zurew

You don't know if they translate to everywhere or not. The most you could say, is that we need to collect more stats about this topic.They were specific circumstances, but on the other hand, i have yet to see something that would justify to be strongly against the decriminalization of drugs. There are arguments, but those arguments are not backed up by any data (as far as i know). Empirical data always trumps hypotheticals and assumptions.

This guy is amazing.

Here is an article on this issue :https://drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-decriminalization Overall there are strong arguments in favour of decriminalization. Here is a different article on this topic: https://www.tpoftampa.com/latest-on-the-decriminalization-of-drugs/ Three Lessons the Netherlands Learned After Decades of Evolving Its Drug Policy: https://drugpolicy.org/blog/america-take-note-three-lessons-holland-learned-after-decades-evolving-its-drug-policy

Yeah,I agree. I think he was trying to point out a dynamic on youtube, where being entertaining has much much more weight on your profits compared to being factually correct and dry. Its almost like you have to play into this dynamic , because if you don't , then you won't get that much traction on your videos. I have to add here, that i have thought about this dynamic, and i think that youtube is becoming less and less reliable to gather knowledge about anything (especially heavier topics). Youtube still has a lot of good educational channels, but because they have to play the entertainment game, their message sometimes get distorted a little bit. Of course, further research is always needed after watching a video, but it would be great if we could see a dynamic where you are rewarded for being factually correct . Thanks for pointing out the disagreements that you had with the link i posted here. I was lazy to write a proper analysis of the video , but this way our collective sensemaking of this topic may become better and hopefully less and less misinformation will be digested. .

That video is a little bit misleading. Here is a video that clear things up about blackrock:

Daniel Schmachtenberger is aware of actualized.org

Hopefully he will reply, it would be a great convo for sure.

@Danioover9000 He was focusing on the deepfake part. He hasn't mentioned anything about actualized.org yet. But he was reading an actualized.org post, so he is aware of this forum.

I don't know about stage yellow math books, but i don't think you need any high level math to become a programmer. There are a bunch of programming libraries you can use and those will do the heavy lifting for you. Even if the programming language you use don't have any good math libraries, in that case you could create a bot, that would use Wolfram Alpha Link. Wolfram Alpha is pretty fucking advanced and should be more than enough to use.

Do we have an academic definition of a woman? It seems impossible not to exclude some woman, when we try to define what a woman is. I know , i am begging the question, but i just want to point out, that it seems really hard to perfectly define what anything is, without excluding some stuff, that we wouldn't want to exclude otherwise. I assume, that we don't want to go for a perfect definition, but for a definition that excludes the least amount of things that we would include otherwise.

Trying to play the spiritual teacher game all the time, when one is being questioned about a position. Labeling arguments and other views relative, just to win a debate or an argument. Not being able to have a conversation without bringing up the Absolute. Not being receptive to any criticism.

The real question is, who is not shit? One of the most overlooked one.

@Razard86 I made a clear distinction between sex and gender above, and thats a framework you can use to try to make sense of what i wrote above. Now, you don't need to agree with that framework, but that distinction is practical and it can be important. You are using language in a reductive way and almost no one use it the way you use it, because nuance and meaning is being lost there . The way you use it, is like this: Everything is a social construct: biology , gender , language, physics etcetc. If we use the word 'social construct' your way ,then it will lose its meaning and basically won't mean anything, because it can be used to describe any word. Try to make sense what i wrote above, with the definitions and meanings that i gave to the word gender and sex. No its not, I made a clear distinction between the two ,and i provided examples to make it more clear. If you don't want to engage with that framework thats fine, but don't tell me i don't understand what a social construction is, just because you don't want to engage with my framework. From an ultimate standpoint, yes it is a social construction, but again i think to use language that way its too reductive. If we want to have a good faith debate or a conversation we have to use the same set of definitions, because if we don't, then our convo or debate won't even make any sense, because we will be arguing over points that are not even being made by the other person, but by ourselves. Gender is an inner image of yourself. - An Indian man will have a totally different inner image what a man is (, than a German man. Thats just one example. Sex is about biological traits - differences in :reproductive organs, genitals, chromosomes,bone density etc.

I don't really think we can make any strong argument in favour of why an AI is sentient (for now), the only thing we can do, is to try to make your arguments look relativistic (by bringing up the absolute and solipsism arguments) and thats basically it. Tearing down arguments is not the same as making arguments in favour of something,so i think, for now, i will agree with your position that there is no reason so far to believe, that an AI is sentient or can become sentient (unless we start to talk about states that are not sober states). Correct me if i misunderstand your position, but this is how i interpreted it: You are not making any strong claims, but the position that there seems to be a correlation between a human brain and sentience, and you gave some reasons why you think thats the case. I think your position is strong for now. I am curious if anyone has any great arguments against it (and not just tearing it down, but arguments in favour of the position that an AI is sentient or can be sentient). @Carl-RichardWould be curious though, what would need to be discovered or changed in order to change your position on this matter ?

Yeah i agree with this. I just think that the public image issue could be solved with a relatively low cost (her marketing wouldn't be that powerful ,so she would lose potential patients and of course money).

Everything ultimately "comes from" the Absolute, so i don't see how talking about the Absolute is making any difference here. This is not a good comparison, because in some sense everything "comes from" and "depended" on the Absolute. In your example above you are talking about a needed relative domain structure in order to answer and make sense of the question and you are not mentioning the Absolute. So to answer the question that you just made, we don't need to use the Absolute.

When it comes to this context (Teal swan as the best healer in the world) it has its own weight on this problem. Now, i would be down to criticise the mainstream system and psychologist and psychiatrists (i am not holding they upper compared to Teal) , but this thread is about the potential problems with Teal, thats why i brought it up. Exactly, the truth and helping people. Thats why she should show a more realistic image about her approach and about her ability to heal people.

Yes, but the difference is the public image and also the expectations.

Yeah. There are clear reasons why a psychologist or a psychiatrist is regulated and need to work in a controlled way, in order to defend the patients as much as possible. From an ethical standpoint, it doesn't look good to experiment on severly mentally ill people to see what technique will work to who and with what conditions. Even though, it seems that some of these techniques can work for a number of people with different conditions, but from an ethical standpoint it looks bad. Now, the problem comes when you create such a public image, where you look like an omniscient goddess (or at the very least, you say that you are the very best at healing people and that is one of the core pillars of your business model) and then there are still people who you can't give any help or you make their condition worse. Why is that bad? Because in their head they will think something like this: "if the best person in the healing field can't help me to heal, then who the fuck will be able to help me and how the fuck will i be able to solve any of these problems?". The solution would be to be more humble, and more receptive to criticism and to give a more realistic image about your service to your patients. I understand that from a marketing outlook it doesn't look better if you are more honest, but if we really care about people's mental health, then it should be a basic thing to do.

Yeah, but you make a distinction between those two, even though ontologically,there is no difference between a human and an AI (If you wouldn't make a distinction, you wouldn't use two different words to describe the same stuff). You can have 2 things made of the same stuff, but behaving differently, and having different qualities. Under the materialist paradigm everything is made of atoms or quarks and electrons, but still, not everything appears the same and behaves the same way. The same under an idealist paradigm, everything can be made of consciousness, but still, there are differences , if we start to divide reality into smaller parts. Now of course, we can say that dividing reality is an illusion etcetc, but in that case, we can't engage with any topic or with any question, because if we concentrate on any finite part or question, that will automatically assume some level of separation. We can have discussions about relative stuff, without the need to invoke qualia or ontology. When you say stuff like " Now in my view, both the AI and the human are imaginary " , it doesn't really matter, whether they are imaginary or not, you can recognize the similarity between the two on an ontological level and you can also recognize the difference between the two when it comes to qualities, behaviour, functionality etc. When it comes to a computer game like Super Mario, you can recognize that all the characters are made up of pixels (ontology), and also , that Mario and Luigi is different and capable of different things (appearance, functionality, qualities etc).

If someone has the time, here is a 6 part series podcast on spotify, called the Gateway. https://open.spotify.com/show/6Ez7WIIdyxhPbq5W6dJpiW Also, there is an older documentary about her called: OPEN SHADOW: The Story of Teal Swan Trailer: Yeah, i agree with you, but the biggest problem with this, figuring out who has what hidden agenda. If we watch Teal's videos we can obviously know,that we will get a biased positive view about her, so we can know what to look for, but with these other sources, we can't know from the start, who has what agenda and intentions, so we have to spend a lot of hours filtering the noise out, to get some of the facts.

Yeah i agree. Its very hard to find a video or information source about Teal Swan that is not full of projection and bias. We only have the documentary, and Teal's response videos to make sense of this situation. Or we can use these videos that are full of noise.

Focus should be on both. You can study the absolute and the relative (and i think you should). If you want to survive you have to study how survival works and you have to study the functionality of things. When you talk about the Absolute, i assume you talk about studying the nature of being/beingness. Thats cool, and thats important, but from a survival pov, it doesn't really matter if you understand things on an existence level or not. For instance, if you want to learn how to drive a car, your knowledge that a car is God won't help you to learn driving. But, if you actually study how a car works, and what you need to do in order to drive it, then after a while, through experience and also some conceptual knowledge, you will be able to drive and handle that car. So, you can understand the functionality of things, without the need to understand the Absolute. Ontological understanding is just one way of understanding (an important one, but not the only one).

Its hard, beacuse the focus of her work (as far as i know) is around healing , so her whole business model is around helping depressed, traumatized people. Now i can imagine, how fucking hard it would be to manage such people.