possibilities

@Leo Gura it’s not really a matter of stages here, intelligence verifies claims. This is an ad hominem and not really addressing alternatives or a synthesis, the latter being what I suggest as opposed to trying to milk a donkey here. Given intelligence is the means by which cognition filters the utility of perception and in doing so, working out what political ideology supersedes another, what is your proposed alternative to intelligence? IQ is a thing that attempts to measure intelligence, that is, general cognitive ability. Simply stating “you’re stage orange or below therefore...”, isn’t an argument.

@kieranperez your mentions would hold more weight beyond hyperbole if you managed to critique my comments before simply reiterating things you’ve already made everyone very well aware of. Simply follow the trail here.

@Serotoninluv is a fembot, she’s in that film Terminator even. This is why she’s a moderator, notice how Terminator and moderator rhyme here. It’s not mere coincidence.

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I don’t care about what anyone said, just that the discussion materialises into something reasonable. Yeah I’d say that’s a good point about agreeableness versus disagreeableness playing out here. Openness to experience is not a 1 to 1 correlation obviously, I’d say it’s more need for cognition (which is its own construct) which is more positively correlated and is a facet of openness to experience. On the HEXACO, which I overall like best, that would be level of inquisitiveness. Brain scans (including used in conjunction with video media to test responses while being scanned) and testing other biological responses will inevitably replace self reports as well. Many of these people fail to distinguish between “culture made up”, them making up that culture made it up, and well tested versus poorly tested ideas. Sum of my posts so far to avoid repetition from me -

They’re also creating s false dichotomy and opposition, the latter of which you’ve already alluded to @GenuinePerspectiveXC. Priority of IQ is not the absence or devaluing of EQ, even though EQ is extremely poorly proven and is actually positively correlated with IQ up to s certain point. EQ after all requires self awareness, and to me is better understood through the lens of affective and cognitive empathy as well as metacognitive abilities. If we took those three constructs I have no doubt that would smash any notion of EQ and I’d be happy to provide further argumentation as requested. This thread is all over the place, here’s the first comment I made so there’s no need for repetition on my part:

Be what it may Intelligence is a seriously real thing, it’s after all why there’s such worry about both AI and the NeuraLink as well as why for example the NSA are not at all worried about the possibility of students in a mentally handicapped school figuring out how to break in and control all the technological infrastructure of their facilities. I’d personally appreciate it if commenters relayed their expertise through argumentation as opposed to mere claims of which any claim for any side can be made without reason. To the former this is where real discussion can begin, to the latter the positions of those claims are in no better position than trying to figure out a murder case with little evidence. People who believe their feelings more than large sums of evidence to the contrary are dangerous to the innocent, or in this case, the truth of the subject regarding intelligence, it’s measurement, the limitations of that measurement, it’s applications and well I guess here, how such a discussion relates to political discourse (try to not disrupt the intelligence of the original objective of this thread). A display of little IQ on the subject will irrefutably reveal a considerably less fortunate outcome, try engaging in intellectual debate while vomiting in your toilet after too much alcohol and you’ll see how important your IQ is then. Further, if IQ is merely partial would you be willing to give away 10 points? How about 20 points? At what point does partial now turn into instead being significant for your survival, how about 100 points or even, the total sum of your IQ? How much would you pay for 20 more extra points, or in the case of the NeuraLink who knows, maybe 200, how much would you pay then? Title (2016) - Yale Neuroscientists Can Now Determine Human Intelligence Through Brain Scans https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/yale-neuroscientists-can-now-determine-human-intelligence-through-brain-scans

You've created the game in your head. You may not be aware of it right now but through light entering your eyes, sounds entering your ears and these things being interpreted by your consciousness via a feedback loop in your interactions with the world (especially with others and what they told you "what the game was") projections were created about what the "external world" represents. It doesn't as far as I've concluded so far, represent anything that we think it does. There is and there isn't a game there, on the affirmative there's the game that you've created in your mind, then there's the game of understanding that game at higher degrees of depth, on the other hand given the multiplicity of potential perspectives we could make on said game, with each increase in perspective we shatter the known borders of the game and evolve them. This not only aids the degree of depth in understanding we could make but potentially with increasing realisations, maybe at the very least comparatively speaking, there never existed any game at all. So to me I'd aim to improve your understanding of the game and with each development here it'll no longer be the same game as you thought it was. With improved understanding I've found that my actions tend to improve. In the end, follow what you believe to be right and you'll learn to steer what "right" means as you go along.

Sure, otherwise yes, take forever. That's the idea, most of the contents of consciousness need to be continually re-represented so that the map formed in relation to those contents are increasingly reaching higher levels of integrity with reality, that is, not only on the level of accuracy but on the level of creativity. The former pertains to alignment between consciousness interpretation and actuality, the latter pertains to consciousness creation and possibility. Here's something I wrote for you just now. I wrote it in about two minutes while playing the pokies in a casino (I won $5 but lost $500, I know I'll win next time around though). This should expand your understanding of what it means to understand. The writing is incomplete and a work in progress but it should provide enough stimulation that it aids in building your thoughts on the subject. This depth is analogous to the reinterpretation that needs to take place with all phenomena and experiences. To never see a human in the same way again, to never see the sky, trees, civilisations, history, brains, ideas, animals, oceanic planes and mountains in the same way again. Its in line with what I've described as my life purpose, to continually strive to expand and grow my consciousness: ---- What does it mean to understand? In attempting to understand any one concept in my mind it seems Iʼm attempting to form a very specific kind of understanding in the encompassment of what follows from an increasingly greater understanding of any one concept, such as a mathematical one like Force = Mass X Acceleration. This specific understanding is a relational one, effect A leads to consequence B. Relational understanding is thus not only the subject of my enquiry here it is my argument that it is the sum total of any possible understanding and its limits. Otherwise expressed as relational reasoning, relational understanding can be intuitively grasped in the observation of how any one idea forms in the mind and the limits upon which that idea takes ahold and is understood. Limits here are synonymous simultaneously to the capacity of the mind and the external world, the greater the former the more understanding is isomorphic to comprehending the external, or rather, the entire nature of reality. This exploration will delve into the former, or more specifically, how the mind builds understanding. For example, let me provide a demonstration with respect to pattern recognition: 122333444455555. The pattern here of course is that the number corresponds to the amount of symbols that will be used and that this use is contained to being only used to describe the number of units of the number itself. The kind of relation that this would refer to as is *repetitive self similarity*, otherwise known as a pattern. So a pattern is merely the expression of qualities of repetitive self similarity. There are all sorts of relations we can make between things, patterns reflect the kind of relation that refers to similarity among qualities with respect to repetition. Every other kind of relation explores every other kind of relation outside the context of repetitive similarity. Relational reasoning is the capacity that thus leads to me being capable of perceiving any kind of pattern such as the one noted above, this is because the differentiation of relationships deals with the subordinate structures of any one pattern, that is, the noticing of any similarity before a pattern emerges, the latter which is merely comparing elements over timeframes (in the context of perception) of similar relations with other frames of potentially similar relations. In so saying as much, if anything perhaps I could refer to a pattern as a higher order relation one has noticed. Mathematical reasoning in the context of relational reasoning then is constructed in such a way that because the mind is forced to compare among relations which would otherwise only intuitively occur in relational streaming by itself, thereʼs a higher likelihood that higher order relations, being patterns, will emerge in the context of mentalization. The perception of a reliable pattern occurs, I believe, because there is comparatively a higher integration of information in the mind, itʼs thus the ordering of subordinate relations in the mind to the point of generating a “mental picture” synonymous to what we refer to as understanding. Otherwise subordinate here doesnʼt mean less than of course. Furthermore, in the context of mathematical reasoning, the deeper one goes with their reasoning about relations here the more likely I could realise formulas other and or related to the one in the scope of my contemplations like the one I noted above, Force = Mass x Acceleration, perhaps even correct those formulas and or make them better. My play with the formulas for example to me seems to reflect my minds attempt at integrating the corresponding information of those formulas, integration of which relies on the connecting of various relations, ergo, relational reasoning. This connection and level therein reflects the level of relational understanding and in doing so, total understanding possible relative to the biological constraints of any human mind created by nature. To build any mind from the bottom up then should be by my calculation in the comprehension and deepening of relations regarding any one concept, which could be any possible perception perceivable by a mind at any point in time or better, comparisons between stretches of time. Mathematical reasoning here would merely reflect the formalisation of relations into patterns reflected as symbols, like the well known example noted above, Force = Mass X Acceleration. Thus math is a reflection of the end point achieved with relational reasoning, thus further support of my argument that relational reasoning should be the beginning of my or even potentially anyone's inquiry in relation to building any good understanding of anything, such as myself. In fact I might argue that depth of possible relational meaning achievable via any length of contemplation here can be measured by simply two mental events. One, the level of contrast presently being presently experienced by the mind about a stimulus whether in memory or simply present imagination. Two, the perspective on that contrast, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Organised perception is thus to meaningful induction and disordered perception is to unreliable induction. Accurate knowledge of the environment is to the former and inaccurate knowledge the latter, in so saying as much, the level of organisation of contrast behind my own capacity to relate information here is what informs and generates the qualitative endpoints of perspectives achieved and in doing so, can easily be correlated with my capacity to infer functions from inductions. From these relational beginnings, we have the beginnings of the makings of any kind of map or meaning map of any kind of phenomenon whatsoever, awareness of which, especially by a consciousness that seeks greater integrity with reality here, describes the relationship between the knowledge of a phenomenon or rather, the neural map of a phenomenon, and the desire to improve the map about that phenomenon, be it some simple element, sets of elements or diverse abstract categories; anything. In sum here, contrast informs a perspective, awareness recognises the map of relational understanding being formed, and the aspects of consciousness that deal with improvement then seek to evolve those contents to higher levels. Thus, Iʼve now stumbled upon a novel invention in my expression of understanding about understanding here, that is, simply, M = IM, or rather, Map = ʼs improve map. M = IM has a few assumptions embedded within it, it supposes that there is something that improves its map of something, such as an artificial intelligence, in this instance however Iʼm referring to my own consciousness. M = IM can also be useful when measured against M (i.e. sets of goals) that some consciousness has created or wishes to create, the latter which leads to an expansion of comprehension to areas of individual agency beyond mere external understanding to that of creating maps that are then externalised. It is the leap from intelligence to creativity or rather as it pertains to this conversation with myself, from relational understanding to creativity. For example, if I'm working with a rubric on understanding awareness or even something like critical thinking or even building a house I can move between this loop (M = IM) and M (whatever that may encompass) where a new mirror reflection, which feeds the informational loop, is continuously created on the data and as a result of that, a self generated improvement feedback loop which arises, arguably, as a result of our evolutionary drives (we're apparently naturally driven to want to improve, or perhaps this is merely the agency behind intelligence inside consciousness or is consciousness created by intelligence or some other expression better?). Its a simple formula and a simple step but its potential for engineering self augmentation seems endless. What is a map? In this context I would describe a map as a set of relations which share distinct enough patterns that they can be separated by other maps within the mind of a person. New maps can be formed about other maps, other maps can inspire new and better maps. Map here is simply a term to encompass relations in patterns and patterns stemming from relations, the degree of map resolution can probably be measured on approximately three levels which probably reflect the level of mental power achieved with respect to the ability to create said maps and communicate them. These levels will be described in the context of the degree of pattern recognition achieved with respect to a stimulus, they are as follows: (1) identification (2) comparison and (3) formation: a. IDENTIFICATION: Tertiary pattern recognition such as: 12233344445555? b. COMPARISON: Secondary pattern recognition such as: ABBCCCDDDDFFFF? c. FORMATION: Primary pattern recognition Formation describes the extrapolations that can be made from the initial sets of patterns gleaned from the data which in the case of say “12233344445555?”, could include but is not limited to some of the following observations: - Numbers is to order, when the numbers are not ordered this means that something is either amiss in perception or phenomenon - Things have an ascending and descending nature to them - Thus look at things not from just their time and space but their spectrum of time and space Formation is higher order relational reasoning where at least two units of consciousness, informationally speaking, have been synthesised to such an extent that they're able to be simultaneously represented up to the second level where further relational patterns are able to be differentiated at the third level. It could be argued that one can use this as a simple algorithm to enhance ones understanding of any one concept, and following it in that order from identification to the formation of extrapolations from those initial relational ideas pertaining to information perceived. In fact anyone whoʼs lived at least 21 years would have seemingly endless material in their memories to continually discover new insights through the continuous conversion between retrodiction and prediction. This describes, in part, a working solution to using relational reasoning as a means of beginning and expanding understanding of any one idea in the mind. M = IM as expressed in following say the above algorithm is a good example of its exposition, the continuous refinement of our maps of and in doing so, improvement in our actions to accrue a better relationship with the external world. Here is M = IM expressed from the perspective of its subordinate structures in the context of a consciousness that seeks its refinement, an algorithm computed in the absence of imperative other than the assumption of one, such as with respect to the case regarding myself being a human, it would be surrounding survival perhaps. However motivations, evolutionary and otherwise offer a separate enquiry. Overall, in answer to the initial question, to understand is to seek to improve ones map understanding given that, improvements in understanding supersede any capacity to understand at all, and thus the desire to improve or at least the capacity therein is ancillary to understanding, especially any relational understanding. K > MG = M1 > MG M1 > MG = L > D.W K = knowledge (===> the sum of interconnected relations, A is to B) > = of MG = map generator (I.e. The human brain - what we see, hear, touch... all of that which we experience including memory) M1 = mastery L = level D.W = differentiated will (a revised definition of the term free will I came up with a while ago which I don't mind if anyone steals) D.W = C.I This is regulated best by: M = IM > D M = map IM = improve map (The following should be implied by M = IM so it's logically unnecessary though here it is) > = until D = death Also: CI = M1 > IM M1 > IM = I.G Where: CI = causal influence IG = intelligence generator (inner/outer) So L > D.W should generally be highly proportional to IG and thus optimised fulfilment and ongoing maximised utility of IM.

When I see a french woman with double D's I still tend to get horny no matter how "conscious" I think I am.

Simply learn how to map theoretical existence, the constituents of which are in essence the boundaries of any worldview and in doing so, the means of expanding those boundaries in attempting to map those contents more accurately, deeply and divergently. I use the word theoretical here because any ideas your consciousness comes up with to me are ultimately just theories about truth as opposed to an absolute reflection. Its the whole, "the map is not the territory."

Good books help with correcting thinking and emotions. Good videos help with correcting emotions and thinking. Notice the order. Otherwise, bad of _____ does the opposite and becomes a form of indoctrination. How to tell how someone internally thinks and in doing so how to predict the kinds of books they read and videos they watch or have watched? Simply observe the sophistication of their thoughts and things they emote about. Some people pair the heights of sophistication with "specialness" as opposed to a consciousness simply making good media choices (i.e. good books and videos) and working on their work ethic there. I recommend avoiding specialness syndrome.

Not necessarily my last post as less of a need now: pretty happy haha, I've just worked out that there's an ignore user option so naturally I won't have to worry about having to get into mindless discussions with that user (depersonalised ). That's what I'll do from on, just click the ignore (there's an option here under settings) option to categorise those proselyting with what seems to be little critical independent thought.

Its a false dichotomy.

He will know the right way. I was just sharing my experience. It really just depends on the person, my way was just the way for me. There's no "one size fits all", but at the same time that's empowering because every individual gets to contemplate for themselves to workout what's truly best for them.

Well to me the dynamics to this situation are obvious, you haven't mastered the art of going inwards. To me, suicide based on analogous difficulties arise from this problem of not mastering introspection. There is a divide between the internal and external that runs several layers deep beyond the superficial physical distinction, they somehow live with the idea that they need some purpose internal to themselves that runs parallel to the circumstances of reality but to me this is simply not true. Our only purpose to me is to grow our consciousness and anything designed as an 'external' purpose is merely secondary to this because it is a byproduct of this consciousness work, meaning our purpose changes according to our level of consciousness. If our consciousness is low then we will imagine things equivalent to that low level, like being a drug dealer (don't want to stereotype all drug dealers though of course) and if it is higher, well we might run a business with more of a win-win focus and do whatever we can to avoid being a drug dealer and not just because we fear being caught. All of the work is inside to me. This isn't to negate external motivation (I have a heck of a lot of motivation and this is how I go about it), I'm saying that all motivation externally for me is generated internally, of which is dependent upon not only my level of consciousness but the level of inner work I've done at ordering the contents of my consciousness, meaning becoming more informationally congruent with past experience where prior dissonances (i.e. insecurities) are resolved with inner contemplation of those circumstances. This is the beginning to developing wisdom that is self-earned and self-taught. By going inwards, we learn to transform the contents of experience into a relationship that builds between the prefrontal and the emotional regions of the mind, fortitude here of which inevitably results into the realization of some important insight about those events. This grows our mind, awareness and reduces our suffering where in doing so, external purpose becomes self realized via a growth in consciousness rather than something that's forced. In short, run towards internal insecurities, delusions, illusions and overall pains not away from them. This is where the work begins and this is when you will begin to resolve your troubles, at least, that is my prediction based on my own practical experience on the subject with respect to working with myself. Thus, YOU will be the one to solve this because you're the only one that can go inside and work things out there. That can be quite empowering to know this. There will be no quick fixes, in my experience I'd run away from cliche advice. All the best.

In my opinion you're judging what you don't understand. Obviously his lifestyle contradicts what you believe to be healthy, in this instance you've resolved this dissonance by stating that he's the one that is unhealthy. My advice would just be to learn from him, as I do. That's all I have to say on the subject because so far your thoughts seem preliminary, meaning you still have to put a lot of work into developing them before they're at any decent level. I'm hoping that this thread was created out of an attempt to understand as opposed to just shallow judgemental commentary.

To add to my previous comment: I won't lie though, my brother (I have more than one) is probably the only person I've ever really feared and it was in this instance haha. He's a pretty powerful guy (financially well off and well connected) so at the time it was within the realms of possibility to me that he may hire a hitman and have me killed off or even he do it himself (potentially would). That's the cost of being true to yourself, or more broadly speaking, just truth. Its a tricky thing that I haven't completely worked out so I'm still doing reflection there. In the end that's what you have to ask yourself, how much is truth worth? Is this (i.e. a situation in which truth is being highly distorted) what life is worth living for? So I came into this life to only allow _____ (i.e. some kind of distortion)____? You gotta be courageous in this life otherwise what's the point in living it, cowardice shows a complete misunderstanding of existence in my opinion. Peace and all the best there.

I usually challenge foes to a duel (i.e. physical fight) if other means do not work. One time I challenged someone to a fight to the death, I was very serious about defending my honour in those periods. I've never lost a fight. I nearly got into a physical fight with my brother (he's bigger than me because he worked out more than me during this period) a few months ago but I stood him down, saying that I gladly welcomed his physical challenges (he wanted to fight me) and would continue talking to him the way I pleased because I was being authentic. He believed I was being disrespectful, I believed I was just expressing what I believed to be the truth. In the end nothing came of it but knowing him because he has a bit of an ego he probably has hidden resentment towards me about things I said. You seem to value "being respectful", of which I do not. I value respecting the truth because when people respect truth they tend to be more deserving of respect but if you're just being respectful because you've been conditioned to be or out of fear, then that is something I would address. I don't condone following my path necessarily, just briefly sharing my experience.

Just my 2 cents. I've been having a lot of success with the following: Book title - Memory Improvement: How To Improve Your Memory In Just 30 Days I work to avoid saying things out of personal conjecture and speculation unlike many others here, I aim for my words to be based on actual practical day to day experience of which the techniques described in this book are. Practicing on such will not only improve your memory it'll also improve your imagination, creativity and mental toughness depending upon the amount you train and emphasis on divergent thinking in your practice.

Broadly speaking I'd have to say past psychological conditioning that serves little utility, such as allowing my mind to perceive tasty foods as good foods when they're actually unhealthy (based on the following I've now learned to recondition myself to eat less and eat better). Based on practical exploration of the subject I'm beginning to realise just how much I previously underestimated the role that emotion plays in influencing memory and conditioning that appears in the future, as well as, how various sophisticated (so well skilled) imaginative visualisation practices can allow consciousness to take back control from the environment with respect to how an organisms emotional responses are conditioned. Emotion I've found is constantly influencing memory and memory constantly influencing conditioning, or put another way, involuntary responses such any one present state we're experiencing. This tangentially brings to light the example of say the beneficial but strategic use of psychedelics in the rearrangement of conditioned responses. Its a huge point of inquiry that I'm learning a lot about in my personal research. All in all its now made me pay much greater attention to my emotions (given their significance on memory, how memory encodes experience and therefore future conditioning or the reconditioning on experience) and learning to use the imagination as a vehicle for exploring personal enhancements (for motivation and otherwise) here as best as I am able to. I don't at all plan on using psychedelics in the near future but I do down the track, at present my focus is mainly on understanding the depths of my capacities here first in order to build a practical foundation. This foundation will aid me in many other areas of personal consciousness research whether relating to psychedelics or otherwise.

This is what I call: running away from the dilettante! He just doesn’t get that all his consciousness is mostly doing is telling a bad story about something that has zero influence over his life because his descriptions are stories not facts, albeit shallow stories because he’s a dilettante masquerading as someone knowledgeable. TRUTH influences your reality whether it be reality relating to QM not your empty stories that make you feel good and that you know something simply because you read a little about other people’s accomplishments while simultaneously purporting to say that “scientists these days just don’t get it!”. That’s called biting the hand that feeds numbnuts given QM arose from and lives in scientific inquiry. Otherwise there’s still something you’re not getting @Inliytened1. I do NOT take you at all seriously. This has ZERO to do with the subject itself. That’s a HUGE distinction. It’s simple distinctions like these that you seem to miss, of which I put down largely to be a reflection of low levels of meta-cognition as per the research I mentioned before regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect. That’s just the pattern I’m noticing, perhaps it’s incorrect but so far it seems pretty reliable. I can’t have consistently good interactions with people that miss simple things like this. So as for “threatened” that’s just another delusion you’ve concocted in your imagination about the interaction to date. To me your consciousness makes FAR TOO MANY unquestioning assumptions for my liking, and along with the deception, misdirection, pretending (i.e. to be an authority on this subject along with other things) and proselytizing, it’s enough in my eyes to warrant the exclusion of earnest interaction from myself. And as for use of the term possibilities it seems you have very little understanding of the word given you seem to ground it in listening to your quackery and the absence of which you equate to someone “not being open minded”, lol maybe they just don’t like you because they don’t trust you and they don’t trust you because you show deceptive patterns and wear authority masks. My minds prediction is that it would take you at least 12 months of consistent study to truly understand what open mindedness really means. For starters you gotta question everything including yourself, traits of which you’ve failed to exhibit given the above mentioned inclinations (inclusive of but not limited to proselytizing). And that’s just the very beginning! You’re a dilettante in my eyes. Relative to my other options I have ZERO to gain from interacting any further on this subject here. This will be my last comment on this thread. But keep ribbiting away like Hermit the frog I don’t care. (for others here - recommended reading: Title - A Little Learning by Alexander Pope - https://www.poetsgraves.co.uk/Classic Poems/Pope/a_little_learning.htm).

Firstly this isn't going to be the perfect answer of course because you've got your own context that you personally need to discover insights from but maybe my personal context will feed into that and perhaps complement any other answers provided thus far. Secondly this answer isn't going to be what you think its going to be, this is because when people normally think of ideation here they think of conscious ideation as opposed to say influence ideation, my approach here is going to be pointing to trying the latter. For example, I've been listening to and reading a lot about David Goggins because I'm opening myself up to being influenced by his notions on motivation. This has nothing to do with replication but everything to do with being influenced and allowing my consciousness to detect patterns in his story that it then originates novel patterns in the context of what would best work for me. Meaning my brain is now unconsciously building models on motivation with respect to how they would best work for me as apposed to merely copying his approach. This has led to insights in relation to not only motivation but also the process of consciousness and how it transforms contents themselves to the point of it generating original meaning relative to the reference frame of consciousness. Although I have little interest at present at developing it further in these directions it also has implications for understanding social conditioning, how the environment affects and even further out to understanding the 'choice' behind one political system over another, this choice is rather a choice based on reference frame and available reference frames then originating content from there as opposed to really being a conscious choice, the conscious part seems more about not in that moment understanding ones subconscious preferences based on prior perceived reference frames. This is no different to motivation, why someone is and someone isn't as well as the various reasons for these things, a lot of it has to do with the conditioning from prior reference frames it seems and the capacity for a consciousness to originate content that are specific its own needs. This is a 'nut' that I'm working on cracking and it'll be something I'll be working on for the rest of the year most likely, most of my insights will probably be generated by the end of say next month but it'll take me a while to carve them out. So in short, change your environment. Start learning about motivation. I already know some things so in this instance I really wanted to focus on a particular case study, in this instance David Goggins, and really test to see what kind of effects I'd notice in my own consciousness and the different things it would discover. In relation to the results of the experiment so far, my level of motivation has increased quite significantly. And that's really what you want to pay attention to, the results and then learn incrementally from there making adjustments where things aren't working. The key is to keep experimenting while also being patient, that way you won't get in a slump of not knowing what to do. In this instance, just to neatly tie the knot on the comment here, both conscious and unconscious ideation here are important to the process. Conscious ideation is to really rigorously trying to crack that nut in that problem area, like say me coming up with the idea of being influenced by David Goggins at the cost of working on other ideas, then unconscious ideation are all the ideas that my consciousness comes up with during the process of continually being influenced by him. All in all it seems its a relationship between openness, time spent listening and learning from him and my consciousnesses capacity to connect dots relative to my personal context that is producing ideas that aid my own unique approach to solving and enhancing motivational frontiers for myself. This knowledge may help you in understanding the context of your own learning when you may attempt to do the same thing when you're learning from something in reality.

I've examined my experience @Leo Gura The only thing I can be sure of is not even consciousness or even any notion of personal experience distinct from any other experience, let alone imagination or God even though logically speaking I can prove all of these relative to perceived experience is... As a practitioner of my own experience, as opposed to theoriser (what I used to be more of): Experience. And not "the present moment" or any of that either, because in order to even be aware (yes I can't even be sure of awareness if I'm not sure of consciousness) of time (of which the present moment relates to) I have to be metacognitively aware which is when I notice the beginning of the comparison between experiences within consciousness which results in such notions. I can't even be sure if I'm experiencing this, not in the sense of identity or self, just in the sense of the fact that I'm the consciousness typing this. This isn't a belief though, I'm just acting from the experience learned from a recent model I shared which is of course discoverable in my profile history. I mentioned before that I reduced everything to intelligence, and from a logical level, I can reduce experience to that but logic isn't born until after this metacognition I noted above in this comment is born thus I can't even be sure of that either. So its kind of a Socrates moment of "I know that I know nothing" because we have to make all these assumptions about experience before we can move forward. This experience can be in the form of perception or imagination, but in this layer there's no distinction because distinction denotes separation when its not entirely clear to me yet if that's absolutely true or merely say, a reflection of my capacities of which, if they were much greater, may potentially reveal an entirely different experience.

Yeah heaps of people are going to likely be indoctrinated into it as many already are and so the ones that are unsure, well many of them will run to that race to avoid FOMO. I've already listened to it, good share. The likelihood to me is that it'll result in a completely different way of living, that an average (not necessarily amazing - so 15-50%) bet to make would be to optimise all of ones resources in the obtaining of the device and just throwing the rest of the noise out between now and achieving that goal. We have a new wave of civilisation on the horizon it seems, potentially even Marvel times where we see people equivalent to superheroes. All in all that thing is incredibly dangerous, much more dangerous than AI. Oh the irony haha.

Yeah no problem @Becks, you could even say illusion is what comes first, it really depends on the perspective ones taking on the thing they're looking at for example, you could say: (1) Illusion - we have the illusion that our thoughts represent ourselves that we must act on. (2) Sophistry - it does this through various kinds of reasoning to convince us in the form of trickery, "I feel this about this because of this random thought that is now appearing and therefore it must be true!" even though it could have been one of billions of others many of which would have been better reasoning. So its a rationalisation process. Awareness therein however would be seeing through the deception which alleviates the illusion. (3) Delusion - Step one and two repeat themselves continuously within a consciousness and in the context of the environmental inputs of that consciousness it becomes convinced that the information its gleaned from its environment in the way its gleaned them in the context of self representations represents their "personal identity", from spiritual stuff to football teams to quantum gibberish to being a guru to potentially literally anything that we associate as not only ourselves but anything about reality.