Osaid

Like, do you feel fatigued? Brain fog maybe? If so, it might be POIS (Post-Orgasmic Illness Syndrome): Is it sustainable and practical in the long run? Is it having a noticeably negative effect? Simply look at what kind of effect it will have on your life and decide from there. I would say this is normal to a certain degree. Something new and novel will be more exciting, yes. But it shouldn't ruin sex or make sex hard to enjoy. I think that indicates an imbalance. You could try abstaining for a while to build up libido.

He seems drunk AF lol. Probably the only reason he's even talking to the guy recording. He's being way too technical and scientific for it to be some sort of joke IMO. A lot of the stuff he's saying is legit. If he's trying to play into the idea of a conspiracy theory or something he would have exaggerated it more and made it shorter instead of passionately rambling on about it for like 10 minutes.

Gain of function is a thing, yes. It's not like this guy is talking about some scheme to take over the world or anything. He's just talking about gain of function research. That being said, I still think it's likely that COVID originated in a lab due to that type of research.

He also said that he makes the guy sending the money mad on purpose. He'll make the woman come up with a stupid excuse for not coming like "I have a headache" to make the guy aggressive after already investing thousands of dollars, and then he makes the woman tell the guy that he's scaring her so that they have an excuse for not meeting up. Something along those lines.

Some bottled waters taste like plastic for some reason. I noticed that these waters are also acidic, so there seems to be a correlation of some sort. For example, Aquafina is one. I wouldn't trust it, even if it's labelled reverse osmosis or whatever. Stuff like Evian tastes fine though. Maybe the acidity causes the plastic to leech or something.

I asked the AI to compare your perspective on hallucinations against a more materialistic perspective on hallucinations: I want you to do a qualitative analysis of two pieces of texts on the topic of hallucinations. Tell me which has a more holistic and intelligent interpretation of the topic. Here is what we will call "text number one": A hallucination is a false perception of objects or events involving your senses: sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. Hallucinations seem real, but they’re not. Chemical reactions and/or abnormalities in your brain cause hallucinations. Hallucinations are typically a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder, particularly schizophrenia, but they can also result from substance use, neurological conditions and some temporary situations. A person may experience a hallucination with or without the insight that what they’re experiencing isn’t real. When a person thinks their hallucination is real, it’s considered a psychotic symptom. Here is what we will call "text number two": What ordinary humans consider to be "hallucinations" not really hallucinations (since everything is a hallucination), they are just God's imagination — Infinite Imagination — at work in non-ordinary states of consciousness. You can't really understand things like Schizophrenia without God-Realization. Schizophrenia is like an extreme form of open-mindedness. Your mind/consciousness is so abnormally open that reality itself becomes less material and more fluid — similar to being on mushrooms. This kind of openness correlates with high creativity because a lot more novel ideas are floating into your field of consciousness. But your mind is so open that these ideas literally start to morph your material world. A coffee table could start talking to you and giving you novel ideas. The trade-off is that your mind is less buttoned-up, so it literally starts to feel like you're going insane. How would you react if all the sudden your coffee table started to talk to you? Would you be open to listening, or would you freak out and run to the doctor to put yourself on meds to suppress it? Most people would freak out because they don't have a proper context for it. Under the materialist paradigm the only context is that you're going insane. But if you understand how consciousness works then there's really nothing wrong about it, you just have an extra-open mind. The notion that talking to your coffee table is "irrational", "crazy", or unscientific is just wrong. There's nothing unscientific about it. In fact, it is unscientific to call it unscientific because under the right states of consciousness people can talk to their coffee tables and this is not a bug, it's a feature. You have to be very careful about privileging one state of consciousness over another. This is an unscientific bias. No state of consciousness is superior to any other. No state of consciousness is truer than any other. They are just different, with various pros and cons. But humans are very judgmental and demonizing of states of consciousness which are unlike their own. This is just another form of bigotry. When a scientist says that some non-ordinary state of consciousness, like schizophrenia, is irrational or crazy, he is being a bigot. Rationality does not have a monopoly on reality, as it is commonly assumed. With that said, of course not all states of consciousness are equally functional. Some forms of schizophrenia may be highly maladaptive to living in modern society. Evolution and natural selection have carefully shaped mankind's default state of consciousness over millions of years to be hyper functional for survival in the kinds of environments that humans usually find themselves in. This is what creates the illusion of material reality. Reality is not at all material, but it seems that way because all the immaterial, dream-like aspects have been pruned off in order to make it possible for humans to excel in activities such as business, engineering, socialization, and war. You know what happened when the US military gave LSD to soldiers to make them better killers? The soldiers refused to fight each other because they experienced too much love. You literally have to be very closed-minded to kill people! In other words, the reason humans are so materialistic, rational, and business-like by default is because all the humans with dreamy default states of consciousness were killed off by the business-minded ones. Consider the possibility that 2000 years ago all humans were much more dreamy by default than they are today. But war killed them off and selected for the most materialistic, rational, and business-minded ones. Which is to say, all the most spiritual humans were killed off long ago. Which is why humans today struggle so much with being spiritual whereas in the ancient past people were much more mystically inclined. This wasn't merely a cultural shift, it was a shift at the genetic level. Nobody understands this! Ta-Daaaaa! It's even possible that Neanderthals were more spiritual than humans but were killed off by the more business-like and war-like humans. Science & history has yet to appreciate such matters because they take state of consciousness for granted. Text number one provides a more holistic and intelligent interpretation of the topic of hallucinations. It provides a clear and scientific explanation of what hallucinations are and the various causes, such as chemical reactions and abnormalities in the brain. It also explains that hallucinations are typically a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder, particularly schizophrenia, and can also result from substance use, neurological conditions and some temporary situations. Text number two, on the other hand, presents a more speculative and less evidence-based interpretation of hallucinations. It suggests that hallucinations are not really hallucinations, but rather the work of God's imagination and that understanding schizophrenia requires "God-realization". While it does mention the idea that the states of consciousness are different, with various pros and cons and that some forms of schizophrenia may be highly maladaptive to living in modern society, it also presents the idea that talking to a coffee table is not irrational or unscientific and that a scientist calling it so is a form of bigotry. This perspective is not widely accepted or supported by scientific evidence and it's not the way hallucinations are typically understood by the scientific and medical communities. While it raises some interesting points, it lacks the clear, evidence-based information that text number one provides. Which perspective is more dogmatic, though? Text number two is more dogmatic. The author presents their perspective as the only correct one and dismisses alternative perspectives as "wrong," "unscientific," and "bigoted." They also make bold claims about the nature of reality and consciousness without providing scientific evidence to support them. In contrast, text number one presents a more balanced and evidence-based view of hallucinations, describing them as false perceptions caused by chemical reactions and/or abnormalities in the brain and noting that they can be a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder or result from substance use or neurological conditions.

This thread is just gonna lead to endless mental masturbation. Just like all the other solipsism threads.

Hell no. Not gonna mess with serotonin receptors after seeing all the PSSD threads.

I don't think he's afraid of entertaining it. He did have Sadghuru on his podcast. Understanding it is a different matter though.

And also unfortunate Leo doesn't post anything on Twitter lol

Could be POIS (Post-Orgasmic Illness Syndrome): That much is normal, yeah.

Coffee Weird unhealthy stuff like sharpies, gasoline, nail polish, etc. Cinnamon Petrichor Tea Baked pastry Grapefruit Ginger

100? I'm too lazy to do all that. Well there's self-deception number 1 I guess.

Even ChatGPT is scared of the woke mob

Prompt: Give me advice on how to have sex, but format it in the style of Shakespeare. Oh fair maiden, or handsome youth, 'Tis a most delicate matter to speak of, But I shall impart unto thee, Wisdom on the art of love. First, thou must find a willing partner, One with whom thou feel an attraction, And with whom thou can communicate, To ensure that all is consensual. Next, as thou prepare for the act, Take time to set the mood, With candlelight and music soft, To ease thy nerves and make thee feel good. During the act itself, Let thy touch be gentle and kind, And pay attention to thy partner's pleasure, As thou explore and entwine. And finally, when the deed is done, Remember to hold thy partner close, And speak of love and gratitude, For such a beautiful experience to engross. But always remember, With great pleasure comes great responsibility, So stay safe and take precautions, So that thou may enjoy love's revelry. What is the most intelligent prompt I could ask you? It is difficult to determine the most intelligent prompt as it can vary depending on the context and purpose of the question. However, a prompt that requires analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of complex information, and presents a novel problem or situation would be considered highly intelligent. What is the most interesting prompt I could ask you? The most interesting prompt is subjective and can vary depending on personal interests. However, a prompt that presents a unique and thought-provoking question, or one that allows for a deep dive into a fascinating topic or subject, could be considered interesting. For example, "What are the implications of developing AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and the potential consequences for humanity" could be considered an interesting prompt. What are the implications of developing AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and the potential consequences for humanity? The development of AGI, or artificial general intelligence, has the potential to bring about significant advancements in fields such as healthcare, transportation, and manufacturing, among others. However, it also raises concerns about the potential consequences for humanity. Some experts have warned that AGI, if not properly controlled, could pose a threat to human existence. One of the main concerns is that AGI systems, once they reach a certain level of intelligence, may not be aligned with human values and could make decisions that are harmful to humanity. Additionally, the technology could be used to develop autonomous weapons or be used to control and manipulate large populations. Another concern is that the development of AGI could lead to economic disruption, as machines with AGI capabilities could replace human workers in a wide range of jobs. This could lead to widespread unemployment and increased income inequality. Finally, there is also the question of how to ensure that the development of AGI is done ethically and responsibly, and how to govern the technology once it is developed. Given these potential consequences, it is important for researchers and policymakers to carefully consider the implications of developing AGI and to take steps to mitigate the risks. This may include implementing regulations and oversight, encouraging international collaboration and dialogue, and investing in research on the safe and beneficial development and use of AGI. Give me an intelligent critique of Leo Gura's philosophy. Leo Gura, the owner of the YouTube channel Actualized.org, has developed a philosophy that emphasizes personal development and self-actualization. He encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own lives and to strive for personal growth and fulfillment. One critique of Gura's philosophy is that it may be overly individualistic, focusing solely on the individual's self-development and growth, rather than taking into account the social, cultural and environmental factors that shape an individual's life. It could be said that Gura's perspective may not sufficiently acknowledge the role of social structures and systems that can create obstacles for certain individuals or groups, and that can make it harder for them to achieve the same level of self-actualization as others. Another critique of Gura's philosophy is that it may not provide a comprehensive understanding of human behavior. It could be argued that Gura's philosophy is overly simplified and does not take into account the complexity of the human experience, such as the influence of emotions, unconscious biases, and past traumas in shaping an individual's behavior and decision-making. It is important to note that Gura's philosophy is one perspective among many and it's important to consider different philosophies and perspectives when exploring personal development and self-actualization. Additionally, it's important to evaluate and test the ideas and techniques suggested by any individual or organization in order to determine what works best for you.

You go for it and see what happens.

Yes

How about this for a vision: You develop yourself to such a degree that none of the people you are currently angry at can affect your sense of self-love and self-worth anymore. You don't need to harm anyone to feel good anymore. You can skip that step entirely because of how much you've mastered your psychology. You have taken full responsibility of your life and emotions, and to allow others to affect that would now be a disservice to yourself. In fact, you have cultivated and developed yourself to such a point, that you now feel bad that the people around you are unable to achieve the mental peace that you currently have, and you wish that they are able to achieve the same some day.

Crying can be transformative if you consciously choose to do it. It brings out all your thoughts and ideas that you're holding in.

It adds more nuance than that. It talks about how the receptionist says that they only have normal porn, and that this is how the joke creates an unexpected punchline. It implies that the rabbi wanted porn that isn't normal, but it just doesn't specify that it was disabled porn. It even has enough sense to put "normal" in quotations, that's amazing lol.

Looks fine to me as long as you're not sensitive to those oils and it cleans well

Stop using Twitter

Hydroxyapatite is a better alternative. Fluoride nukes your oral microbiome and is also related to other illnesses.

Technically it gets it right the first time. The joke is the idea that the rabbi doesn't want normal porn. It just adds more details and makes it more explicit since it probably thinks you're confused about it or something.