zurew

Exactly. We are talking about being conscious so much and we sometimes forget about it. Being conscious can mean, not being reactive and being in charge. So being conscious can be used in this case as well

The good old days playing half-life, and half-life 2

@How to be wise Imagine, if Leo would be on all tv channels, and kids would be forced to watch him instead of tik-tok.

You need to balance out the 2 brain hemispheres, if you only focus on one and only use one, you won't be as effective as you want to be. This argument could be used for almost anything. Lets be it bodybuilding or learning or anything. One of the most important part is the rest part and to use your creative capacities too. Even Einstein played hours upon hours of music and then he went back to do hardcore physics.

This is very true. Probably in the far future (probably not in our lifetime) science will evolve into a state where multiple different kind of epistemic foundations will be used to make sense of reality. I know there are different kind of fields already, however they still have almost the same epistemic foundation. For example, if they want to find out if aliens exist or not they will be open to explore it from multiple angles. One angle could be the materialistic angle where we physically try to find evidence for life in the universe using physics, chemistry, biology etc. One other angle could be to explore the same "question" or problem using different states of consciousness. We could build infinite different kind of starting points, and go forward infinitely, and then we could combine all the insights together and see how many contradicts each other and how many could correlate. Not being attached to any epistemic foundation or not being attached to any state of consciousness would be really really interesting to see in science.

Please, drop here any tools/theories/videos/articles/topics/methods/books that could elevate our sensemaking abilities to a new level. By sensemaking i mean: tools and methods and thinking that can help us to get as objective as we can understanding real world events or people. ( so destroying all the filters, deception mechanisms, biases and going for factual information) Shortly: Sensemaking is the ability that help us, to get to factuality the best and most effective way possible. Articles: https://consilienceproject.org/how-to-mislead-with-facts/?fbclid=IwAR2O-nyGcrW4maVstqV3L_kcgAiPgcdBL7wns9GK3mOtc0SI1crnkkWtLlg https://consilienceproject.org/the_end_of_propaganda/ https://consilienceproject.org/challenges-to-making-sense-of-the-21st-century/ https://consilienceproject.org/democracy-and-the-epistemic-commons/ https://consilienceproject.org/its-a-mad-information-war/ https://consilienceproject.org/we-dont-make-propaganda-they-do/ The war on Sensemaking series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ part-1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QGrffjOFko part-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQstRd7opv4&list=PLdUc8YnR4D8VGOwijTNkF7yql8Vhs_GCe part-3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G70qtM66iY8 part-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v5RiMdSqwk part-5 Video list on sensemaking including some of Leo's videos and The war on sensemaking: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLp7j_ri9938vHGaGL-0jPZFvlM0BMJhBs

For me it used to be Counter strike 1.6. I played it normally, and i played it with zombies too. I don't play it anymore, but i think my favorite would be minecraft. It may sound just a childgame but it has many many possibilities and you can do so many different things in it. You can fully play out your creativity, you can find your own style of playing it. And even if you would get bored from the vanilla, you can play modded versions.

The most mysterious thing is the connection between no time and time | and the connection between nothing and something. Thats the easy part to say, that "ohh from the ultimate perspective there is no difference between the two, because all differences collapses, when you look it at from a certain level of conscioiusness". Thats fine, but to actually try to make sense of the no time - time connection and try to explain it how and why it works and why it doesn't work other ways, but this particular way.

This is very interesting, wondering why i haven't heard of this before.

I think this has great potentiality to become a very great sub-forum

Isn't this more dangerous? If everyone can see publicly the sources, then the sketchy ones can be spotted by mods, or by Leo or by anyone else and then it can be shut down. But if they start doing it in the pm-s then Leo will probably get a ton of new messages or if they ask others thats not a guarantee that it will be an adequate source for the asker. @Leo Gura In your shoes, if i wanted to be really safe about this, without any need for speculation ,i would ask a lawyer about this how this works, and in what possible trouble you could get into (assuming there is any).

Dude, i can't possibly choose only one song, there are so many good songs in different flavours. Sorry but i must put here more than one. Of course there are much more, but i will stop at 6 for now :D.

Yeah it will be interesting for sure and probably it will be a fun ride. I think one main question we could ask ourselves is how can we be even more receptive for more awakenings and insights. And how can we get more advanced at retaining those insights. And of course, the real bitch is the embodyment part, thats the hardest.

If anyone reading this thread, and want to see this forums last debate about covid19 and vaccine stuff with stats and sources and arguments, then check this thread out. There you can find some questions that vaccine hesitated people asked, some changed their opinion. The vaccine discussion mostly starting at page 3

I think marriage originally was created for the creaton of families not for your personal desires. Nowadays it might be for personal desires, but originally it was about making an even stronger connection and bond. A lot of people thought that making the "break up" difficult and hard and painful, and expensive money wise, would motivate more people to try to make things work (especially if there are kids who can be affected by the divorce). You can see even with muslims, that they put more value on family and less on happiness (especially women's happiness). So in a muslim culture, you can see women sacrificing their happiness and own goals for their family and kids sake (they won't pursue careers, they will stay home, they will stay being traditional, they won't cheat on their husband etcetc). Now this can be argued of course, how good or how bad it is , and in a liberal society women fortunately mostly have their choice and not forced to choose things they don't want to choose.

Thats not even that suprising. The country where i live, you get a big support if you are willing to get married. Because you can get a very good house loan, where if you make at least 3 children in the future, they will completely cancel the loan, so you don't need to pay it back anymore. (Of course this house loan has an upper limit, but still pretty good, and the only thing you basically need to do, is to get married) Once you have your first child the loan gets better, so you don't need to pay back the full price. Once you have your second child it gets even better and with the third children you won't need to pay back anything anymore (regarding this loan). So a lot of young people starting mostly from the age 20 are getting married, mostly because of the money. Its interesting to see this dynamic playing out, but i don't think it healthy at all, and i don't think either, that its a good thing to build your marriage mostly on money, even if they don't admit it for themselves. We are making a lot of stupid decisions when we are young, and when you get baited by money, it can get really ugly later.

@DocWatts thanks!

thanks for this share, i will check this out! I see that people commented on your thread that those books are very hard and tough to read. Would you recommend and easier book to start with?

@Reciprocality Do you have an actual stance using your approach? Because i would be curious how it would play out. ( I won't start a debate, i am just curious, how it would be applied, or how would you construct it using your principles, don't even have to be applicable in the court)

Great, thanks for the share! Do you have any other video sources where i could see good debates between socialism and capitalism? (i know there is a bunch, but i would be curious if you have one or a few that you consider good debates or discussions)

So, correct me if i misunderstand your definition here.If i use this picture down below the "fertilized egg" would be sufficient potential for you or not? That would be basically the very first stage what you could call "sufficient human potential". If you don't agree with that please elaborate why. If you say yes, then my question would be , how is that fertilized egg being in the mother's womb not meaning being interfered with? Because in my world that would mean interference, because it literally needs a very special environment to survive and to develop. You haven't exactly called anyone immoral, but you implied it. You can say, that i interpreted your message in the wrong way, but in most people's world allowing literal human murder would be immoral. Don't get me wrong, i don't care either about any moral claims or justifications. BUT in this case in this context it is very different because it is a philosophical discussion, so we need to take it for that, not just for a normal conversation. Because this is about morality, and a moral issue. If we have a philosophical discussion we need to have totally different standards and expectations, compared to having a normal discussion. Or if you don't consider this a moral discussion, then why have it? Because i don't think that making any personal opinions about this can hold any value, especially if it can't be applied in a real world justice system.

You shouldn't even bring up nonduality because its not relevant to this discussion. When we are talking about laws we are talking about some kind of morality that we are agreeing on even though we know that it is subjective. we shouldn't have even started talking about this morality issue, if you are not willing to biting some bullets. Of course in the grand scheme of things there is no distinction between anything but at the end of the day, you would have a problem if someone murdered your family. So you want some laws around it. Laws are coming from ethics, and ethics deeply correlates with politics and we are going back to morality. Its not practical to continue this "discussion" or this "debate" because you are not willing to engage with the points i make, and you are not willing to answer some essential questions that are revolving around this morality issue. But I will try it one last time. When you saying that i am immoral because i would allow abortion because i am actually allowing murdering humans thats a very serious claim. You need to back that claim with justifications and not with these arbitrary lines like :The line still exists within the potential range. You need to justify how am i allowing murdering humans, and that requires making a definition for humans. Because right now you are only saying that yes there is this potential and when i am allowing abortion in the first week for example i might kill a human or i might kill a human life ,"i don't know exactly because i didn't draw the line" You can't get away with being that hardly untangible. Also still waiting for arguments why should anyone value potentiality over my valuesystem. How your moralsystem better than mine. Make arguments around that. "Taking the whole conversation to the line is pointless" It is essential especially for you, when you make claims , that i allow murdering humans. This is another arbitrary line that you are making about how you decide what has enough potential and what doesn't have enough potential. Being this arbitrary with your morality will cause a lot of problem, because if we are talking about a law system you cannot just be this untangible with your arguments, because thats not how morality or justice system works. This is not just a 1v1 debate, this is about making justifications and figuring out which moral system would be better in regards to abortions. So your argument basically boils down to this: "I value potentiality, but i can't exactly define what i mean by sufficient potentiality" Be very very exact about what do you mean when you are talking about "Sufficient potential" potential without putting words like "and a few other factors". Be willing to take a position, and this one time don't be abstract.