Carl-Richard

How many red pills have you snorted?

You don't have to share with children things they don't understand.

What even is an average person?

@Greatnestwithin It's very ironic, because he uses the very same traits he uses to describe Trump ("assertive, not polite, but compassionate") to describe himself: And it makes sense that he would use that language to essentially defend Trump's narcissism, as he probably does the same thing in his own mind with his own narcissism lol. Funny case of projection.

How much DMT is that exactly? JP has also admitted to taking massive doses of psychedelics.

I've somehow always envisioned myself peaking in my late 30s (I'm 27 now). But of course, I started losing my hair when I was 18, so maybe that has something to do with it. Bodybuilders also tend to peak around that age. But I also felt like a passed a threshold at 25 where I started to feel distinctly older than the people in the 18-24 range. I'm very skeptical of medical hairloss treatments, especially hormone modulators.

Stuck, doesn't give a fuck; "it's the same thing!"— J. Peterson 😆 He seems stuck on a completely Exterior notion of truth.

What struck me is Dawkins is stuck in the Exterior quadrants of Wilber's Four Quadrants, trying to communicate with Peterson who jumps between all the quadrants.

I would definitely connect it with your total intelligence. It's true that IQ isn't equal to your total intelligence, but it's also true that they are connected (as many things are). For example, you contrasted IQ with wisdom. If there is a quantitative aspect to wisdom, e.g. how much experience you have, IQ increases your processing speed and therefore how much experience you can gain in a given time period. So IQ is connected to wisdom, but of course they're not equal. IQ is a bit like money. It's not everything, but you would be a fool to not want at least a little bit (unless somebody else is paying for you).

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).