Carl-Richard

By the way, a proper sauna session every day could probably help to alleviate the symptoms (it gives a natural sustained endorphin boost, given that you stay in there a little past the part where you start fidgeting and breathing a lot). If the sauna is 80-90 degrees Celsius, doing 10-15 minutes x 2 with a cooling period in the shower in-between is probably optimal. Also, how is masturbation? 😅 Based on my limited experience with opioids (and subsequent micro-withdrawals), it could either be very pleasant or extremely weird (in any case, it may help the symptoms).

Every denial of a craving is itself a little high and a step towards the eternal high that awaits you at perfect sobriety 😊

A cultural taboo doesn't have to be explictly taught from parent to child to be effective (although I was personally taught that way about incest many times). That is the thing about taboos, they're rarely talked about explicitly, but the feelings and general moral atmosphere around it is ubiquitous. Also, you might have learned about it very early but just not remember it, as is the case with most concepts you learn. For example, you probably don't remember the first time you learned about the concept "soda", but you sure as hell know what it means. That also means you could possibly have internalized the aversive feelings about it in a way that might seem less obvious from quickly introspecting into your conscious mind (the most surface level part of your mind), hence you might think you're not impacted by the taboo when you actually were molded by it. It's hard to find easily digestible numbers on it, but here are at least some numbers: "Survival and inbreeding coefficient (F) of offspring of 71 marriages from the Habsburg royal dynasty" - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Survival-and-inbreeding-coefficient-F-of-offspring-of-71-marriages-from-the-Habsburg_fig1_221920028 For reference, a first generation offspring of a sibling-sibling union produces an Inbreeding Coefficient (F) of 0.250. In the graph, you'll see that 0.250 F corresponds to a 20% chance of survival to 10 years, compared to 80% chance for 0.000 F. Of course, you have to factor in that the sample is not of people living in modern society, so that could have an impact, but the drop-off still seems pretty severe even for that. And this is just humans (animals of course don't really live in modern society, at least wild ones). Back to when you generalized earlier to social bonding and thus implicating other social animals, the first study I provided says this: So there were no differences between humans and animals period (and they presumably studied a large variety of animals with varying degrees of sociality), so the "more social bonding produces more incest avoidance" hypothesis seems to not be supported in this case. Ok. Is incest wrong?

If you make a 54 second clip where you say "men are like saplings that have to grow and develop thick bark to survive, thus men need to fight for the right to exist", without going into the specifics of why that metaphor is specific to men, I'm going to say that it's an intense over-generalization that needs elaboration. Merely stating such a thing is not telling you anything. Having a PhD doesn't change that.

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing "the crisis" ("the meta-crisis", "the meaning crisis", "the master and the emissary"). Daniel has a social/economic/game-theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

I won't turn down a free incest discussion that easily >:/ Honestly though, I think we're doing fine so far.

They said they didn't have adequate empirical data to say anything about kin recognition. Do you mean that they're simply not attracted to them and won't initiate mating? Or do you mean that the physical of experience of sex is significantly different? Maybe subtle distinctions, but I argue against the latter in the edit of my previous post. As for the former, there is something called the Westermarck effect which could support your hypothesis, but the empirical evidence seems to be mixed. I think it maybe has to do with human cognition, not necessarily social bonding. I refer you to the edited post again. Parent-child incest (specifically the pedophilic kind) is generally explained as a psychological power thing on the part of the perpetrator, and it's generally psychopaths/sociopaths that engage in it, not people who are attracted to children, which again supports the idea that it (incest avoidance) is a human psychological thing rather than an animalistic biological thing. Trust me, a scientist whose life depends on publishing positive results will milk whatever they can out of their results. Depends what you mean with "significant harm". I've heard that many types of non-parent-child incest do increase the likelihood of diseases pretty significantly in humans at least. I wouldn't call them instincts but cultural taboos (or that is my running theory). It's related to why we think it's wrong, which is a tangent, but so was your idea of bringing up incest in the first place

https://www.su.se/english/research/the-conversation-news/incest-isn-t-a-taboo-in-the-animal-kingdom-new-study-1.571568 You can read the study here: "Meta-analytic evidence that animals rarely avoid inbreeding" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01453-9 So why only in humans? I'm speculating, but maybe it's because humans are the only animals with the sufficient level of meta-awareness (self-reflective capacity) and cognitive control (executive functioning, planning, general problem-solving) to see the cumulative negative side effects of inbreeding and be able to consciously decide to not engage in that behavior (and subsequently constructing cultural taboos around it). Cultural taboos are essentially just particularly intense collective normative "do not" statements, and other animals are unlikely to have that. And it does make sense that the taboo is merely a cultural phenomena not grounded in instinctive biological drives, because incest sex isn't actually less pleasurable than non-incest sex, and incest sex does happen (and people like it). I remember talking to a friend (female btw... I don't know why that is important) who said (paraphrasing): "you can't sincerely claim that fucking your cousin wouldn't be just as fun as fucking anybody else". And I agree (but I don't think it's necessarily ethical to do so ).

@Scholar Now you're being baited into it

It's not the name

@Danioover9000 That's a pretty cool discussion. I'm 44 minutes into it.

Who is to say he is not questioning the current moral paradigm?

"Men must fight for the right to exist" is an intense over-generalization, just like "fat people lack self-control" (one of your other controversial statements).

Let's say homosexuality is not natural. What now? Why are you making the statement? And what's the deal about "natural"? Why is it important?

Can a fish make a video on water? Jk

>.< When metalheads try to play jazz, it's like a new guitar player trying to play Smoke On The Water. It's like "huehue, jazz is funny and quirky, let's play funny and quirky". It's not actually jazz, they don't listen to jazz

Who the fuck cares about natural? Death is natural.

Imagine being considered a menace to society by world's most famous robot 😂

Ask a person without eyes if they can see the door in front of them on acid.

I'm just scarred by experience. GPT-3.5 has lied to me many times. I know, but the types of mistakes and/or deceit is also very different from what a person would do. ChatGPT infamously makes very silly mistakes, like basic arithmetic or logic errors, and you can "hypnotize" it to give a particular answer. Also, the rate that it can produce wrong answers is not negligible: Also, for determining truthfulness, what people have which ChatGPT doesn't have is context markers like personal affiliations, platform/source (e.g. news outlet, organization, scientific journal), credentials, reputation, motivations, etc., and in real-life: body language, emotional information, subtle non-verbal cues, etc. Verifying answers and cross-referencing sources is good. When you do that, ChatGPT works more like a directory which can point you to relevant information, and it's your job to find the actual information.

@UnbornTao @Osaid Do you think you will get her to swallow the red pill? Through text? Mmmeh. I think a real-life face-to-face meeting would increase your chances; get energetically and empathically connected. Not that I'm encouraging anybody to break the guidelines though This suddenly started to sound very creepy ( @Sugarcoat I'm serious about the advice though: consider go seeing a teacher in person).

I feel that intentionally using a technology that reliably produces false information, or just the idea that there is not a conscious agent that has an internal understanding of the text that is being produced, is corrupting me on a spiritual level, so I try to limit it as much as possible 😅 I've recently had a related insight about understanding and communication, especially face-to-face communication, where there is a sense that you only truly get to understand what somebody is saying if they have a clear understanding of what they are saying themselves, somewhat despite of what is actually being said: For example, if you were to communicate something which on a second look appears decently understandable, but the way you said it in that context were to cloud the message, maybe due to the hesitation in your voice, or the fumbling of words, or the length of the pauses, or the amount of "uhm"s, or more importantly the word choice and its level of coherence, elegance and flow, or simply the general emotional/energetic state of doubt and insecurity, etc., then these signs of a lack of understanding is actually what largely ends up being communicated, and it might leave the recipients unsure if they actually understood it (or rather, they're not left with a decent understanding at all). In a sense, deep and profound communication is partially about empathically tapping into somebody's mental state and receiving their authentic understanding in its entirety. So when somebody understands something deeply and profoundly, then this understanding will likewise resonate deeply within you. Now, when I communicate with AI, there is this uncanny valley where I never truly get that deep and profound connection, like "ah, that really makes sense!", or "ah, that's amazing!". Maybe it's because I don't generally ask AI any profound questions, but again, I think it's because it lacks not just a deep authentic understanding, but any understanding. Even relatively simple things can be explained in a profound way and a less profound way, and I think AI generally falls short of that. That said, it's still an incredibly useful technology.

One of our professors told us to use Perplexity instead of ChatGPT for academic questions. It's specifically tailored towards academia, and it provides you the sources it used for the answers, which is useful for detecting errors (which definitely happen with ChatGPT). I'm incredibly paranoid when it comes to errors, so Perplexity is a step in the right direction for me.

I see, but there is something very special about this technique I'm talking about. You do it at any place, any time, all the time. It's a very subtle tightening of the left side of the abdomen. It's not supposed to hurt, although it could actually help to do it until it hurts in the beginning to test out how it feels and to calibrate a suitable level of tension. You want to find the place that gives the desired effect without too much side effects and keep it like that all the time. Just try it. If things really are as bleak as you say they are, then what do you have to lose? As for other alternatives, in a sense, I'm giving you the "blue pill", as the simplest path is acceptance and surrender, but as you say, that seems impossible for you now, so it's of course not that simple. However, you could also benefit from seeing a spiritual teacher (preferably one who specializes in unwanted spiritual emergencies, if that is a thing) who can help facilitate the process of surrender, helping you to swallow the "red pill". Or you could try conventional mental health approaches (although be careful to find somebody who actually understands your issues). There are many options.

It might very well seem that way to you now (it used to be like that for me as well), but I would still recommend trying it out. When you're in the state you're in, change might seem like an impossibility, but take it from somebody who has experienced a change (and continue to "benefit" from it, in the sense that it achieves what I want it to achieve). Exercise is an extreme and short-lasting way of inducing resistance, while tightening your stomach slightly (the left side) is a more mild and persistent way of inducing resistance. If you find out it really doesn't help in the slightest, consider looking up "dealing with unwanted spiritual emergencies" and use some of their advice. They will give similar advice to the other techniques I mentioned, but not the abdominal tightening technique (from what I've read), and I believe it's the most effective technique when you learn how to do it right (which you do through trial and error), and I think it will be like that for you as well by the virtue of the fact that you're currently relying on another technique that induces resistance through physical means.