Forestluv

@Epikur I was addressing the brain structure / mindstates of Hitler, Nazi's and regular German citizens. I'm not into red herrings about allied forces. Using a conventional definition of "evil", everyone on this forum could safely answer "yes" with plenty of room to spare.

I agree that the policing system has an inherent fear that can distort risk into threat. For example, if a man is large and intoxicated risk is increased - yet bein a large intoxicated man isn't itself a threat. Many large intoxicated men could be crying about their girlfriend or passed out. Opioids are depressants that would actually reduce the risk of threat. As well, there is a difference between an officer getting a 911 call for domestic violence vs an officer pulling over a driver that seems to be half conscious on heroine. . . Yet an officer might see a large black male that appears intoxicated and assume he is under threat. These types of assumptions lead to escalation. I was leading a discussion in a self-help group and one of the women went into a delirious rant. Another woman interpreted that as threatening, stepped outside and called the police. The officer arrived and with the mentality was going to restrain a psychotic, threatening woman. Yet she wasn't threatening at all. She had a mental illness and wanted to talk about her sexual escapades with James Dean (which were delusional and off topic). Yet the cop escalating things and she freaked out. I was able to intervene and talk her down. The cop wasn't trained about how to deal with mental illness.

Imagine a fish looking for an ocean. Psychedelics have an extremely low addiction profile. One of the lowest addiction profiles of all substances. There are some risks with psychedelics, yet addiction is extremely low on the list. Psychedelics can actually help people to recover form drug and alcohol addiction.

A red herring. . . We don't know that. There is genetics associated with sociopathic / psychopathic brain activity. We don't know what Hitler's genetics was. He may have been carrying alleles that made him pre-disposed to sociopathy / psychopathy. I don't think it's quite fair to say that everyone has the capability to go down the path Hitler did. Someone with a genetic pre-disposition to sociopathy / psychopathy is wired in a way that will make it much more likely they will behave sociopathically. In contrast, someone with genetics that promote high empathy would have an very low capability to go down Hitler path. A sadistic-oriented brain enjoys inflicting suffering onto others. An empathic-oriented brain would suffer if they inflicted suffering onto others. . . There is some potential for synaptic plasticity and rewiring, yet there are limits. . . Somewhat similar to someone having a stroke, there are limits to how much plasticity can take place. Yet in 100 years, we may understand genetics and neural chemistry much better and be able to fix a brain pre-disposed to sociopathy. Socio-economics certainly played a role in the rise of Nazism. Just prior to Nazi rise, there was severe poverty in Germany. A lot of people were suffering, desperate and vulnerable - which allows for the rise of corrupt, manipulative leaders. My understanding is that most German's were not directly or actively engaged in atrocities. It was more of a passive support or turning a blind eye. The human mind is very good at compartmentalizing, filtering, denying and rationalizing cognitive dissonance. Hitler would be a different story. He was directly and actively involved as the leader. There could be many inputs, including both genetic and environmental. Sociopaths have aspects of altered brain structure/function, which has both genetic and environmental inputs. Yet we don't know, because there was not a post-mortem analysis of his brain. However, if they saved some of his DNA, they could analyze that. Yet saying one person is sociopathic partly due to genetics is very different than say an entire race of people is violent due to genetics. They are two very different contexts. One of the key features of racism is that someone takes the behavior of one person and extrapolates that to a group of people. This is conflation. For example, it could very well be that Hitler had extreme sociopathic behavior partly due to his genetics. Yet it would be racist to extrapolate that and say that Germans in general are sociopathic in part to their genetics. That would be characteristic of race realism.

I agree that America has some sneaky forms of corruption, yet defining harm gets tricky. I have a colleague from Africa and he tells me that political corruption is much milder in America. Where is he is from, politicians would straight up imprison, assault, kill dissidents and adversaries. To him, Trump and Trumper republicans are very mild. I replied that American corruption can be sneaky and also cause widespread harm, yet he wasn't convinced. Of course there is anti-Americanism. There will be anti-xxx-ism everywhere. Yet I question if intense anti-Americanism is widespread. In my experience, I've traveled to about 25 foreign countries. I would say in general being American carries more advantage than disadvantage. As well, the vast majority of people I've met abroad are able to distinguish between American government and an individual American. I've met lots of people that had resentments against American government/policies, yet did not have anger toward me personally. As well, most societies I've met are pretty good at distinguishing between decent Americans and "ugly Americans". A lot of how one is treated depends on one's attitude. My attitude was that I just happened to be born in America, yet I don't have a strong identity of being "an American". I can see good and bad in America. Yet many Americans have a nationalist American identity, think America is best, never does anything wrong, deserves special treatment, entitled, we can kick anyone's ass if we want, ignorant about other cultures, geography and history etc. This is an ugly American and when they enter someone else's community with this attitude, it looks very ugly.

@SS10 A lot of American's are so immersed in American gun culture they can't see how insane it is. Europe is much more sane and I think most American's would be shocked if they lived in European cities for a while.

The police skipping a 'little detail' on the initial statements to the public is worse, imo. The statement said an armed person was shot and skipped the 'little' detail that he was unarmed with his hands up when shot. After such a disgusting statement, of course the media will respond by focusing on the fact that he was unarmed with his hands up when shot. The police bear some responsibility. The police showed a lack of integrity and misled the public. They should be held accountable for that. Police lying to the public about killings is highly toxic to police-community trust and relations.

This is a narrow view that misses important points. 1. By police's own standards, use of force can only be justified by the information an office had at the time. It must be considered through the lens of a "reasonable officer" based only on the information he had at the time. This is one of the most important issues that communities are upset with police. When police make assumptions, abuse/kill and then afterwards try to find evidence to justify the abuse/killing. 2. The office, PD and police union lack integrity and have lost credibility. Before the bodycam video cam out, they did not tell the truth about the boy being unarmed with his hands up at the time of shooting. Getting caught lying to the public about police killings is highly corrosive to police-community trust. And it's not limited to this case or a "few bad apples". Everyone involved in issuing those initial statements lack integrity and should be held accountable, yet they won't be because there is noone with integrity to hold them accountable. Lying to the public combined with lack of accountability is even more corrosive to trust. 3. In determining justified reason for the shooting, we cannot assume the officer knew he had a gun in his hands. And since the officer and PD lied about the gun, his credibility is toast at this point. The only credible information is that there were shots fired in the neighborhood and a boy is running away from a cop. I would say, based on that information, the boy posed a risk yet not a threat. Shooting a boy running from a cop in a neighborhood that shots were fired does not seem like enough to me, yet I'm not an expert on police use of force. To me, that seems like someone who could be a suspect and might have gun (which is a risk). It's also very possible that it was a kid who wasn't involved and/or didn't have a gun. The cop said he shot in self defense, yet unfortunately his word no longer carries much weight since he has shown a gross lack of integrity. However, watching the video, the officer immediately responded by calling for an ambulance, performed CPR and encouraged the kid to hang in there. To me, this seemed genuine and I would consider that evidence that he genuinely believed the kid was armed and a threat. As well, he only had 0.8ms to react at night. That is about the threshold for how well an officer can react.

Notice how you just created your own reality that “You create your own reality” is a stupid recurring meme.

An old thread getting bumped up by spammers

It depends on how you drink. If drinking is interfering with your work, then yes.

There are degrees. Stealing a candy bar is not on the same level as torturing and killing millions of people.

The context of the discussion matters. For example, there are many great documentaries and college courses that discuss Nazism and Hitler. That context is very different than apologist wanting to discuss how Hitler was a misunderstood leader who loved is heritage and country.

I think it’s a tool kit for gardening ?‍?

I’m using the term “resistant” in a clinical context. We could also use the term “non-responder”.

It would like a 5min. clip. My impression is that she had lot's of insights along the way. I think she even said so. She was after "an 'IT' out there".

I'm not sure what a person should do if they have done various practices over a long time period. I have a friend who is super immersed into attaining "enlightenment". She has a sangha, Lama, goes on month-long retreats etc. She has done 4hrs practice / day for years. To her, I suggest enjoying the process more and taking some of the focus off the destination of "enlightenment". I try to talk to her about the process, what's happening now - and she perks up. She has experienced many different conscious states and has had lots of insights. Yet she is still immersed within a personal character she can't quite transcend.

I get high body load. Even on 10ug LSD, I feel all mediciney and yucky.

I think some people have the right genetics to be "psychedelically gifted". I learned much more in one 4hr trip than my previous 20+ years of self inquiry/meditation. For me, meditation had been nearly impossible - yet it's super obvious with psychedelics. Yet some people don't seem to resonate with psychedelics. I have a friend that has tried psychedelics about 15 times and hasn't grown much. For some, psychedelics may be a jetpack for flight, for others psychedelics are a bunch of feathers.

The idea of being "resistant to psychedelics" interests me. Today I was reading about how some people are resistant to certain medications and therapy. It could be similar: that some people are resistant psychedelics. I imagine it would be really frustrating if someone had a desire for awakening, yet was a spiritual normie and psychedelic resistant. I saw a video of a woman who had been seriously doing spirituality for like 40 years. Meditation retreats, nonduality, various forms of yoga etc. I think she was at a Rupert Spira talk and was pleading with him - "what is it going to take? I've heard all this. I've done all this many many times for decades - yet I'm still here unawakened". She seemed so tired of it all. I felt for her.

You had responded to the bird / donkey analogy, which I'm considering to be in the domain of spirituality, not ISness. I agree. We will be able to alter genetics, synaptic structure and brain chemistry - which would give normies a jetpack.

My impression is that the construct is about spirituality, not the the singularity of ISness. In the context of spirituality, a self / ego is not needed. That is an add-in. In the spiritually gifted, very little ego / self would be operative. Self dissolution may be hard to imagine and access for normies, yet it is easy stuff for the spiritually gifted. In terms of genetics, this could mean that those genetically gifted for spirituality have a naturally disconnected neural Default Mode Network (which controls self / ego). This might occur in only 1% of people or so. Without a disconnected DMN, you've go no chance at trans-ego domains. The rest of us would need psychedelics or years of mediation / yoga to get glimpses of that. In Leo's analogy, the spiritual master (bird) has the genetics to form a disconnected DMN (wings). A normal person (donkey) would need psychedelics (jet pack) for trans-egoic consciousness (flying).

Wouldn't the 95% genetics allow for spiritual mastery, yet the 5% effort to master is still a lot of work? Consider Kobe Bryant. He is in the top 95% for genetics of athletic basketball. There is no way people with average genetics will reach the top echelon of basketball mastery. Yet for Kobe to reach the pinnacle, that 5% of technique and practice took a lot of work. How would Kobe appear to normies? To a normie, a tomahawk dunk is amazing. Very few people can do it, yet they could imagine doing it. Yet for Kobe this is easy stuff. However. . . very few people could access / imagine the "places" Kobe ventured in his practice. I'm sure he went to extremely nuanced, highly detailed "places" that he was only able to communicate with 0.01% of people. There were so few people at the pinnacle that truly that could relate. Would it be similar for a spiritual master? Their 95% genetics allows for them to reach the upper echelon of spirituality, yet the 5% technique / practice to reach the pinnacle is still a lot of work. The spiritual equivalent of a tomahawk dunk might be a continuous hour of "no mind". This may seem amazing to normies, yet is is easy stuff for the spiritually gifted. However. . . that 5% technique / practice is still alot of work to reach the upper echelon of spiritual mastery. Yet, the spiritual master would only be able to communicate this with 0.01% of people. It would be like a someone trying to communicate with a donkey.

I don't think we would be able to make a shift to Open Book in one generation. I can't see everyone alive come together and say "starting next year on January 1st, everyone agrees that all children will be born and raised Open Book". People are just too conditioned with filters. And it would be super messy having Filter parents trying to raise permanently Open Book kids. I see it taking 5+ generations. I agree that if beings are born permanent Open Book and that's the only thing they know, it would seem totally normal to them. The idea of filters would seem bizarre. It would be a very different experience, being totally mind open. Yet it's possible to imagine. . . Imagine everyone was blind. In a way, that is "Filter Book". Since the person cannot see you, you can filter what you reveal. For example, you could filter out facial expression and keep them secret - noone would. People could draw symbols on their shirts. Some symbols of love, other symbols of hate. Yet noone would know, unless a person reveals it, similar to thoughts no one can see unless we reveal. Being blind, creates a sense of more separation. That one is an individual we are more in separate worlds. The idea of Open vision would be shocking. People would think "Omigod, that means that other people could see what I'm wearing!! They could see my facial expressions!! That would be an invasion of my privacy!! My inner most self!!". Yet we are born with vision and don't give it a second thought. We can all see each other. This gives a greater sense that we are sharing One space together. I would predict the mind would adapt quickly. For example, in blind world people could walk around naked. Or spontaneously masturbate in a public park with noone knowing. With Open Book Neuralink, we might think "Omigosh, what if I had impure thoughts of masturbating!!". Yet the shared minds would work it out. The mind would simply stop having such thoughts in shared space, or people would be cool with it. New social norms would form. Similarly, someone in Blind World may say "Vision World would be crazy. What about when people spontaneously masturbate in public parks? Everyone could see them!!". Yet most people just don't do that within the social network. And on the occasion it does happen, people may turn a blind eye or someone may ask them stop". It worked itself out.

This brings up all sorts of new social issues. . . Imagine the technology offers two modes "Open book" or "Filtered book". The "filtered book" option would be similar to a regular talking conversation in which each person can filter what they transmit through the neuralink. Yet it's fast and some people aren't good at filtering. Just like some people say certain stupid things they wish they didn't say, people could transmit neuralink communication they whish they hadn't sent. Similar to a text, yet much faster. There would be no button to press and no popup message asking "Are you sure you want to transmit this?". What would be socially acceptable situations for "Open book" or "Filtered Book"? What about being at a meeting at work? A date? Is it OK to Open Book on the first date? Imagine a guy on a first date saying "I usually Open Book, yet I've had a really rough week, lots of stuff going on in my life. I don't want there to be a lot of background noise in our Neuralink session. Is it ok if we do Filter Book?" How would it come across? Would the woman be skeptical of why he wants Filter Book? Perhaps he is actually married and has kids. . . Or, imagine a a couple watching some Netflix and the guy is like "I wanna do Filter Book tonight". . . The girlfriend may respond "Filter book gain? We haven't done Open Book for a week?" Might suspect he's having an affair?. . . What about marriage counseling? Would the therapist say "Ok Mark and Stacey, this may get uncomfortable, yet we need to discuss your Book sessions. How frequently have you Open-Booked the last three months and how long is your average Open Book session?" A somewhat similar of new social norms has a arisen with zoom. When is it socially acceptable to turn ones camera off? Sometimes it's obvious your camera should be on. Yet not other times. I do Zoom breath sessions about about 50% of people turn their cameras off. Sometimes the facilitator pleads with the group to turn their camera on - that it is important for group connectivity. Sometimes someone will briefly turn their camera on and tell some excuse why they are turning it off.