Carl-Richard

I asked you a sincere question about that, and instead of answering, you engaged in the armchair guru game where you act condescending and weird. I saw through it the moment you started.

? Still waiting for people to get back on topic.

@JoeVolcano Enough fooling around.

?

@JoeVolcano Why troll a perfectly good conversation?

I think the level of variability in species you're looking for is untenable. Divergent evolution (species creation) requires very long periods of separation (reproductively or environmentally) between different groups within a species, and the homo genus is very young compared to other genera. I also think that homo was less likely to experience considerable adaptive radiation when migrating to new environments compared to other animals, as homo evolution seems to mainly select for general adaptability (intelligence and brain size) rather than niche-specific adaptability (physical features like beak size, wing size etc.). The principles behind evolution by natural selection (how life behaves) has really nothing to do with abiogenesis (how life arose from non-life). It's kinda like how the instructions for making a pizza does not involve growing a tomato.

How would I qualify then?

Kinda. One of my professors who teaches psychology of religion has a background in clinical psychology, and his work has revolved around how to address religiosity, spirituality and existential questions in psychotherapy. While therapy doesn't solve existential questions (you can argue it doesn't solve anything), there are ways to facilitate such matters in therapy.

What is a typical thing you get easily hurt by?

How do I qualify as accepting that it's an unmistakeable lie in your mind? Let's stop with the clever responses and communicate like an adult.

JP can help save people from New Age brain rot (naive skepticism), which is quite needed on this forum.

@BeHereNow If people can't discuss how they truly feel and how it's interfering with their desire to change in a desired direction, it would not be a personal development forum. It would just be a forum of lies and appearances, like the rest of society.

I'm admitting to it. I just disagree with the framing.

No.

Wait, are you saying they would agree that it's all a useful fiction? At least some of them do, certainly some philosophers and scientists. Not all naturalists are naive realists.

Unmistakeable lie or useful fiction?

Why? What does it tell me? Can you give an example?

No, because you know what the stages mean and which stages the colors refer to, and the colors are great visual tools with their own systematic logic behind them. For example, hot colors are individualistic, and cold colors are collectivist. So that's that, however, my point is that unless you're somehow revisioning the entire model, I don't know what the themes are supposed to tell me other than what I already know about the model. Sure, some MBTI functions could have some vague association with the general spirit of each stage more so than the others, but again, it's pretty god damn vague (unless you want to elaborate on that).

Short humorous video that deconstructs the libertarian concept of absolute freedom (English subtitles): You can watch the full 15 min video here which goes into the specifics of how Norway and USA differ in terms of state benefits:

Norwegian dialects vary widely in terms of tonality and vocalizations, and my dialect (Bergensk) is considered the least pleasant one according to other Norwegians. Bergen used to be in the Hansaetic league, which created a simplified language and the harsh uvular R-sound, and it's probably also the dialect that is closest to German for that reason ?

Haha no, but I only take magnesium and fish oil (A, D and E vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids). It's a very safe inference, just like the inference that other humans also have thoughts like me. But consciousness precedes thought, so while I believe there is no good reason to believe that a rock experiences thoughts, I believe that it consists of phenomenal consciousness. I believe phenomenal consciousness is transpersonal, but thoughts seem to be personal. A materialist would think all of it is personal.

@SQAAD I agree that genes don't have thoughts ? Remember that your idea of consciousness is probably very different from most materialists. When a materialist says "consciousness", they can mean anything from phenomenal consciousness (qualitative experiences), intentionality (private inner experience), sentience (survival-salient perceptions; pleasure, pain, emotions etc.), meta-consciousness (reflective self-awareness; meta-cognition) and more.

Btw, "Intelligent Design" seems to be associated with creationism. Unless you think God is some kind of human that thinks human thoughts and makes human plans, I would suggest that you're simply appealing to God as Oneness or non-duality, emphasizing the infinity of forms and God's self-contained and self-created nature.

Your journey sounds identical to mine. I stopped meditating for the same reason 2 years ago, and only in the last couple of months, I can say that I'm back to a reasonably stable sense of self (which also has its downsides of course). I learned some grounding techniques that I use when I feel like I'm slipping away: - intentionally walking with a kind of hunched over posture ("nerd neck") - slightly tightening the left part of my abdomen (as if you're making yourself thinner by pulling your stomach in, albeit on one side) - doing something on my phone (you know this one) Other than that, some decently sub-optimal lifestyle changes helped me also: - eating large meals, regularly - falling asleep on my stomach - masturbating at least 2-3 times a week - generally keeping my mind occupied As for driving a car, I would try to juggle some of these techniques. Nowadays, driving is not that bad for me.

Yup. The less sophisticated versions of religion and mythology often make scientific claims, and those are of course easier to debunk and discard, but when you scale out to the deeper metaphysical questions, then you're only left with logical inferences (if you're a naturalist), or direct experience (if you're a mystic), or dogma (if you're traditionally religious), and you can certainly make different cases for intelligent design in each of those domains.