Carl-Richard

Quite ironic that it means "copy", i.e. not original 😂

We first have to distinguish between constructing something from the ground up completely vs using an existing structure and deducing new patterns or connections (synthesis). Here is a map of the complexity of your cognition (each level contains the next): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277962409_Stage_of_development_and_million_dollar_per_year_earning_from_sales 0-6 are virtually always not original, because they concern movements, vocalizations, letters, simple words and sentences, and constructing these from the ground up is very impractical because you tend to learn a language from birth anyway (and much faster than when you're older) and it also takes a lot of work to construct new forms of these things and use them in a way that makes sense (essentially a new language) and all that for probably very little gain. 7-12 are more where "original thinking" can occur for most people. But notice this is no longer purely "ground up", unless you take a lot of care to deconstruct various stories, concepts, systems, words (but that is still not completely ground up either, but reasonably), down to around 4 as far as intellect is concerned. Indeed the thinking is more synthetic and connective, rather than ground up, but the syntheses and connections can be original if nobody has made them before. That said, original thinking at level 12 is actually quite rare, because you have to actually construct a whole new system, and that's not simple (it might look something like this). Original thinking at 13-16 are essentially reserved to hyper-geniuses who construct entire new fields of study or grand theories (e.g. Newton, Einstein). Concepts or systems connecting systems ("meta-systematic", level 13) that are genuinely original are also exceedingly rare. Your best shot at this is probably to construct your own original systems and then see the connections between those systems, but this is of course a lot of work, a bit the same problem as constructing 0-6 from the ground up. The type of original thinking Leo espouses is putatively more ground up (focus on deconstructing existing frames and becoming intellectually sovereign), while the type that maybe a leading scientist or academic philosopher can engage in (moving the existing fields forward by seeing new connections and possibilities) is more synthetic. Leo cannot do something like this for example (talking about merging Markov blankets and other analogous concepts with Integrated Information Theory, sometime in the future), but he talks about other things. So all in all, when it comes to original thinking, you run into a trade-off (in terms of time and resources) between constructing things from the bottom up and seeing new connections between existing structures. Essentially nobody is "truly original", but some can be comparatively more original, and usually at the levels 7-12 (because the higher you climb, and the lower you climb, the more extraordinary you have to be).

@Elliott I think "animal biomass" can be a sort of vegan index for weighing morality because it is sensitive to both large animals with higher forms of sentience (high individual body weight) and it's sensitive to larger masses of smaller animals at the root of eco systems (e.g. earthworms, insects). So you get a number that strongly represents both sentience arguments and ecological arguments. The middle of the distribution like chickens, fish, frogs, are more "we like them because they are unique lifeforms, not as much for what they do".

It was not an argument against veganism, unless you care about comfort, convenience, being 3x less single.

Pollution and pesticides are still ongoing sources of harm, especially for marine life in the vicinity. Even so, you have to think about it in abstract quantitative consumer terms. Without sales, the plantation cannot exist. So you're funding plantations when buying the banana. Your contribution might be in the millionth or billionth percent overall, but so is your contribution to the meat industry by buying a steak (and a steak is not a whole animal either, let's say 0.06% of the meat you get from a whole cow [430kg] you get for a 250g steak). So how many animals (or maybe "animal biomass" is a better quantifier if we care about "lesser" lifeforms as well) does your pack of bananas cost, all factors considered? Is it less than 250 grams?

Omg.

No. Monkeys have hands and can fly.

They tear your shit up. Like racoons with wings.

Zoomer words like "cooked", "rizz", "unc", "bro", and also older internet words like "lol", "lmao", "rofl".

This is a good one: eating cake in a situation where cake is served. You have no idea how fervent my grandmother is at pressuring me to eat cake.

Interestingly vegans are 3x more likely to be single than meat-eaters: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12740075/ Here is an interesting thought: it's plausible that if you eat meat from ruminants that graze on fully non-arable land that does not replace wild habitat, you will kill less animals than if you eat fruit from plantations that replace wild habitat (and that tend to involve deforestation, pesticides, pollution), e.g. some avocado and banana plantations. But I think the intention to kill animals is generally worse than doing killing them indirectly through ignorance.

You can engage in things people usually associate with conformity while doing it from a place of inner drive, value, principle or logic. It's not the appearance but the underlying process which is often less virtuous. However, there are cases where conformity is virtuous, or simply pragmatic. For example, trusting the people who built your house that it is solid without having to check through everything yourself (or build the house yourself), or your car, or the food you buy. Similarly, trusting the scientific community during Covid-19 and taking the vaccines. Was that not the most pragmatic decision? Similarly to how your trust other sources of authority where you yourself lack the prerequisite experience to truly judge or know what is going on, that was the most pragmatic decision, and it's also what 99.99% of people did during Covid, and it's self-deception to think otherwise. But even if you disbelieved the scientific community and became a skeptic, 99.99% of those people also simply conformed to some other narrative. There are very few people with the same knowledge about vaccines as the people behind them (PhD-level and above microbiologists), who actually made an informed decision based on knowledge, values, principles, logic about the vaccines, who did not trust and swallow a pre-packaged narrative for convenience. Maybe later, when people have had time to think about Covid and formed their own opinion more aligned with their inner values, principles, knowledge, etc., could their opinion be less conformist, but to pretend that you had done that before Covid and didn't simply conform to a narrative, is again in 99.99% of cases self-deception. But maybe some people here did have a lot of thoughts about vaccines produced in a pandemic scenario prior to Covid and did have a well-formed opinion and they were ready. Or they simply always thought invasive government interventions no matter the kind are a no-go (which is problematic if you go into minutia like food supply, water supply, air quality). Not to derail the thread, but I'm curious whether other people here are honest enough to admit that the extent of their knowledge either way (for or against vaccines) made them a conformist during the Covid-19 pandemic and the mass vaccination programs.

Not if it comes from the inside.

I generally don't do it. It just happens. OBEs was just meditation, but really mild (only floating 10 cm above my head).

Three first yes.

Bro I literally cannot understand what you're saying. Work on grammar please. What if having a scientist count all your reps, or decide which exercises you should do, or how often you should train, reduces your gains? This is not an unreasonable assumption. It's an ubiquitous fact of psychology (and biology) that externally dictated behavior is less motivating than internally dictated behavior. How can you properly compare high-intensity low-volume training with low-intensity high-volume training if all your research subjects are untrained (as they often are), not motivated to train (they only participated because they are taking an exercise science class in college and their professors gave them course credits for participating), and you have no way of objectively measuring intensity/effort? Of course the results will favor low-intensity high-volume, because unmotivated individuals naturally do not push themselves hard. And intensity is anyway hard to measure and hard to control, in stark contrast to volume, so even with motivated individuals, you actually do not know whether they did push themselves hard or not.

@Schizophonia the dude to prank people in public by making fake AI videos of them doing illegal stuff.

That happens to me too, but I don't think about it when it's not there.

He said there is a two-way relationship between those sperm parameters and testosterone, and also too hot nuts is associated with low testosterone. Regardless, I posted this because of the environmental toxins, not the sperm health.

I've been doing sauna since forever. Lately I thought about the icing nuts thing, and my water bottle is stainless steel, and I figured just placing it in the vicinity of my crotch actually makes a difference. You don't want them to be too cold either am I right? That's just American Psycho Bryan on it again.

Yeah. The "this is the optimal way" virus extends to all spheres: diet, health, aesthetics. The difference is that exercise science is such a low quality version of that, it borders actual crystal healing in its scientific rigor (that said, I'm all for studying both exercise and crystal healing; just do it right). As long as the rigor is low (and even if it's not, you still have the generalization / individual differences issue), then people like Bryan Johnson who espouse "experiment and measurement for your own self" is actually the "most optimal" way.

Sauna: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxM5TS27Ryy5UT7f57MwWHy8CEwAO1eKKq?si=6n1tdiSf5PW2JMWT @Ramasta9 Bryan would probably experiment with long-term fasting at some point.

No, just a 👺🥖 (it's a baguette).

She will now never speak to you again.