Carl-Richard

Me

"Very ugly". In the context of scientific theories, and given that scientific naturalism relies on some form of empirical evidence to validate theories, a theory that makes empirical claims and has absolutely no evidence to show for it, could be described as grotesque.

Actually, what Bernardo (usually) means by "theoretical fantasies" in the context of interpretations of QM, especially the many-worlds interpretation, is quite specific: they're based on zero empirical evidence. In other words, they're merely theoretical and not grounded in "reality" (empirical tests), and are thus "fantasies". So in this context, "theoretical fantasies" is not simply a blind dismissal or cheap insult, but it's rather descriptive of the problems with the theories. But of course, it can come off as insulting if you don't know what he is referring to.

The New Yorker energy probably threw him off. It's not always what is being said, but how it's being said that can determine the perceived civility of the discussion. Bernardo said (after a long string of civil argumentation) "[...] willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies [...]" in a very calm and laid-back tone, while Tim opened with "that's silly!" as if he had been coming off a sprint and went on to say things like "what do you even mean by physical realism?! ". Of course, on a purely analytical level and stripped from all contextual nuance, what Bernardo said in the beginning was pretty much equivalent to what Tim responded with. You can say that the pure substance of what was said by both was not civil (and that Bernardo started it), but the emotional tone and general presentation was completely different. Bernardo did of course get (overly) emotional in response, but that's because Tim was additionally not being civil in the emotional sense. A part of the point of being civil is to not create excess noise that clouds the underlying points, and the emotional tone is a big part of that.

Now I understand why the logical positivists rejected metaphysics.

I don't think Razard86 was only referring to that.

All paths lead to cartoon wolves? ?

I think that blog post perfectly encapsulates the difference between the 5-MeO-spirituality/psychonaut approach and the sober rat approach Like, if this goes into the history books, that is the quote they'll use for that.

Did you read about the ACE study?

The solo sounds like Allan Holdsworth on Benadryl.

Statistically speaking, and very generally, it's true.

I say be intelligent about it. Do what is appropriate in each situation. A one-size-fits-all solution is generally not that.

Ok. A clearer way to put that is that you should challenge people's belief systems. "Hurt other's spiritual egos" has a loaded connotation. Aiming to awaken others has to be approached highly intelligently and with care.

I'm specifically referring to social abuse. You should read some of the modern psychological studies on trauma (e.g. the ACE study).

If you think of other people as rocks, then I can understand.

But you said "randomness is just human ignorance" But wait, you're saying there is no such thing as ontological randomness, and you're also saying that humans just suck at predicting reality. Doesn't that just leave you with epistemic randomness? (it being the only valid concept).

I didn't really think that. I just didn't understand what you said. No, I'm forgiving of them in general, because I've met a lot of great religious people and read enough about religion to see that the bad rap is hugely undeserved, and that it's actually really hard to make a hard distinction between spirituality and religion if you're intellectually rigorous about it. I'm still struggling a bit to understand what you mean. Religious people are not insulting to my intelligence. Cargo cult people, maybe a bit more. However, "cargo cult" is not "cultish" in the general sense of the word. I used it to point out the inconsistency between the claimed allegiance to the 5-MeO belief system and the lack of commitment to it. My stance doesn't really strike me as skepticism. It's much more of a realist position. I'm not saying you should question the 5-MeO belief system. I'm saying you should implement it properly, the real version of it; and that you should do it while being true to yourself, to what you really feel deep down and what makes the most sense to you. Ask yourself: is basing your worldview on 5-MeO really a reflection of how you see the world? And if that's not true, can you identify the resistance to admitting such a thing? Is it based in fear, anxiety, lack, or authenticity, truth and love?

So then, should we step on it "as much as possible" as proposed by the OP, or just a little? Or should we maybe not even step on it, but instead maybe expose it to the weather a little (unless there is a storm)? Fun personal story: my mom grows leafy greens in her garden every summer; one patch is inside a mini-greenhouse, the other is exposed to the weather of the Norwegian West Coast, known for heavy rain. The leaves on the ones inside the mini-greenhouse are smooth and thin, like a baby's skin, while the outside ones are rough and thick, like an alligator's skin. It goes to show that the right form of friction, preferably the natural kind that the organism is built to handle, and in the right amounts, makes a stronger, tougher organism. Now, is being exposed to social abuse really that for humans? Meh.

Certainly if you piss on it.

Reading in order to learn something new is a circular process of reading something, thinking, having some insight, seeing some connection to previous knowledge, and then continuing reading. To think of reading as just a mechanical exercise of moving your gaze across the page is completely backwards. Reading is like creating a sculpture of pure understanding in your mind. It's not what goes on between the retina and the page that is most important. That said, there are definitely steps to make you read better (and faster). Having an upright posture, sitting comfortably and still with your head facing forward rather than downward, complete silence and no interruptions, a good night's sleep, eating just the right amount of the correct foods, not over- or underhydrating yourself, taking a deep breath or maybe meditating with eyes closed for a while before reading, stretching, going for walks in-between sessions.

Does a flower grow if you step on it?

Sure, you can call different teachers more or less advanced based on some intuition. It just doesn't mean much when the alternative is experience, certainly when that is expounded as the goal. After all, that is the reason why I align myself with basic non-duality and not 5-MeO-ism, because that is what aligns most with my experience. Of course, it all has to start with an intuition, but then given the right methods and tools, you quickly find out whether or not the intuition is correct. I just see that the last step is missing for many of the Leo-ites. And when that is the case, it's easy to fall in the trap of disregarding your own experiences and intuitions to serve some preconceived notion. And that is why I say that agreeing with Leo on absolutely everything is a bad sign, because it most likely means that you're disregarding some part of your own authentic self. We're all different people with different predispositions and experiences, so you should be careful about aligning yourself fully with the views of another person, especially when you know that some crucial aspect of their experience is different from yours (again, shitloads of 5-MeO-DMT).

No idea what that means. There are pros and cons to New Age religion vs. traditional religion, that is true. But it's all very much religion: there is a sacred impulse within, and you identify the idealized version of that in some external idol or method, and you give some trust in that authority through faith. Even the most Neo of the Neo-Advaitans fall under this definition, but the idolization of especially one person (in this case Leo) makes it very clear. And the shame here (and why I call it a cargo cult) is that the idolization seems to actually not align with the methods expounded by the idol. There is no shame in being religious, but at least do what your religion actually says ? That is pretty much what I said.

You want to talk about ontological randomness and expound your cosmology around that, while Leo prefers to talk about epistemological randomness and leave it at the human level. If you want to call that a disagreement, sure. I just personally don't think of it as a substantial disagreement, because when you identify this conceptual distinction, you see that it's two different subject matters. On the other hand, if you had both disagreed on either ontic or epistemic randomness, then that is more of a substantial disagreement. It's of course possible to enter a conversation with the assumption that it is a substantial disagreement, but then you can realize that you're mistaken once additional information is uncovered. I just intuited that from the very start of the discussion, and then we laid out the proof for why that is. If you want to still hold on to the idea that you're fundamentally disagreeing about the same subject matter, then sure, that is just a new case of difference in language games (from my perspective of course).