Carl-Richard

If you could raise your IQ by 10 points by investing 20 minutes every day, would you?

Warm and encouraging self-help is also a business 😆 Caring about IQ is not a problem. Misunderstanding it is.

Remember, up and out, not down and out The greedy and unkind children got flushed out and reborn as more wicked forms, while Charlie won the game and was reborn as simply himself, but much richer nonetheless. Meaning alone doesn't take you there, true, but it often leads the way. It's not Four Noble Truths for no reason.

@Keryo Koffa LLMs' weakness is to accurately represent factual or theoretical knowledge. It routinely makes mistakes with this. I don't believe what it said about the levels is particularly useful or even true. If you want to be completely on the safe side, only use LLMs to develop ideas, not to learn about existing ideas, or only to provide suggestions of where to learn about existing ideas.

Hanzi Freinacht provides an in-depth analysis of level 10-13 with helpful practical examples in his book. It might help reading that. I do agree that it can be difficult to follow the terminology, especially when I sometimes use the word "concept" as a stand-in for "abstract concept", while the model uses that word to describe one of the lower stages (4 Sensory-motor). But it's an analytically rigorous model that takes some time to learn. I'm not expecting everybody to take the time to learn it. I'm just sharing my thoughts. However, if you appreciate the work of Ken Wilber, he incorporates this model into his work, so if you want to understand Wilber, it helps (if it's not absolutely necessary) to learn this model. That's the eternal problem of people interpreting models, especially SD or related theories that are supposed to map levels of existence that some people don't have access to. Why is it nonsensical? 🤔 I would recommend using it if you cross-reference some sources (e.g. the original creators, Freinacht, Wilber).

Guys, this thread is not about constructing the most absurd jargon possible without elaborating on the meaning. We're interested in complex thoughts, not complex words. Funnily, the behavior I'm seeing of simply coming up with a new word without elaborating is on the surface only at Level 5 Nominal. If you want to prove that it's more than just a word and maybe an abstract concept (10 Abstract), or maybe a formal relationship (11 Formal), or maybe a system (12 Systematic), or maybe a meta-systematic relationship (13 meta-systematic), you have to elaborate. What does the word explain? And if you want to elaborate, use as simple language as possible.

So you answered your own question. Let's put it like this: to separate growing up (where the main vein is cognitive complexity) from waking up is how you get slavery existing alongside spirituality for most of history.

Why is it important to have nuance at all?

Maybe, but notice that I gave the clarifier "than if you could". If someone could explain it in a simple way, then they would be more complex than someone who can't. Also, the other statements were qualified with "likely", so everything should be consistent with what you're saying 😉 I'm trying to find a concept that is hard or impossible to explain in a simple way, but my brain is too simple for that at the moment (I'm recovering from slight pneumonia after getting yet another virus after recovering from Covid lol). Ironically, I started reading about this cognitive complexity stuff while I was sick with Covid and my brain was a cauliflower, although the brain fog wasn't as bad this time. I think the pneumonia is actually worse for my brain (hearkening back to the importance of oxygen 🤓).

The trick is to know where it can and cannot be used.

Consider this: if you can't explain a complex idea in a simple way (e.g. give a concrete example of it), you're less complex than if you could. And of course, you're likely bullshitting yourself. If you can't clearly explain yourself by moving down levels of abstraction, you're likely not at a very high level of abstraction to begin with and simply lost in code which you downwardly assimilated. ChatGPT is ironically the perfect example of downward assimilation and the problems with it. It doesn't even have a mind, it doesn't have the ability to conceive of concepts. It just uses language (code) which it got trained on and because it sounds right. It doesn't have an understanding of what it's doing. If I'm not mistaken, its cognitive complexity is at Level 0 Calculatory.

@KoryKat The irony of me asking about an original thought you've had but you're spamming lines upon lines of ChatGPT answers.

If you experience coming up with an idea that you haven't heard about before, even if that idea might've been described already, for our estimation purposes, that idea counts as original. But of course, in reality, it's unlikely that you've discovered something completely original. However, if you're dealing with very niche topics, it might actually not be described anywhere, or at least only a very few people might know about it. Even better, you can apply that idea in a niche context, and then it becomes exceedingly likely that you're being original. But again, that is besides the point here.

Let's go down a level: what 13 Meta-systematic concepts have you discovered?

Oh really? What new paradigms have you created recently?

I do think I have original meta-systematic thoughts at times where I discover connections between different systems, but I'm not necessarily able to to describe the connections with a single term. For example, a few moments ago I was reading about the Cambrian explosion and started to see similarities to the advent of Stage Red (let's call it the "Faustian explosion"). You can draw comparisons in multiple domains, for example the environmental, developmental and ecological domain: In the environmental domain, the Cambrian explosion coincided with an increased level of oxygen in the oceans, allowing organisms to grow more rapidly and expend more energy. The Faustian explosion coincided with an increased food availability due to the advent of agriculture, freeing up more time and labor and expending more energy elsewhere. The unifying theme is increased metabolism, energy output, work output and growth. In the developmental domain, the Cambrian explosion saw the transition from mostly unicellular life to more multicellular life. Bodily structures complexified, particularly leading to the rise of metazoans (animals). The Faustian explosion saw the transition from tribes ("single cells") to empires ("multi-cells"); multiple tribes subsumed into a larger tribe. Social structures complexified, particularly into dominator hierarchies. The unifying theme is upscaling and complexification of biological or social bodies. In the ecological domain, the Cambrian explosion coincided with increased predation due to increasing sizes of animals, enhanced predation strategies (e.g. shell crushing), and the advent of apex predators (no natural predators of their own). The Faustian explosion coincided with increased tribal warfare due to increasing sizes of tribes, enhanced tribal warfare strategies (e.g. metal weapons), and the advent of empires ("apex predator tribe" with no natural predators, greatly simplified). The unifying themes are increased predation, enhanced strategies and power monopolies. As for finding a general term that connects the different systems: what would be a term which describes an explosion of "increased metabolism, energy output, work output and growth; upscaling and complexification of biological or social bodies; and increased predation, enhanced strategies and power monopolies"? "Monsterification"? "Hulkification"? Maybe you need to look at more examples of related systems before finding a good term. Another time, I drew a connection between gated ion channels in cell membranes and electrical circuits: opening the ion channel allows for the flow of ions (charged particles), just like opening a switch in an electrical circuit allows for the flow of electrons (charged particles). Here, the obvious common term is simply "circuit" (electrochemical vs. electrical).

This isn't about SD, but cognitive complexity ☺️ Cognitive complexity is basically what distinguishes the people who make the theories from the people who teach them (or simply use them). If you have 160 IQ but you're mostly at 11-12 Formal-Systematic, you can be at top 1% of most published researchers and slowly inch the paradigm forward, but not a revolutionary scientist who shatters the paradigm. What is striking about this distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code is that you realize geniuses of history like Plato and Aristotle were extremely cognitively complex (14-15 paradigmatic–cross-paradigmatic), but because of their time, they had to work with what they had (essentially nothing) to create new systems of thought almost completely from scratch. And today, these systems of thought make up the very foundations of our society which us simpleminded people can install and "shoulder-stand" on. And today, we have people like Ken Wilber doing the same thing, providing free code for us to download. But just because you downloaded the code and speak the language, don't make the mistake of thinking you could've created the code all by yourself (or maybe he just read a lot, who knows 😝)

I want to show this to my TERF-ish stepmom. She would probably laugh her ass off.

True, but if you're a young male and say 15 years old like I was when starting out with basically zero knowledge about lifting and only a workout program that I got from an introductory PT lesson, it's in your primal instincts to smash that weight to pieces. Your surging testosterone levels and ape level brain simply won't allow anything else. In such cases, it takes a lot of "brainwashing" with getting spammed with dozens of YouTube shorts each day of Mike Isratael hammering in his tightened anus approach to lifting before you transcend those impulses. I had a friend who when he tried deadlifts for the first time, he instantly put on 100kg without warming up and fucked his back. Luckily it wasn't too serious.

Hehe. I wonder how many murder charges would be filed if it was possible to throw a hammer through the screen at the other person while experiencing classic gamer rage 😆 Especially seing how people answer questions about taking a relatively marginal sum of money for killing a random person in the world (and that's a conscious decision, not an impulsive one).

Lol. I think this is might be beyond simple "gamer rage". Considering that ArcheAge is an MMORPG, and considering that people often invest huge parts of their life playing such games, it's likely that he was severely hurt by the guy in-game, likely lost hundreds of hours of work, and somewhat understandably developed a deep hatred for the guy. So it would probably better be called "gamer hatred" 😆 Or maybe he is just a psycho and the guy just called him a "noob" in-game and that was the last straw.

Alex O'Connor is probably the most based atheist in existence 😂

You will be experiencing taking actions regardless of whether free will or determinism is true. Nothing changes there.

Hanzi Freinacht was right. Studying the Model of Hierarchical Complexity does make you disillusioned about people. Do you have any arguments for your position?

Guitar if I remember correctly. It could've also been bass or drums.