commie

It seems you assume words like "happier" mean something in and of themselves. That would have many serious implications and is worth considering very carefully. I could tell you that you're wrong because I don't think in those terms. If I hadn't read this first, I would have said that I'm not trying to get happier because that's pointless. Or I could try to understand what you meant instead, which would require me to consider other things "happier" might mean... which do you think is the better approach? Do you think there's a correct understanding of "happier" contained in the mind of God which you can somehow access but which I am kept away from because of my sinfulness or something? Do you honestly believe you are able to attribute limitations to God by stringing words together? Coming down can be sweet as well as fascinating even if it can't compare to the rush of a high. Do you figure words will be revealed to you when you're tripping? My general recommendation for you is: be wary of language cults.

Also keep in mind that if you drive to your doctor's office in order to get vaccinated, you might be involved in a car crash. These are often quite bad for your brain health.

This isn't left-wing. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not even stupid. Most stupid people do not believe this sort of thing. It's simply ignorance. Obviously I've "taken" vaccines against viruses before, and would again.

It feels different to me. I go to the grocery store but don't hire prostitutes. What most people sell is technically their labor power rather than their body/mind. And of course many have the option of living off welfare or charity. But people do like hyperboles, don't they? Even in FIRE, you don't have to work for capitalists or a corporation. Nor to you have to work a regular job most of your life, even if you don't want to try your hand (or fail) at being self-employed. And if it's the broader society that's the issue for you, there are alternatives as well (but I can't speak from experience about that).

Social constructions are necessarily validated in the context of other social constructions.

Language (mostly maths) and models. I'm not sure what these "laws" are would be but how would I test gravitational waves aspect of GR for instance? You're living a fantasy.

No, both scientists and students work primarily with abstractions. Often these refer (in principle at least) to measurable things but sometimes not. You could not possibly verify most of science by yourself. Hundreds of years ago, you could have but that phase in the development of science is long gone.

You were saying stuff like "that's why" about a group. No matter. There's a difference between need and desire.

Some of the ones I've met were so open-minded their brains leaked out. Old money and other underachievers aplenty. But let's not generalize of course... different times and places, blah blah. I expect you're not considering paying real money out of curiosity so... you may have better opportunities in psych research with a medical background (or possibly another background potentially relevant to the study of the nervous system). Disclaimer: not a psychologist (obviously)

@ivory How many years do you figure it takes for these slow isolation-linked pathologies to develop? Long enough that they can hardly be distinguished from aging? I've heard about this almost exclusively in reference to the elderly and I'm sure there is evidence w.r.t. degenerative diseases yet I can't say the less-isolated elderly folks I've known seemed any healthier to me (taking gender into account). There are obvious risks and pitfalls which do not take long to show up and there is an even more obvious correlation between serious mental problems and isolation but I'm talking specifically about the slow stuff. Your method sounds highly unsound. I don't deny this desire yet I have extreme arrogance. I'm not sure what makes a defense mechanism narcissistic but I expect you'd read me that way. So really, is this denial (assuming it is indeed denial) really the cause? Possibly. But in all likelihood this is simply yet another rash mistake.

Plenty of scientists are total crackpots. Many QM pioneers famously kept saying batshit stuff and it hasn't hurt their standing (quite the contrary). I wouldn't put anything past Carroll for instance. He has very little credibility as far as I'm concerned. There is of course a respectability game going on among scientists but the ones who made it have got it made. I have no loyalty to what you call "the truth" by the way. Some of us don't care much whether what you say true, Leo. Just like scientists typically have no use for formal "meta-science", they have no use for the truth or even sanity.

Terrible use of language. Firstly your lexicon wastes two words. And then you abuse its poverty to deny what's being said.

Racism is simply a form of essentialism. Essentialism comes so naturally to us that you did one in your very short OP. But what you call racism is probably something else. English speakers usually construct some very bad thing in their mind, safely distant from what they are or do and call that racism. And peachboy: the character has no race either. That's not the issue.

We don't know each other but Hi! This takes zero bravery. You were probably ironic/joking but I don't get what you were ironic/joking about. No matter.

I was simply taking what you wrote seriously. You were talking about possibly shutting someone off. Maybe you didn't mean what you wrote (which would be problematic as well). Imagine for instance that you were locked up and the only person you could talk to wanted to shut you off, possibly for good...

Here's a quickie then: watch Game of Death (2010). It doesn't matter if you don't understand what people are saying and there are no subtitles. The thesis of the broadcast doesn't matter and it's mostly filler. But there are a few minutes where you can watch people's faces when they're dealing with causing or having caused imaginary harm. One of the things you may notice are the differences among the subjects which is part of why I think "illusion" is either an irresponsible or an ill-considered way of framing the issue.

Sorry but I didn't want to spent half an hour waxing lyrical about what I guessed you were really asking. Maybe try to explain yourself better so that giving a more detailed answer wouldn't feel like such a crapshoot. You might even learn something about yourself or language by exercising your explanatory abilities.

The basic precepts will help you stay out of trouble. By pretending you believe something like that, you reduce the chances you will be branded a psycho and dealt with accordingly. Because this isn't about reasons.

I don't believe that and I feel bad anyway. The problem is that you're looking for a reason. This "elevated thinking" may not be for you. Certainly your rendition isn't for me. I recommend you try the five precepts or something until you figure this out.

Doesn't the above seem problematic to you? It sounds like to you want to shut off someone you don't know. Does it seem to you like this is similar to an acquaintance who would simply live their own life if they didn't talk to you anymore? Do you know what harm you'd cause or perhaps are already causing by doing what looks like it might be violence from a position of ignorance? I'm not sure I know what you mean by "brain chatter" but I of course do know about internal monologue which intrudes into my awareness. In my case, unprompted internal monologue is typically about judgement or simple (less stressful) perception. Maybe you're talking about something more subtle. Anyway... a long time ago I figured I would shut it off but I gave up without trying very hard. I thought I was being weak or a coward (it got a bit scary) but now I'm more inclined to think that quitting was the right choice. I figure silence for a short while is harmless (like a break, something that can occur with simple contemplation) but I don't feel like pushing beyond that, except when it gets annoying and then only for a few moments. Maybe I'm just being lazy.

You seem to be caught in a false dichotomy again. What you are taking care of with brain/body content in mind need not be the same as that content. Likewise the content needs not be what affects awareness (not exclusively anyway). So you don't have to choose between "purely content" and container. If I understand you, this model involves the container or what implements it being part of the content. Whether this could work in principle depends on a bunch of assumptions, but generally is not compatible with the container being physical (at least if you credit mainstream thinking about entropy, information, computation and so forth).

Where did you get that idea? You're giving people too much credit. At least one other forum member sounds like they're being disinformed about viruses...

You've got many answers but I don't think any was about an especially problematic aspect of the worst conspiracy theories: disinformation and paranoid nonsense. Regular conspiracies involve secrecy but not lying to the public about the facts of the matter. The conspiracy theories generally frowned are the ones about grandiose coverups, the (((liberal))) media and so forth. So it seems like it would make sense to tolerate the regular theories and reject the paranoid ones. But the trouble is that on the one hand there occasionally are legit conspiracies involving mass deception, for instance for the purpose of justifying war and on the other hand there are paranoid theories such as Project Fear which would be difficult to suppress because of the cultural power of their promoters. In practice that makes conspiracy theories yet another point of failure of liberalism. You can provide evidence for almost anything so requiring evidence wouldn't help.

Most false ideas worth talking about are like this actually. When you understand what was wrong about Newton's theory, you don't float away. To the extent that they are any good, rules don't break easily in the context in which they were devised. That doesn't make them unbreakable. Why would it have to be material?

It's kinda poetic, agreed. But it's just a play on the definition of "you". Still, I'll take the elegant word games over the boorish ones.