zurew

Here is the original without any zoom or edit: Put it on 0.25x speed and ufortunately you won't see anything special.

It is, if you take a look at it from an unzoomed perspective its clear that it is just a shadow. Fuck these guys for not being able to actually do a clear video about aliens (if they actually speak the truth). How hard it is for the first guy (who is walking in front of everyone to hold a fucking phone in his hand before he checks their backyard?) I would probably shit myself if it would happen at myplace, - but if I would take enough courage to take a look at it - , I would definitely make sure to hold a camera in my hand, because its an extremely special occasion.

The supplements are not expensive, the research process is what is very costly (mostly doing all the measuring and evaluating and monitoring those numbers is what costs millions every year)

This is why its important to make a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Generally speaking, the smarter you get - counterintuitively - the more prone you will get to be a victim of self-deception. The reason for that is because you will be able to create and generate more and more sophisticated and deep rationalizations, arguments to others and to your own self; you will be better at creating your own ideas and defense for those ideas, so much so, that you will be less and less able to see through your own bullshit (unless you do consciousness work, where you zoom out, and take a look at it from a bigger picture or change your whole framework); and there will be less and less people who will be able to properly challenge your ideas, and all that can make you feel even stronger that you are right. In other words, you will be more better at defending your own framework (it can be a wordlview or an ideology or any specific idea or belief or bias of yours), and you will be less and less interested in changing the foundational assumptions of your own framework and can only argue inside your framework - and of course because you are so good at defending and comfortable inside your own framework - most people will never be able to challenge you properly , unless they can make you realize that your framework as a whole is not the best (even though it might be logically consistent). One could even say that the ego will get more and more antifragile (the more you attack the framework or the idea - depending on how intelligent the ego - the better it will get at defending the wordview or the idea)

Yeah. Maybe Bryan will invite you in his team and you can get inside his rich circle and take your LP to the next level @Michael569

Notice how you talk that women are so emotional, but at the same time the basis of this whole thread is coming from the place of you being upset. This whole thread is a big coping mechanism for you to deal with your emotions. You are doing endless rationalisations so that you don't need to take any accountability. Do you think a self-confident, well established, successful man would spent his life writing endless excuses why women is in the wrong?

Yeah I agree, I was just trying to challenge the idea, that "we already have most of the structural/existential things figured out", but I might have misinterpreted you, because it seems, we essentially agree that: Bro, all your constant talk and obsession about power, reminds me of Vegeta:

Have you seen the 2nd one?

Imo, our limitations determine how much we comprehend and how we perceive the fundamental dynamics and nature of life. - Can we actually decouple our perception of the fundamental dynamics of life from our limitations (when it comes to our ability to percieve, remember, comprehend,sense etc) and if yes, how would we know it? - or in other words: Is our perception of the fundamental dynamics of life actually = to all the fundemantal dynamics of life? - Would an ant have the same type of awakening about the fundamental nature of life, or it would be completely different in quality and in nature compared to humans? - Is our perception of enlightenment or awakening would be the exact same with a completely different brain or brainwiring?- would we even call it Awakening the same way as we do right now? Think about all the limitations when it comes to our contemplation and inquiry: Our brain can't really make sense of paradoxes and it start to struggle and break down. Our ability to think is limited by Law of excluded middle, and the law of noncontradiction and there is so much more limitation. The big mindfuck here is our perception of our own limitations, because thats what I questioned above. Is our ability to percieve our own limitations show our own limitations or is that limited itself by limitations that we can't percieve or know of?

This + finding intelligent alien life could both dramatically change our own view and the way we do philosophy and how we engage with the world. + of course gene editing and all kinds of other stuff that can help elevate our limitations when it comes to contemplation and thinking and questioning.

Our mind is way too fucking addicted to the internet and social media. Your challenge is only possible if you literally move somewhere, where there is no internet in a 50km radius and where you need to walk to get there. One of the biggest mistake when it comes to these challenges, is that we start with a very good, strong , motivated state of mind, and we forget and we have a hard time intuiting how hard these challenges can become when we have a low state of mind. So when you make a decision or a plan and your state of mind is extremely high, you should maybe cut in half the intensity or the duration of your challenge (because you are mindful that your state of mind probably won't stay the exact same way, when you started) or at the very least have some plan for what you will do, when the urges come. Yeah you won't really see novel points or any critical engagement with any material, especially when it comes to spirituality or philosophy. People here have a full list of deflection and self-deception arsenal that they can use, so they don't need to think or critically engage with anything (just bring up solipsism or spiral dynamics and you can know, that you are right and superior to everyone else).

I don't know if there is anything that could trump the unproductiveness and the irony of these debates about the Absolute and nonduality.

Stop with these incel posts. This thread screams the "Who hurt you bro" especially when it comes to @Mesopotamian and @DreamScape

This reminds me of fundamentalist christians, when they say "buddy, you can't falsify the christian God".

Thats definitely the future, and we are not talking about just physical health , but mental health also. Imagine from your birth having an AI friend that as time goes on, learns more and more things about your psychology, personality type, your strength and weaknesses , everyday tracks a lot of physical markers of yours, knows what you drink and eat at what time and in what quantity, knows all your potentially destructive and self deceptive behaviours, learns what excuses you use, and what your general logic and thoughtprocess is , maybe able to track your stress levels in such a precise way, that in the future it might be able to predict and then create situtations that can actually make you more resilient and strong by exposing you to proper levels of stress that you are capable of handling and going through and there is so much more.

This is not something new or surprising, this has always been the case - that rhetoric is important and its important for everyone - and it is dishonest to say otherwise. For instance, If there is someone who is constantly calling you and your mother and your family and your friends names, you will automatically be less open to what that person has to say and thats good , because why would you? Why would you give the same amount of time and attention to everyone without analysing their level of consciousness, education, knowledge, character, openness , intelligence etc. The problem comes when you delude yourself so much, that you think that using asshole rhetoric is necessary. Delivering and conveying your message in an asshole way isn't necessary - its a choice - and it is counterproductive. You can say that 1)"the sky is blue" or you can say 2)"the sky is fucking blue and I am better than you in every possible way , you pathetic,worthless loser". If the main message was to communicate the color of the sky, then you can see how full of noise the second example is, and how much harder it is to be open to it and how it makes the focus on character attack, rather than whats actually important.

I understand that the realization of the absolute can be helpful sometimes (but even in those cases, it is nowhere near sufficient alone), and in most cases, knowing the Absolute is not necessary to solve a relative problem. The realization that "everything is imaginary" is completely useless , unless you can have direct control over said imagination. Here is a set of questions regarding this. 1) Can you stop imagining time? 2) Can you stop imagining your survival needs (food, water , oxygen etc) 3) Can you stop imagining all your current human limitations right now? 4) Can you stop imagining causality? 5) Can you imagine 10 million dollars to your bank account? "I have a broken arm, what should I do?" a) go to a doctor b) realize that your broken arm is just imaginary What do you think which option is more practical and helpful?

A guidance or a plan that is specifically given/created to help someone to solve/overcome a problem or a situation. Physical pain isn't absolute either, but its lack of absoluteness has literally no bearing on how bad it is for a person who has extreme physical pain. The question in this context is not whether something is absolute or not, it is whether you can change something or have an effect on something. So if the realisation of "everything is imaginary" won't have any direct effect on a problem, then in that context its useless.

Thats irrelevant to his point - his point was - that if someone wants to give a prescription, then be as concrete as possible and avoid being so vague that your prescription either won't mean anything, or won't hold any utility to that person. The whole point of giving a prescription is to provide information and things to that person that is practical to them and to their problem/situation. Whats the utility in using the word "imaginary" there? Yeah its about posturing how enlightened they are, without providing practical guidance or useful information. Its like the one kid in the class who learned something new and now use that thought to reiterate it every time he is fronted with any question or problem, regardless of how useful or practical it is for that particular problem or situation. Its almost like you are seeing Leo wannabees everywhere without his rational and practical side.

Redpill at this point is like 5% truth and 95% delusion and incompetence to deal with your trauma that you got from girls that rejected you or bullied you. The godfather of redpill (RolloTomassi) when can't debate and shit on young women, he can only give incoherent arugments and just rambling and shaking without saying anything value. If the head of an ideology is this bad, then what the fuck can we expect from all the other followers? Rolo debate starts around 12:00

You can't live without beliefs - there are things that you can't test and you need to assume to be true (for pragmatic reasons).

Bro you can do better than this, pleaase be more responsible with your threads and titles, this is like your 5th thread where you present information in a sloppy , biased and unresponsible and uncritical manner. Develop some epistemic humility, because thats rare asf here, but very much needed. This forum is supposed to be full of high conscious and well educated people, so lets at least somewhat try to live up to that standard.

This is a crazy article "GPT AI Enables Scientists to Passively Decode Thoughts in Groundbreaking Study" https://www.artisana.ai/articles/gpt-ai-enables-scientists-to-passively-decode-thoughts-in-groundbreaking

There is no proving or disproving of what you said. Proving or disproving already assumes some kind of a grounding ( a framework or an epistemic process that we agree on or take for granted ) that we can use to evaluate a claim's truth value. If you want to get to the bottom of it, you need to repeteadly ask yourself "how do I know this". and you will end up with either an infinite regress or with a paradox and with the "I can't know for sure". Not being able to know something 100%, doesn't make that thought or claim automatically true - its just lack of knowledge or lack of knowing. But then again, why focus on this conspiracy and not any other thought?