Nilsi

Maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental... "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Hermeneutics, structuralism, post-structuralism and semiotics are all powerful paradigms to investigate the nature of language (language being a major way, by which we draw distinctions). Also, Peter Ralston talks at length about reality being made up of distinctions in his books - very powerful stuff!

Sounds sketchy. I would stick to psychedelics, if I were you.

What makes it "correct?" And why don't you like Lex Fridman?

Leo's blog post about postmodernism, where he pretended, that developmental psychology is somehow above postmodernism.

I'm a bit shocked, how perfect reality is. It's so agreeable all of a sudden. When you take a transparent and cooperative stance toward reality, you can talk it all out with God, so to speak - and you will find absolute peace and tranquility. I hope, I don't sound like too much of a stoner - but sometimes you just gotta be a little corny, to speak the truth.

I don't want you to change. Accept who you are, that's great. But also accept the limits of your worldview. And for the love of God, don't pretend that it's anything more than your perspective. As long as that's the case, I'm perfectly happy.

Whatever you may choose, I advice you to not choose it based on whether it will be easy and comfortable.

Sounds like a great place to start from! Things will become more complex as you start putting this into practice - but you won't know that before you start anyways, so just put one foot in front of the other.

The greatest gift you can give to society is actualizing your potential, so invest that money into yourself - if you truly care to do good. If that means therapy, because you're too depressed and disillusioned with life to think of something productive to do, so be it.

You could share a flat, or live in a van, if that's your thing. There will always be tradeoffs. I'm sure surviving as a student in a city like New York is not easy, so if you're mainly looking for comfort and enjoyment, that might not be a good fit.

Makes it a lot easier. Also, there just aren't many great places to meet girls in small cities.

The population of Bloomington is 80.000... How on earth are you going to work on your dating life there? Can't you study in a big city? I bet there are lots of authentic Buddhist places in Cali, New York etc., if that's your big thing. Also, don't bank on meeting highly developed people (in academia) - this is a wet dream, in my experience.

I have no issue with any of this. I'm just trying to parse what's true from what's not.

If you can't properly state your point, I won't bother trying to interpret some vague statement like the one you made.

Of course. I'm not denying that. I'm very pragmatically oriented myself. That begs the question of what you pragmatically orient yourself toward. What worldview would a cerebral psychology student construct, if not this one? There is no reason to be as invested in academic psychology as you are, unless you think there is something worthwhile to explore and discover there. If you were interested in instrumental psychology, you wouldn't be in academia and if you were interested in the philosophy, you wouldn't care about boring research papers. And developmental psychology is what's left for a guy like you to put his chips in.

That's all good, but you still need the motivation to create such a worldview. What I'm more interested in is what makes you choose to inhabit this particular reality. And if I had to guess, it's that that's the only logical conclusion you could draw, to justify your academic endeavors (which I have no problem with).

lol what are you smoking? If anything, Im the polar opposite of a Buddhist.

Postmodernism:

Please think before speaking.

The notion of premodern and modern are part of the dev psy fantasy.

There is no "evolution towards higher and higher consciousness" in your direct experience. If anything, your state of consciousness is always changing, but has no obvious direction - at least, I dont see it. Of course, when I contemplate biological evolution and then extend that to human ontogenetic development, there is a sense in which thats real. But again, thats just me framing reality in a certain way.

What would that difference be?

Have you ever done so much psychedelics that literally all of reality collapses into the primordial soup it originated from? That thing is already sentient. As reality reemerges from that state, you conclusively realize that sentience comes from this Urstoff and not some neurons in the brain. So there is no reason why AI shouldn't be able to become sentient.

This was one hell of a redpill, even for Schmachtenberger standards.