Carl-Richard

This particular issue is a bit different. We've identified a large number of accounts linked through the same IPs. There is a legitimate issue there that needs to be handled, but it's not as simple as it seems.

We've lately discovered some issues with duplicate accounts, and we've made some attempts to crack down on them which were somewhat flawed. It appears that it's not as straightforward as simply matching IPs. As for mods reading this, I hope I'm not undermining the investigation in any way. If so, feel free to remove the last messages.

If you define knowledge as your ability to accurately model and predict things, it's very true that you essentially don't know anything. Look at a dust particle flying inside your room through a sun beam coming from outside your window. How on Earth would you predict its movement down to each air molecule? Down to each quantum fluctuation? With a bird flying in the room and disturbing the air? With a vacuum cleaner in the other room causing a slight breeze under the door crack? With a semi-truck driving by the house and causing slight vibrations in the floor and walls? You quickly see how flimsy and limited our attempts at modelling reality truly are. Now, if Leo already said this in his video, I apologize. I didn't watch his not-knowing video. I prefer not knowing in this scenario

He certainly flowing.

I think this is the most reasonable explanation: his account was banned before the 10th and then unbanned again after the 10th. He probably still thinks he is banned.

The Earthquake was February 6th. He disappeared February 10th.

People tend to dismiss this as an absurd possibility, but not based on logical argument or scientific evidence. Take the case of a girl with Dissociative Personality Disorder (DID) who experienced some peculiar dreams, where each of her alters seemingly recounted different perspectives of the same dream: So, why do people think this is an absurd possibility? Does the thought of the person you killed in your dream last night frighten you? How would you live with yourself knowing you could cause such "needless suffering"? No, in fact, how would God cause such "needless suffering"? Yet that is exactly what is happening within this dream every day. People are causing needless suffering to others and are suffering themselves all the time. If you're skeptical, here is a challenge: exactly how are your dreams at night fundamentally different from this dream? Why is one appearance more real than the other? As for people invoking solipsism: consider why you're afraid of causing needless suffering to a dream character. Consider why when you talk to other people and understand how they're feeling, their personal struggles, their joys, etc., you can feel how it's like to be in their shoes. Is this just a sick prank that God is pulling on you? Also, why would it matter?

Is it a story of another or seeing as another? Because nobody has to tell me a story about how I can feel what somebody else is feeling as if I were them. The real fairy tale is to conclude that your feelings are wrong because of a story you're telling yourself ("I can't prove that you're experiencing anything").

Leo doesn't use this definition of solipsism. Most people don't understand what Leo means by solipsism.

If I might add, one of the ways it's limited is in how accurately it maps onto the current science, because science is still very materialistic and doesn't have a very good understanding of things like paranormal phenomena (clairvoyance, OBEs, remote viewing, astral travel, etc.). A model that better accounts for those things would be Tom Campell's TOE (he bases it largely on those very things). The weakness there of course is that it's mostly based on his own research, and thus there is a lack of replication. Kastrup's limitations becomes evident in points like "biological life is the image of private conscious inner life". It fits well with scientific observations, but just intuitively it seems very restrictive. Campell's view is much less naturalistic than that ("consciousness can log onto any form if it so decides to"). As for the potential of AI consciousness, both agree that the structural-functional organization of stuff is not what "creates" consciousness, neither transpersonal consciousness nor private conscious inner life. Rather, looking at that stuff is simply a way to make reasonable inferences about private conscious inner life (e.g. a frog with its advanced nervous system and metabolic activity is likely to be privately conscious, while a rock is not). While Kastrup restricts his inferences about private conscious inner life to biological life, Campell thinks that consciousness can decide to log on to a computer, but that such an event isn't technically limited to the underlying physical stuff in the first place.

How on earth would life work if there was no death? Evolution wouldn't have gotten to produce anything.

You don't need to prove truth.

Logic is a pointer.

There is a trade-off with having a silent mind: you'll have very few thoughts, but whatever thoughts you do have will carry a lot of significance and be crystal clear. When your mind is loud, you'll be more capable of ruminating over the same things over and over, but much of that is just repetition, unclear thinking, logical dead-ends, fear-based and reaction-based thinking. But sure, being obsessed about something can certainly produce some result that a lack of obsession couldn't produce, but will that product generally be one of virtue and deep genuine insight, or one of ego and delusion? All I know is that the people I consider "enlightened" tend to have the deepest and most streamlined minds I've ever seen. On the other hand, the people I consider "obsessed" tend to have deeply troubled and chaotic minds and often over-complicate the simplest things.

Explore more paradigms.

Got any more Andrew Tate quotes?

If he ever addresses that point (or if he did — I never saw the video), I wonder if he feels compassion for Leo considering the shit he has been through himself the last couple of months

It's not as much anxiety about the interactions themselves as being a bit inexperienced. I have certain things to work on, and I have to take the challenges as they arise, and there might be an element of anxiety involved in that, but as for the social interactions themselves, they're not the main problem anymore.

Responsive to their follower's needs while being an exemplar of virtue.

Bernardo Kastrup. I used to have very much trouble reconciling my mystical experiences with a scientific understanding of the world. "If consciousness is not created by the brain, then what is the brain actually doing?". While Kastrup's approach has its own limitations, it can definitely help to clear up a lot of confusion for many people. I highly recommend watching his numerous talks and interviews. This one is a particularly good one, although it's maybe a bit advanced, but anyway:

Nah man. I basically didn't talk to anyone except my few closest friends in high school because of social anxiety, but today I'm a different man.

The conflict might be extremely buried and practically unsalvageable, like for some lifelong psychopaths, but for others, the conflict is much more cerebral and reversible.

That is only what you tell yourself consciously. The conflict can be unconscious. Ethics is more fundamental than propositional beliefs. You have cognitive functions that concern ethics. That's your conscience. Your propositional beliefs are only the tip of the iceberg.