Forestluv

@QandC It depends on the video. For the higher end stuff, I’d estimate its only accessible to 1% of people. And thats after Leo goes out of his way to make it more accessible to more people. And my sense is Leo is holding some stuff back.

@Arcangelo There is more going on than “just obey the police”.

Is this the same Michael Yeadon that last October said covid is “effectively over” in the UK and that “there is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic”? I’d take him with a grain of salt. There is a reason his fanbase is ant-vaxxers on bitchute.

I understand that. If it was justified to use her gun, then it doesn’t matter if she intended to use a taser because a taser is a lesser weapon. Imagine a murderer with an AK47 breaks into your house and starts shooting at you. You shoot him in self defense and later say “I meant to use my taser”. It doesnt matter because shooting him with a gun is justified.

The first question is whether it's justified to have used the gun. If it's justified to use the gun, then it doesn't matter if her intention was to use the taser. Assuming it's not justified to use the gun (a big assumption)., then. . . If the defense can demonstrate it's reasonable that she she mistakenly used the gun, it would be involuntary manslaughter. An example of involuntary manslaughter would be a car driver hitting a killing a cyclist they didn't see. As long as the driver was otherwise driving responsiblly it's involuntary manslaughter and the penalties can be mild. Quite often probation, driving lessons, 60 days with an ankle bracelet etc is given. If prosecution can show that she was grossly negligent and careless, it would be raised to voluntary manslaughter, which carries a prison sentence of a few years. Again, this assumes that it wasn't justified to use the gun.

I'm not saying these differences don't exist, I'm saying you are creating these differences. Believing it IS objectively / universally different is a rigid mindset. There is also a fluid mindset in which the mind can observe how it is creating these "differences". That is where next level creativity is. There are many many ways that we can melt "dream" and "reality" into one formless liquid and then create all sorts of differences between "dream" and "reality". I'm not saying you are creating "theoretical stuff". I'm saying you are creating "actuality stuff". Yet that "actuality stuff" can be melted down to formless and created as form. What I'm pointing at adds fun for some people, yet for other people it ruins the fun. Some people want to get so deeply immersed into their creation that they are no longer aware it's a creation. Then it is "real" and it feels like actually being that character. Realizing how the magic trick works spoils the fun.

The generalized pathway is 1) motor cortex in brain -> 2) spinal cord neurons -> 3) motor neurons -> 4) muscle -> 5) controller -> video game They didn't physically "remove" anything. By "remove", I mean take out steps 2-4. They were able to decode electrical brain activity in the motor cortex. For example: five 80mHZ 'blips' means 'move hand to the right'. The algo is able to decode the message sent to the motor neurons, so steps 2-4 is unnecessary. Neurons in the spinal cord, motor neurons and muscle no longer need to fire. The new pathway is 1) motor cortex in brain -> 2) neuralink sensor -> 3) neural link decoder -> 4) video game. All the motor neurons are still there, they just aren't firing because there is no need to. Over time, the monkey learned that he didn't need to send signals to his muscles. Yet if they disable the neuralink and put back the controller, the monkey would realize he needs to start moving his hand again to play the game and get the banana smoothie. Imagine that a person was conditioned to believe that to blink their eyes, they must pull their eyelids up and down with their fingers. Then one day, they realize all they have to do is think about blinking - the fingers are unnecessary. They could still use their finger if they want, yet why bother? It's extra motion that is unneeded. The neuralink output goes to a computer, so someone could play video games or create digital art with their imagination. Yet they couldn't create traditional art with regular paintbrushes and canvas. For that, they would need to add in robotic arms to pick up an move the painbrushes. For digital art, the neural link can potentially have very high resolution, yet for traditional art, it would be hard for a robotic arm to compete with the fine motor capacity of a hand. I can see things like neuralink controlling robotic arms to prepare food for a meal, which is pretty crude. Yet creating detailed art via a robotic arm would be very hard to do. Yet, I see digital art via neural link being amazing.

If we don't create differences between dream and reality there is no difference between dream and reality. Yet we are humans that love to create differences. So of course we can create differences. Not only can we create differences between dream and reality, we can create differences between dreams and even differences within a dream! As well, we can create differences among reality. I also find it fun to create mixtures of dreams and reality. For example, I can enter a quasi lucid dream state while I'm "awake". It's like I'm half awake and half dreaming. There is a mixture of dream and real. Fun stuff.

There is no paradox. You are conflating absolute and relative. Look around the room you are in right now. Imagine there is One Everything in The Room. There is One Room that is Everything. You then say "The pencil is different than the computer. The pencil is not the Room!! This is a paradox!!". . . It's not a paradox. It is a conflation between the One Room and separating things within the Room. One Love is the the One Room of Everything. . . love and hate are separate things within the room. If a mind cannot grok this it can be helpful to go prior to the sticking point. If the mind is stuck on Love vs love, it means the mind does not yet understand Everything vs every thing.

About the same likelihood of me hooking up with Emma Watson.

The restructuring of social media business models would help. Right now the business model for profits is all about engagement. Hyper polarized extremism is great for business and profits.

That is wonderful, yet that isn't what I’m referring to. There can be brain injuries as the result from trauma. The injury extent depends on the intensity, duration and frequency of trauma - as well as the person’s genetics, prior life conditioning and personality. For example, specific memories can be seared into the hippocampus and reactivated - triggering extreme fight or flight in the limbic system, which is mostly disconnected from the rational mind. As well, trauma can lead to methylation changes that can alter gene expression in the brain. This can cause chronic malfunction in the limbic and endocrine systems. A mindset of “I forgive them, I wont let it define me. I’m moving on” is great and can be sufficient for some people such as yourself. Yet it is insufficient for those that sustained brain injuries. If you’ve experienced recurring PTSD due to brain injury , you wouldn't be speaking like you are. To get a better sense, someone could spend time with war veterans that have PTSD. It can be much more severe than you are aware of. Telling someone who had a stroke to just let it go and move on is not going to help heal the physical brain injury of the stroke. Being honest with someone regarding the extent of injury is not victim mentality. Yet victim mentality can create confounding problems.

Victim mentality is just one component of a larger system. PTSD involves a lot more than victim mentality. There are structural brain alterations. It is a form of brain injury. It doesn't look like a flesh wounds, knee injuries etc, yet there is still a form of injury. A mindset of “I’m not going to ket it define me” can be helpful, yet is often insufficient. Thats not going to heal the brain injury in the hippocampus and limbic system. Nor will it correct widespread methylation alterations throughout the genome.

Yes. It looks like I misunderstood you.

Based on the steps shown in the video, it doesn't look like it's through the visual system of the brain (although that is inter-connected). Here is my impression of their process. Step 1: Teach the monkey how to use the controller so the dot moves onto the box. Every time the dot and square meet, the monkey gets a little banana smoothie. Step 2: Use an algorithm to analyze brain activity as the monkey moves the controller. The algo would need to filter out all the background neural activity (such as brain activity driving swallowing, breathing etc). The algo learns which activity specifically means "press up", "move right" etc. This is termed "decoding". Step 3: test the decoding accuracy by having the new link be: monkey brain intention to move controller up => algo decodes this as intention to move controller up => computer algo moves paddle up. This takes out the controller step. Yet the monkey is still using an unplugged controller. Step 4: Remove brain activity / motor neuron activity. Once the algo can decode intentions, muscle movement is extraneous. So they taught the monkey that the brain no longer needs to send the impulses down the spinal cord to muscles. I'm very impressed the neuralink scientists have gone prior to muscle movement and they did it so cleanly. They cleanly removed all the steps that connect the thalamus, spinal cord and motor neurons. It's simply the intention to move the paddle in the video game. And they did this in six weeks. . . Six weeks!!! I'm super curious what this would feel like to a human. Would it feel like imagining moving or would it feel like imagining what you want manifested. For example, if someone wanted to type text - would they imagine typing on a keyboard or simply think the words? At somepoint, would it be automatic, like typing? I just think what words I want to appear on the screen and my fingers move in a way to make that happen. I'm not thinking about moving my fingers in anyway, I'm not thinking "press the "b" button, press the "k" button. I'm just thinking about the words I want to appear. and they 'magically' appear on the screen without me having to think about moving my fingers. So I wonder after a while, if it becomes automatic for the person. You just intend it and it appears. The implications of this would be extraordinary. This would go way beyond simply moving a cursor on a computer screen.

Even if there are past life deeds that ripple into a next life, adding in a punishing god is a huge jump. Why add in a punishing god? It creates an awful story about being punished by a god and promotes living a life of fear. Imagine telling someone with cancer that god is punishing them because in a previous life they had sex before marriage. Not only does this person have to live with the pain of cancer, they also have to live with the story that god is punishing them because they were a sinner in a previous life. This story makes the pain and suffering much worse.

It depends on your beliefs of what you are calling "god". Many people are conditioned with stories of all sorts of "gods". I grew up in a fundamental Catholic home and was taught all sorts of stories about what is moral and a judgemental / punishing god. A lot of it involved guilt, shame and fear. When I was about 18 years old, I started questioning my beliefs about what this "god" is. I realized that many of those beliefs were not *my* beliefs. They were beliefs programmed into me by my parents, teachers, pastors, church community etc. I realized if I had grown up in another country I would have a different set of beliefs of "god". For example, if I grew up in a Hindu culture, I would have a different set of beliefs. If I grew up in an Islamic culture, a different set of religious beliefs. At a human level, this is serious business. Suffering is an awful experience. One of the hardest things to surrender are notions of "good" and "bad". There is a huge price to pay for that. Yet the expansion is huge as well. I'm not denying the existence of suffering or how terrible it is to experience. That's not what I'm pointing to. Why do you need an external god to explain why there is evil in the world? Why would we believe there is a supernatural entity that punishes people and causes suffering? That is a terrible story. That story itself would cause me terrible suffering. I would live in fear and confusion. If everything is good, one cannot do evil things. We need to create constructs that some things are "good" and some things are "bad". This is part of the human experience. This is conflating absolute and relative. Your mindset is that there must be either absolute or relative. Another mindset is that there is both absolute and relative. For example, we could say there is unconditional Love (absolute) and conditional love (relative). Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other. There are simply different forms. Unconditional Love is Love under any condition. It is 100% acceptance and Love. It doesn't matter what is it. Unconditional Love, Loves unconditionally. Conditional love (relative) is love under certain conditions. Here we create ideas of what is "good" and "bad" and what is deserving of love. We could say that helping to feed starving people is good and worthy of loving. We could say that torturing babies is evil and not deserving of love. This is part of the human experience. It has a lot of value. If the mind conflates unconditional with conditional, confusion and turmoil will arise.

A good video that explains recent neuralink advancements

Amazing new technology. In a way, it might be easier for a chimp to learn it than a human. Chimps just do it. That chimp is in a meditative “zone”. They don’t have extra mind noise like “Am I doing it right? I can never learn this. I’d rather be watching YouTube videos”. Also, notice at the end how the monkey isn’t moving his hand at all. He isn’t feinting any arm/hand movements as if it was a cursor. This means the neuralink has gone prior to the brain sending neural signals from the brain to motorneurons. They are able to detect the brains intention prior to the motor output. And there are no longer any motor signals sent, which is amazing. I’m curious how this would be subjectively experienced. Would someone simply need to imagine the pong paddle moving? Or would it be like imagining I was moving a controller to move the paddle? By the look of the monkey, it seems like he simply imagines the computer pixels moving. That would be like imaging text being created on your screen and it appears.

A good picture is worth a thousand words.

Look at your line of reasoning. Even if we accept the ideas that certain acts in one life carry over to a next life, you are inserting a thing you call “god” that is making judgements and giving punishment. You seem to be conflating traditional ideas of “god” that is a judgmental/punishing entity vs a nondual idea of god that is One Everything. As well, you seem to have a belief of objective morality as determined by a some type of separate entity you call “god”. These beliefs will appear to have contradictions, which causes confusion.

That is one construct of “karma”. If you hold tightly to that construct of karma, there will be confusion. For example, there is also a construct of karma that is more about cause and effect, rather than good, bad and punishment. If someone is kind to other people, they may attract lots of friends. We could say being kind is good and god rewarded the good behavior with lots of friends. Or we could say that people simply like kind people and want to be friends with them. If someone is kind, they naturally attract people. It has nothing to do with being good, judged by god or being rewarded. Two different ways of looking at things.

You seem to be creating an external entity that is separate from other entities. This is the classic religious concept of “god”. Imagine asking: “Is a part of God a sunset? Is a part of God laughter ? Is a part of God that tree?”.

I did not say “untrue”. I said “hyperbolic”. There is a distinction. One can take a truth, yet have selective dismissal and exaggeration which makes it hyperbolic. The person can then defend themself by saying “what is untrue about it?” You raise some legitimate concerns with your statement, yet do so in a distorted way. You did not frame the vaccine as “experimental”. You framed it as “experimental shit”. Those are different framings. In the context of experiments, there are decades of vaccine experimentation as well as cell / molecular research. The foundation of the vaccine is based on decades of research. As well, the introduction of one alteration, mRNA, is also based on decades of cellular/genetics research. And there had been extensive clinical studies prior to public vaccination (which is serving as a massive stage 4 clinical trial). Framing the vaccine as “experimental shit” dismisses extensive research and myopically focuses on one aspect of the vaccine. However, it still contains some truth. Hence, it is a hyperbolic framing and not 100% false. The second framing was “experimental shit that no one knows what the long term effects are going to be. “ This framing is hyperbolic because it assumes this is experimental shit and there ARE going to be long-term effects. This is not 100% false because there COULD be long-term effects. There have not been long term studies with mRNA vaccines and it’s fair to say there could be long term effects. Yet your statement is hyperbolic because it assumes there WILL be long term effects. There is no reason to believe that there ARE going to be long term effects. Based on our current understanding on cellular biology and genetics, there is no reason to believe there is a high risk of negative long term effects. Your statement has an aspect of truth, yet filters out information and exaggerates. Hence, it is hyperbolic. As a metaphor, if a car company added a new feature to airbags it would be unfair to assume this feature WILL have a negative consequence and make statements based on that assumption. That leads to a distorted framework and is misleading. Making statements that the airbag is experimental shit and we don’t know what the long term effects are going to be is hyperbolic and fearmongering. The fearmongering is claiming a danger as true, yet uses selective dismissal and exaggeration leading to a distorted, misleading claim. That is not what I’m referring to. It’s fair to say that traditional vaccines may have a lower long term risk. Yet you have inserted the previous assumptions that mRNA vaccines are experimental shit and ARE going to have long term effects. That is the distorted part.

Please be mindful of fear-monger with hyperbolic statements.