Forestluv

That's an intriguing question, particularly because it combines physical and non-physical. Plus, I don't know - it's mysterious to me. Below is just some exploration of ideas. I'm not trying to say "this is how it is". From a more physical pov, external wavelengths of light get interpreted as color. While on psychedelics, the wavelengths don't change, yet the mind's interpretation of the colors may change. It gets tricky because. . . does the mind now have the ability to create novel colors in spite of being limited to these visual neural networks? Based on "regular" visual neural networks, I would say no. However, new combinations of neural activity can arise with psychedelics. What I find most interesting here. . . a large portion of the visual system is not "external", it's internal activity. Internally, the mind creates visual "mind maps" so the brain doesn't constantly have to interpret external visual information. For example, things like buildings, parked cars etc. are mostly crude internal mind maps. There was an experiment in which statues with concave faces were place on a city street. No passerbys even noticed, all the faces appeared as convex shaped due to mind maps. Even when people were told the faces were concave, people didn't believe it. They had to actually put their hand into the face to convince themselves. . . And. . . people that have been put in dark room solitary confinement can hallucinate - not like dreams - like they are actually seeing stuff like trees, grass etc. . . Psychedelics massively alters brain/mind activity, so I would say entirely new internal visual perceptions can be created. There are entirely new neural interactions - parts of the brain that have never interacted together before. This gets into a metaphysical realm. . . At a personal level, I've done certain psychedelics that made colors so vibrant that it's an entirely different level. Yet are the colors simply "richer"? Or are new colors manifesting?. . . I tripped in the center square of Antigua Guatemala and the colorful clothing and building where other worldly. The next day I went back at the exact same time and it was an entirely different color experience. It seemed like shades of grey to me. In a way, it was depressing. One of my favorite parts of certain psychedelics is color experience.

If a gal is expecting a young handsome 6'2" muscular athletic man and I walk in. . . it's not going to go well.

Sure, if I think "my toes are cold", that thought is not the feeling. And that thought is not feeling the cold. And that thought is not the perception of the music. One nice thing is to let thoughts dissolve and just be - perceiving without thoughts of perceiving.

Color is a hallucination. From a physical brain pov, different wavelengths of light trigger excite cone cells within the eyes. This sets of impulses that travel through the thalamus and off to the visual cortex (no color yet). A hallucination of color is created in the visual cortex. It's very similar to how psychedelic hallucinations are created. Humans have three cones (red, blue and green). Dogs only have two cones (blue and yellow). Dogs cannot hallucinate red. The grand champion is the mantis shrimp with a whopping 12 cones. That means the mantis shrimp can hallucinate hundreds of colors humans don't even know exist. Imo, the hallucination of colors is the easiest entry point to break down the "real vs imagined" duality. The Grand Champion of color hallucination - the beautiful Mantis Shrimp.

This is the classic dilemma of an external, all powerful anthropomorphic god. There are literally thousands of hours of religious people and atheists debating this online. Or one can transcend the construct of an external, all powerful anthropomorphic god. . . .

For each whisker grown on a spiritual teacher, an angel gets their wings. . .

It depends on the person and where they are in their spiritual development. I probably wouldn't tell someone that their chronic bone pain is love. It would likely be interpreted as being crass. . . . If I had direct experience of transcendent love, I would express that with her through loving energy, loving connection and loving acts - rather than telling her thought stories about how pain is love or that god is love.

Not strange at all. It's a common experience for self-actualizers. A semi-detached meta-view of the personal story. It can feel awkward and uncomfortable at first. The self construct wants to control the narrative and survive. Over time, this generally dissolves. This opens new doors. . .

It depends on how you define "one phenomenon" and "focus". If I was at a concert, the mind can be aware of hundreds of phenomenon simultaneously. Or, we could consider these hundreds of phenomenon to be on singular phenomenon. Right now, I'm focusing on the cold sensations of my foot and the sounds of a song. The mind can do it. I suppose we could consider this as two phenomena or one phenomena (one cold feeling/music sound phenomenon). Now that I think about it, it's much easier to do when I consider both as one ISness. When I separate them as two phenomenon, its more challenging. For my mind, only focusing on "one phenomenon" is extremely challenging. One of my meditation exercises is to hyper-focus on a candle flame. Yet there is the flickering movement of the flame, the changing color of the flame, the changing size of the flame etc. It's extremely difficult to solely focus on one point. Although I suppose I could stare at black dot on the wall. . . Regarding perception, there are an infinite number of ways to perceive and interpret what seems to be happening now. Prior to this perception/interpretation is the infinity of Now in which Nothing/Everything is "happening".

@Forrest Adkins Of course attractive will attract. You would get the same result by creating a Tinder profile of an attractive woman. By definition, attractive will attract. Swiping apps like Tinder hyper-focus on one attractive aspect - physical attractiveness. If a person is not highly attractive, they would need to emphasize other aspects of attraction - such as sense of humor, creativity, financial independence etc. Tinder isn't the best platform to highlight these forms of attractiveness - something like OKcupid would be a better platform for this. If one's intent is to find someone for dating, it doesn't seem like a good use of time and effort to create a fake profile to fish for women that he would never meet.

Great question. You get to explore and create these constructs. Perhaps contemplate that question, allow empty space and see what arises. There is no one correct, objective, universal construct of belief, action and there inter-relatedness. That can be frustrating to minds that like grounded form. Yet it is liberating for mind that like fluidity and an interplay between firm and formless.

Not at all. Many substances amplify resonance with certain energetics. Caffeine is a bit mild - consider something like adderall. For most people, adderall makes them hyper-focused on attention tasks. This is an amplification. And what type of attention tasks does it amplify? Cognitively, stuff like analyzing data (orange) and integrating data (yellow). Yet it does not amplify resonance like empathy with others. For most people, it decreases awareness toward inter-personal energetics like empathy. Most people on adderall report feeling like a robot. A moderate dose of LSD generally amplifies different resonance. Here, empathic resonance may be amplified. A person may be walking in nature and feel like they are "one" with nature. A moderate dose of MDMA can also amplify empathic resonance with other humans. This is one reason MDMA is so powerful in PTSD therapy.

Sure, that is a form of conditional perfection. The test for conditional perfection is very simple: "is it dependent on any condition?". I'm not saying conditional perfection is "good" or "bad", I'm saying conditional perfection is relative on conditions - whether those conditions are perfect or not. I could say that it would be perfect if the Uruguay soccer team added some green into their jerseys. My ego couldn't care less about the Uruguay soccer team jerseys and it has no impact on my wellbeing or survival. Yet it is still conditional perfection, since the perfection is dependent on a condition (the jerseys are currently imperfect because they don't have enough green and will be perfect when more green is added). My mind has a habit of over-analyzing things and it's been very healthy for my mind and body to let go of thinking/analysis and to allow a natural unfolding of heart and intuition. It's beautiful. . . Adding in the "best solution" and "best thing to do" adds in relative conditions - and there is nothing wrong with that. It can be very practical and healthy for the mind and body. . . Yet absolute, unconditional perfection is much more radical - there are no conditions. There is no good, better and best. There just is. If someone does yoga - perfect. If someone drinks arsenic - perfect. If someone acts kindly to another - perfect. If someone punches another - perfect. Absolute, unconditional perfection is prior to "good, better, best". To me, it sounds like you are asking about states of mind that can allow for wellbeing of the mind and body. Nothing wrong with that - it's very loving to the mind and body.

If a belief is "identification with thought" it seems related to action, which is the doing of things. For example, if a person believes that taking a vacation to Belize will help them relax and experience bliss, they are more likely to take the actions of planning a trip to Belize. If someone believes that visiting a jungle filled with terrorists would threaten their life, they are likely to take actions to avoid entering that jungle.

By your definitions, a belief would not be the same as an action. Yet they could still be inter-related.

I wasn't making a distinction between those two. The distinction I'm making is between unconditional perfection and conditional perfection. In a practical sense, these constructs can be helpful to a person. What I am referring to is conflating unconditional and conditional perfection. If a meteorite falls on someone's house, that is unconditionally perfect. Adding in the "to" part adds in a condition. From an unconditionally perfect perspective, if a meteorite falls on someone's house and they become even more attached to their belongings and suffer the loss of their belongings, it's still perfect. Similarly, it someone gets harassed on the street, it is unconditionally perfect, without the "to" add in. The harassment itself is perfect. If the harassment leads to one conquering their fears, it's perfect. If the harassment involves a physical fight - it's perfect. If the harassment leads to a murder and life in prison - it's perfect. Unconditional perfection does not depend on circumstances or outcomes - since any circumstance or outcome is unconditionally perfect. The "to" part you added in is relative perfection. I.e. This is occurrence is perfect because of "xyz" - that is a conditional perfection. That's fine too - it can be very practical in life.

To me, this seems like a great opportunity for some major growth and expansion. And it seems aligned with your mindset (e.g. highly integrative). Plus, you were ranked #4, which indicates you are resonating on their side of things. . . And IB degrees can carry a lot of weight. I work at a liberal arts uni in the states - each year, a few students with IB degrees enroll and they are always special students to me. In regards to family support. . . parents will often show resistance when their child wants to study abroad - for many reasons. They may miss their child, they may be concerned about their security, they may be concerned about it being a nontraditional path, concerns about future career, jealosy that they don't have this opportunity etc. . . . The majority of our students that study abroad have a positive experience and if they stay in touch and communicate this with their family, the family comes around to support them - especially parents. Deep down, parents want the best for their child and if they see their child doing well they generally come to support that.

Ime, the awareness of "problem creation" is a major realization and has a lot of practical value. I've noticed my mind get into the dynamics you describe: create a problem and seek to resolve that problem. This can be a huge distraction and can cause a lot of inner turmoil. . . However, with this realization, I've also found it tempting to seek refuge in the opposite side of the duality: that everything is perfect as it is. This is true in an absolute sense, yet not in a relative sense. If the mind tries to convince itself that everything is relatively perfect, it's a recipe for more inner turmoil. . . I like to think of it as "It is Perfect as it is now, and it is a work in progress toward perfection". One of those pesky paradoxes. . . .

It's unlikely, yet possible that an idea is so distressing that it could nerve a person to death, without the person taking any action. I've seen it happen suddenly in animals under duress, yet I don't know of any human cases. The closest would be someone dying prematurely. For example, someone in extended solitary confinement, could die prematurely due to mind-body duress - much of which would be ideas. Yet then it gets tricky trying to attribute causation. Something like severe depressive thoughts won't acutely kill a person, yet they can contribute to accelerated decay of the mind and body - depression-related inflamation and stress is toxic to the body. It would be like asking if eating foods with trace amounts of toxic pesticides can kill a person. It won't kill them during that one exposure, yet it adds up and will contribute to the decay of the mind and body. It depends on how you define "belief" and "action".

I think a better question is who would be deterred from creating a business or changing the world if it meant they will not earn a billion dollars. For example, if there was a rule that someone starting a business can only personal profit to the tune of $999 million dollars, what type of person would say "nope, I'll only do it if I can find a way to make $60 billion in personal profit". That gets into toxic capitalism zones. As a society, wouldn't we want to screen out people that are hyper-focused on accumulating obscene personal profits at the expensive of others? Consider what it takes for a person to accumulate 60 billion in personal profits.

Shrooms are great for what you are looking for. You are asking nuanced questions later in the path. It's fine to get your feet wet with shrooms. I would go with shrooms and re-orient toward new questions, such as dosage and how to set an intention, create a good mindset and a good setting.

"Full understanding" is the same as no understanding. The term understanding has separation. There is a thing to be understood and a separate thing understanding that thing. "Full understanding" would mean Absolute Understanding and the duality between understood vs not understood collapses. In a relative context, growth is infinite for a finite being.

In terms of SD, glimpses into Turquoise areas. That's cool if you got that glimpse while sober. I needed an energetic boost from substances for my first peaks.

@VictorB02 To me, this seems like having awareness of the inter-connectedness of a collective consciousness - while maintaining one's individual identity. An analogy would be like a "big brain". While at that party, everyone their was part of a "big brain" collective consciousness. Each person was like a neurotransmitter within that collective brain. One guy is like Dopamine, another like Serotonin, another like GABA. There can be a realization of "whoa, this is like a big brain and I'm influencing the activity of this collective consciousness" (similar to how your individual neurotransmitter's affect your collective cellular brain). . . For me, this is a super cool conscious state and I can usually relax into it, if I want. . . . Another related conscious state is actually being the collective consciousness. . . For example, "you" would be the entire party. This can feel freaky and scary at first, since the individual self dissolves, yet it can also be super cool with experience. . . There are also some hybrid conscious states in which there is the awareness/beingness of both the collective and individual. For me, medium doses of psychedelics or edible cannabis are great for opening doors to these states. Yet it can be done sober as well. For most people, it would be a lot harder to do sober because of attachment/identification to a separate, individual self. The dissolution would require unraveling conditioning as well as letting go of self survival mechanisms.

There are lots of constructs we can create of an "ego". If we create an egoic construct that includes survival, then every biological organism would have an ego - since every biological organism has a survival dynamic. I suppose we could define the term "ego" in this way. Yet based on the common use of ego, it would be odd to say that organisms like bacteria and trees have an ego. I think that is a great question. The term "ego" is often used to describe a sense of self. Squirrels clearly have a sense of self, yet I don't think most people would say a squirrel has an ego - yet we certainly could say this, the idea of ego is very fluid. To me, it seems like most people use the term "ego" to generally refer to self-centered thought stories that appear in the mind. A human might think "I want a fancy car, so I will be popular with the ladies and get respect from the men". Yet there is also a lot of subconscious activity taking place. In this sense, squirrels would also have egos - for example, similar to humans, male squirrels behave in a manner such that they will be popular with the ladies and get respect from the other male squirrels (such as defending their territory). What would a biological organism that was "egoless" look like? It depends on how we define "ego".