few BPD woman and learned the hard way that to love them is draw clear boundaries to mantain your own health. Your health is there health, but they are not stable enough to avoid harming you. BPD will destroy the boat there sailing on. 100% of the time. With endless emotional chaos. You have to be uncorruptable for them. That means setting yourself up for success with systems and strategy. With out a plan you are not going to make it. You would think loving someone is simply listening to what they have to say. And that couldn't be further from the truth. Because they have no idea how to be happy. You have to be highly educated and prepared To give them the love they need. It takes years of effort, study and trial and error. We go to a restaurant, she didn't like it. We watch a movie, she didn't like it. And then she lies down and she cries that her parents criticize her

@Nemra it's like hes in a psychological trance of douting.

I don't know about that because a normal person who doesn't think at all will easily understand the answer do you exist? Yes A rationalist skeptic cant answer this question. Hyper rationism is like religion, it will make you dumber

This would flip everything upside down and be that thinking is what then creates experience.

@Leo Gura they're confusing "what is existence?" with "How do i know i exist?". They think you have to answer the first one to answer the second one. The second one is self-evident but they wont accept self-evidence as evidence.

How I think of AI is that it's a rock that we tricked into computation. Computation is not the same as experiencing thinking. Is a calculator experiencing anything when it adds 2 numbers? No.

@Nemra I'm being too harsh because I had all the same way of thinking when I first did philosophy as a teenager so There's nothing wrong with what he's doing. But yeah, it's hilarious watching it. lmAOO What's interesting about all this is that AI is technically thinking and not experiencing. Only proving further that Descartes was 100% wrong.

More:

Being is itself value, rather than something that needs an external purpose to acquire value. The absolute ontological meaning of a cup would be its existence; and its relative meaning would be what it does (contains things) or how we feel about it (i love this cup). Relative meaning: The cup holds water. Subjective meaning: I love this cup. Instrumental value: The cup is useful for something. Ontological meaning: The cup exists. When we talk about meaning ontologically, we are talking about existence. The point of existence is what? To exist. What's happening is people are saying im projecting meaning, value, and purpose onto existence. That the question is loaded and wrong from the start. What I find funny about all that is that whenever they experience any kind of oneness or awakening experience, every psychedelic experience Or stillness, calmness or any nessness. what is their way of thinking about it? OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG Does that sound meaningless, valueless, purposeless to you? Of course not. So why would they doing this? Its because they're following the logic of deconstruction and non-duality and when you deconstruct everything there's just existence. knowing is content on the screen, Understanding is content on the screen... and so on. Logic: existence is not meaningful or meaningless. These are Appearances on the screen. Direct Experience: Existence is Highly personal, highly important, highly meaningful, infinite value. Non-duality is epistemically wrong.

But if it was an epistemic puzzle, then you might love it. Epistemic strategy game?

A example of People's facial expression at the moment when they connect the dots between one of the characters in game of thrones. **ignore if you dont want spoilers**

😂 hahahah this has to be built, its to good

Ye would be good if we made a actualized.org test. @Leo Gura a epistemology test would be awesome. How "Epistemically responsible are you" tests?

In my earlier years i couldnt understand what people were saying because i was focusing all my attention on this game. +social stress turning off the brain All social behaviour was a Conscious process and not automatic. But im sure most people are aware of all this to, its just it didnt distract them to much

@Clarence But to get 36, you have to have selected that you're really bad at reading between the lines and understanding the social cues and all that stuff, right?

only 2 wrong is out of this world, i dont think normal people can do that, unless i really am autistic, i am guessing in the majority of does I need to see there whole face, i cant do it with just the eyes. Might be because i struggled to make eye contact for most of my life and eye contact is torture. Eye contact is like sex, its extremely intimate

Yeah, that's western psychology for you. Each personality type would have its own way of being autistic. Some extroverts are autistic and they wouldn't show up on this test.

22/50 Im curious to see what questions lead to the 25 that you got.

Humans will invent all that tech, technological advancement means abit but not everything Elon cant wait to clone himself and invade other galaxies. We will not be more conscious then we are now when we explore the galaxy. We could say a selfish Species cant develop advanced technology because they kill themselves with it, its a possibility. But even a coordinated species doesn't mean they're more conscious than us.

Thats true, but for all we know they could be preparing the planet to sell. We have no idea what there psychology is. Probably the most selfish life forms survive better in multi planetary affairs.