thisintegrated

That's not AI, lol. That's just ML. If you call simple algorithms AI then you'd have to consider your fridge to be an AI, and carefully consider the ethics of putting stuff in your fridge. AI is something specific, and not just a broad term for all computer technology. GAI is AI, we just don't use the GAI term as that'd be GAIIIIIII..

Um, you realize AI doesn't exist yet? We might have actual AI by around 2050, if we're lucky. Everything within your consciousness within your perspective. Concepts about anything outside of you only exist in that concept form, or however you experience them. They don't exist independent of your experience of them. If you understand that then the answer to your question becomes apparent. AI will be no different to humans. "Conscious", but only through your experience of them. So in other words unconscious in the traditional sense.

You're probably just not gaining enough from "doing" philosophy or spirituality. If you're not seeing results then of course you'll get bored. Haven't heard of the formula, but I highly recommend anything from Bashar.

Good and bad are human distinctions. Not every perspective is human.

Yeah basically just 100% advertisement. But TV is a bad idea. Need to already have demand before you go that route.

It would still be in service of their reductionist ideas. The closest they'd get to having "expansive movement" is using their Te to back up their Ni. Te openly looks for outside logic.

I do. But I make money from just hanging around the forum. Yes, like I was saying all along. ..how are they superfluous? How is reductionist the same as expansionist? They're opposites. Ni people will decide on one outcome and say anyone who's considering other possibilities is stupid. Ni will say "electric cars are nonsense! Impossible!", "drones will never be able to do deliveries!". Ne will do the opposite and love exploring these possibilities.

I've seen hundreds of hours of his videos. I get paid as much as Carl does to mod. Well, tbh Leo's been stingy with the pay lately.. So yeah, I consider it as something on the side.

Difference is he actually believes them. Not how Fe works. It's about feelings and values, not beliefs. I couldn't care less what my family wants me to believe. wtf, you fail to see the difference? CSJ says Ni deals with the self. I say Ni deals with others, or anyone, doesn't matter. I don't see how you concluded "one possibility for the engine" was referring to "possibility for your self". Do you identify as an engine? "Ne deals with the collective future or in other words what others want to/are going to do" Again nothing like what I said. "Who" is completely irrelevant. Ne applies to single objects or single people just like Ni. Ne = "I can become a pilot, or a programmer, or a chef". Ne = "They can become pilots, or programmers, or chefs". Ne = "That rock over there can become a pilot, or a programmer, or a chef". Ne = "Those rocks over there can become pilots, or programmers, or chefs". Ni = "I will become a pilot". Ni = "They will become pilots". Ni = "That rock over there will become a pilot". Ni = "Those rocks over there will become pilots". omg I don't agree with him!

Drugs? No drugs? Schizo yet? How Schizo? If you reply with a dickpic, then I'll know you've actually gone insane.

Exactly! He's not making any sense! He's gone insane!!

He claims to be what I am (except he'd probably claim to be Orange, if he knew anything about Spiral Dynamics). I assumed you meant the subconscious. He does not. He takes most Christian ideas literally. His dad was like a priest or something, don't recall exactly. So someone invests an "engine". Ni says "we will use this to make cars", Ne says "we will use this to make cars, planes, trains, electric skateboards, ships, etc." Ni is right that the revolution will take place in the form of the car, but is blind to the other possibilities. Ne is less practical and less focused, but sees further into the future than Ni and is more aware of the where the technology can be taken. Yeah he's got a decent MBTI foundation and some good theories, but he takes them too seriously and could never consider the possibility of his definitions/understanding being wrong, which is why after a decade of studying MBTI he's not made much progress. Mechanics are ISTPs and occasionally ISTJs. Very rarely ESTPs. ESTPs are gamers, streamers, surfers, racers, basically all athletes, most gym guys, guys who go fishing while drinking beers, most florida guys, most motorsport guys, most food youtubers, gardeners enjoying the outside air and sun (really just Se people), people who often go for walks in nature (again really just Se like ISFPs). They care about the experience more than any other type. CSJ would just say they want to give others an experience, but that's BS, they don't give a fuck about that, for the most part. The ESTPs are the ones who'd invite those other types to surf, not the other way around. LOL, he does not deserve the ENTP title. Every source that exists, basically. Debating people on Reddit, studying socionics, studying every other cognitive model, looking at every MBTI chart/meme, chatting to people about MBTI, talking to lots of types, listening to MBTI youtubers, looking through thousands of types on personalityDB, reading articles, debating people carl on this forum, talking about it with people irl, etc. And all that over several years.

I very extremely strongly disagree. Without logic and universal laws, we'd have to constantly be putting in effort to generate every aspect of reality. We'd have to generate the effects of gravity and everything ourselves and somehow all agree on every little physics calculation. Primate not compute talk-talk? Talk-talk too big for primate brain. Uhm, well, in whatever reality you're in everything appears physical. In dreams everything is physical, and from dreams the physical feels non-physical. So if the soul is non-physical, it will feel physical if you manage to leave the physical and enter The Realm Of The Soul.

WHAT?!?!?! He's literally openly a creationist. He talks about jesus and shit in most of his videos and openly ridicules and rejects all ideas of evolution. 1. Uhm, I'm kinda the MBTI consultant on this forum? Of course I'll know my own MBTI. 2. Yes I'm aware of the 4 sides of the mind. I'm an ENTP with an INTJ cognitive focus, which should make me an expert at analysing CSJoseph as he claims to be exactly this. Basically.. Ni/Ne = abstraction + future focus. The differences are: Reduction vs expansion Surviving vs thriving The one vs the many THE outcome vs potential outcomes THE future vs potential futures THE use case vs the use cases Of course I haven't. Why would I listen to CSJoseph? I exaggerate sometimes for fun/clarity, and like I said I didn't know whose words those were. I couldn't believe that you watched his video and then transcribed it for him for free. Actually he's completely wrong on this. I used to believe this definition of his but it's just objectively wrong. What type values "experience" more than any other type? What type do you picture as the "surfer dude"? ESTP. Yet they're Se users. Se might include CS's definition, but on its own it's completely wrong. Se and Si are both about experience, but Se is just experience with an outward focus.

Well I'm not a materialist, if that's what you're suggesting. I don't believe there's a literal physical world that we live in, it's all imaginary. But the imaginary world has rules and logic that allow it to exist naturally without being intentionally programmed/designed or anything. The mechanisms/logic behind our world aren't isolated, and what we see is just one part of the interconnected multiverse. It sounds to me like you believe there's separation, and that there's no logical system behind it all, that the earth isn't round and all that exists is your experience. But that's an overly Leonian/reductionistic misguided perspective. Life on earth exists because theoretically if the big bang could have happened and could've produced life then that's what we could be experiencing, and so that's why we are experiencing it. Not because we curated this life, but because it already existed naturally without anyone doing anything. Because it's self-sustaining and efficient. That's what makes it "real". It's natural and "could" exist independently of us. And that being the case, it needs supporting logic beyond what we directly experience, and the things beyond our direct experience are numerous. There's already things like gravity and planet orbits, but with time we'll likely discover new influences beyond what we notice currently at a human level, and they'll be as real as gravity. If souls and other dimensions turn out to be as real as gravity, then I think you can consider them real "things" and not just conceptual.

I didn't read that wall of text so it's possible. Edit: I'm confused, wtf is this thread? Who wrote the summary? Was it Caesar? Did Caesar copy and paste it from ..a youtube video?!? Did he write the wall of text himself, like a Te user ..and end up writing about how dumb other Te users are?!?!?! wtf is is this thread?!?!?!?!?

Except hierarchies are real, and everything isn't at the same scale/level. Hierarchies are found everywhere in our world, and in the greater infinity as well. Our world isn't unique. One human isn't worth one cat, and one "cosmic mouse" isn't worth one human. And there are many levels beyond the mouse as well. These things may be "imaginary" but that doesn't make them any less real. We exist within these hierarchies. ..lolwut * dethrones @Carl-Richard * What exactly do you mean by realist vs pragmatist? Both are somewhat pragmatic and realistic. Realists are generally conservative/reductionistic people, basically INTJs. Pragmatists are just people who pay no mind to convention/precedent/tradition and solve problems the "best", most expedient way possible, but the most efficient approach is usually the Ni/reductionistic approach, so they end up being almost the same thing..

..you were referring to CSJoseph's behavior as "Te", which you then said it reminds you of me. "im pretty sure" isn't a good argument. And you're contradicting yourself as you called him a Te user: He's Blue-Orange, but ENTP is a bold claim. To think @Leo Gura let you be a mod???? I think this is his revenge against me for suggesting he's an INTJ.

Fair enough. But it's important not to confuse the effects with the causes. People may have the effects of a soul without souls actually being real or a fundamental part of reality. The collective unconscious could've easily generated the effect of souls just like in the past people prayed to the "sun god" and it actually worked, and the sun god perhaps even literally manifested in the flesh when enough people believed in him. But that's still different from the laws of physics which are harder to change, and so the sun god wasn't "actually" real, just like reincarnation might not be real and only something we create temporarily. Or souls could be real, and be a fundamental part of the fabric of this limited reality like the laws of physics, but still not real when you zoom out to the full extent of God.

Plane = has a physical explanation Past life = has a physical explanation episodic memory = has a physical explanation Sadhguru's effect on people = has no physical explanation Unexpected personality traits = has physical explanation, but still not conclusive as non-physical effects have physical manifestations. Tom Campbell's experiences = has no physical explanation sometimes, sometimes does

Pretty sure MBTI types will show correlations in brain scans. I don't believe or disbelieve him. In one parallel reality or another I'm sure he's telling the truth. And if I choose to I can make it true for my own reality, just like if I put enough intent into it, I could "discover" he's actually a charlatan and a scammer and child rapist or whatever's within my power. Edit: For anyone confused by this, as long as there's uncertainty for what he is within my reality, there's wiggle room in deciding the unknown details about him. It's all a matter of probability.

Because it has a physical counterpart, unlike some of the alleged potential effects of reincarnation which have absolutely no physical counterpart. Reincarnation memories can be explained without reincarnation. The effects I was talking about cannot, unless you can offer a suitable alternative explanation. Like I said, physical explanations aren't good enough, and reincarnation seems like the best one anyone has ever brought forward. In my initial post I explained how it's not a bad explanation, and not as crazy as it sounds. Souls/reincarnation make so much sense that it could be argued you should try to disprove them before even needing to prove them.

I have no idea how this is relevant. If someone's good at math, their whole family's brains and DNA can be examined and an explanation for why they're good at math can be found. But if someone's obsessed with flying planes from a young age despite nothing in the environment or DNA to cause this, then it may be worth looking into alternate explanations. To answer your question, no I don't think MBTI/Big5/etc. describes one's math abilities, athletic ability, etc. That's just silly. Not sure if you're just trolling at this point. You honestly think a Blue psychologist is gonna come to an accurate conclusion as to why Sadhguru has such an effect on people with just a glance? Or why a blind man might suddenly feel something when in his presence? Changes nothing. Psychic people can in theory have no problem accessing any bit of information that exists. And it is known that such cases are often put there by the LCS to awaken people to the wider reality. How common is the belief in reincarnation/ghosts/aliens/etc.? Extremely common. Why? Because sightings/reports are just about common enough to spread rumours and ideas, but not so common that it breaks the illusion of reality having rules and making sense to conventional science.

..yet they're generally accounted for by physical processes understood by modern science, whereas what I was referring to is not. If I said "Sadhguru radiates a divine essence that inspires awe and is felt by his mere presence or gaze alone", how exactly do you think a scientist would go about measuring this? No, not in the specific way you're asking. If you simply have a dream or see visions of another life that in no way suggests you were seeing your past life. But if it's an experience of literally spending years on alien planets, living in other dimensions and building long-term relationships with inter-dimensional aliens who teach/show you how reality works, then those experiences might override whatever you're told in the physical.

1. I'm an ENTP. 2. I've watched many of his videos. He's far too authoritarian, affiliative, reliant on others' ideas, rigid in his thinking, way too Fi, Te-like mannerisms. 3. He misunderstands several functions, like he considers Ne to be "what others want", and "other people's future". 4. He's a religious AF creationist. ENTPs can't be that low IQ.