Nilsi

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.

Thats a rather cheap shot...

Youre not setting a very high bar here

This is what happens when you make rationality your God and you become a walking calculator. His unwillingness to engage with any other epistemic faculty than this robotic hyperrationality, shows me that he is blind to much of reality - so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Kaytranada has been on fire lately. Banger after banger - can't wait to hear them on some big ass club sound system.

This is only an anecdote. I never advocated for a carnivore diet based on any sound evidence.

Im only saying this to you, because its a good illustration of the fundamental problem with scientific consensus. Of course you cant be free of biases. And since you are actually open enough to admit that, I have no problem with it.

Dont play stupid. What I wrote was very straight forward. Unless you have a <100 IQ, you understand what I said. You present your advice on nutritition, as if it were true - but youre really just presenting your biases. This is like me presenting say Marxism, as if it were true, without the disclaimer that its only one out of a vast number of political theories. And when someone comes and questions your paradigm, you get defensive and quote some scientific papers from people with the same biases as you.

The problems start, when you swipe all these tradeoffs under the rug and present your advice, as if it's somehow objectively true. You are transmitting your biases to everyone following your advice - and you have not the slightest bit of remorse about it. In fact, you boast about how scientific you are. The only reason this can fly, is because virtually no nutritionist is properly educated in epistemology to spot this malpractice. And of course, there is no incentive for you to be more epistemically rigorous, as that will just turn off your clients; and of course, everyone else is as sloppy as you, so why even bother?