Carl-Richard

@Danioover9000 Yup. Destiny also talked with Mr. Girl on the same issues and had a much more productive discussion. I only posted the Vaush discussion in order to illustrate the contrast between Tier 1 and Tier 2. I think Destiny has an edge up on Vaush in this respect, because he is more of a centrist and therefore doesn't have the same strong normative/activist slant which can be used to stifle more abstract discussions.

This is something that really messed with my mind when I first listened to the conversation, because I've gotten so used to capitulating to the Tier 1 perspective when watching all these mainstream political youtubers, that when somebody suddenly presents a Tier 2 perspective out of nowhere, it completely throws me off. Like, my first thoughts were: "Where the hell is he going with this?", "Is he out of his mind?", "Is he trolling?" Now, you guys probably didn't have this experience, because I already planted the idea in your mind that that he is Tier 2 , but only after watching the entire Destiny discussion and 30 minutes of the Vaush discussion, it finally clicked: "wait, maybe he is actually Yellow? " It's like something switched in my mind. It's such a different mode of thinking that when you become accustomed to conceding to especially the normative aspects of Tier 1, a rawly presented Tier 2 meta-theoretical view just looks so pale and feeble in comparison. This is again without a doubt why Spiral Wizardry is very important when conversing in a Tier 1 environment, because it explicitly tries to make a bridge between these two modes that is more easy to follow and more tailored for the specific person (there is more focus on the meta-communicative aspects of the conversation). I'm not saying that he was completely lacking it, but if he had spent more time on it from the start, maybe he could've gotten more people on board (and maybe I wouldn'tve spent so much time trying to gain traction).

Destiny also talked with Mr. Girl on the same issues and had a much more productive discussion. I only posted the Vaush discussion in order to illustrate the contrast between Tier 1 and Tier 2. I think Destiny has an edge up on Vaush in this respect, because he is more of a centrist and therefore doesn't have the same strong normative/activist slant which can be used to stifle more abstract discussions.

Now we at least have a practical example of why spiral wizardry is important and how presenting a raw version of a radically inclusive value system makes people question your intentions (and sanity). The way he was coming off as a bit of a troll in the end I actually interpreted as a genius meta-point: by appearing to take the honest position of the people in the hypothetical ("I think it's 15..."), he further proves that he actually believes in what he says about inclusivity (as if that wasn't abundantly clear already). This is because whatever you think about "pedophilies" now also applies to him, and if you followed his reasoning, it strengthens the idea that you shouldn't categorically hate these people as they can be fully reasonable and honest people like him. Only problem is that most people in the chat probably didn't follow his reasoning, or they don't see the point (like Vaush), or they believe that his now revealed "pedophilic" intentions undermines his reasoning ("you're just a pedophile who wants to normalize it").

Jan Esmann

If that is so, why are you making this specifically about vaccines? "There is no consensus in science" is not a vaccine thing. You already said that yourself. In either case, it's not an excuse to lay down and die with respect to pandemics or generally lose trust in the scientific process. It feels very cheesy to quote Elon Musk like this, but "fuck that, we're gonna get it done." In other words, we gotta act.

Have you tried meditation by any chance?

I checked out the demo test for the survey they used in the study: "OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)": https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/onlineassessment/demo/ It's pretty basic stuff.

Both deep and broad knowledge requires knowing some facts, but simply knowing facts outside the context of some greater understanding is indeed an impoverished approach to knowledge.

Listen to @mandyjw

The sure way to zap dopamine and ruin meditation is worry itself. Your mind is doing a lot of work. Don't forget your heart ?

I'm talking about the religious concept of faith based on St. Augustine. It explicitly places doctrine over experience (dogmatism over mysticism): https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/invention-faith-pistis-and-fides-early-churches-and-later-roman-empire

Faith is a concept that some Christian theologians made up when they moved God up into the sky and away from direct experience.

It was maybe a bit sloppily worded. It's nevertheless the case that the particular type of questioning that is going on is generally filled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Based on all the COVID-19 threads we've had, the general trend is that the same people end up repeating the same 3 points from 1 year ago, bringing up basic statistics like vaccinations rates while failing to control for age, bringing up studies that compare death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations while failing to control for age or other variables not directly specified, obsessing over verified but low probability threats or unverified long-term threats about vaccination side effects while ignoring similar unverified AND verified threats from viral infections and consequential societal destabilization. Taking this into account, and maybe in a sort of roundabout way, it's true that questioning vaccinations doesn't make you intelligent

These conservatives make a strong case for why the ability to abstract across classes is not fully developed before Orange. You draw the simplest comparison and they think you're switching topics. Forget about systems thinking – this is a lack of analytical thinking. It's a common thread in the discussion, but here is a few highlights: 13:00, 39:20. Blue correlates with Concrete Operational, and Orange correlates with Formal Operational. Bonus material of Destiny displaying basic systems thinking i.e. context awareness (which flies over everyone's heads): 58:57

He also talks about the importance of trauma in understanding people's actions, the importance of empathy, love, takes psychedelics etc. He has definitely some Green.

#Knawlegde ?

Bumping because I added some thoughts

Lawrence Krauss does a good job bringing out his ideas. You might get to see a side of him that you didn't know about, and most of you might have underestimated how holistic of a thinker he is. It's much more interesting to see a discussion between two people on the same level who can challenge each other in good faith compared to interviews with journalists. I think I understand more now what his book Maps of Meaning is about, and a lot of it lies in the title. His definition of meaning goes far beyond the traditionalist Christian sense of meaning, and it must be understood in relation to making maps. It's a deeply metaphysical concept that ties together real systems (the objective) and abstract systems (the subjective). It's a concept that refers to the structure of relative reality and how the mind is constructing it ("the architecture of belief"). From the objective lens, meaning is the way that organisms orient themselves in the survival game (evolution), and we do this by molding our behavior according to survival-salient information (sensory input). At the most basic level, this manifests itself as movement through the environment in search of pleasant stimuli (pro-survival markers) and avoidance of noxious stimuli (anti-survival markers). An organism that is engaging in meaningful behavior would for example gather nutrition when it's hungry and mate when it's sexually mature. From the subjective lens, this sensory input is represented within our minds as internal experiences (perceptions). At the most basic level, these experiences are simple, direct and concrete (e.g. sense of touch, smell, hearing etc.). They may be reconstructed independently of live sensory input in the form of mental images (cognition and imagination), and virtually all animals are thought to be capable of this to some extent. Humans have an elevated sense of meaning, which comes from the ability to abstract out symbolic/iconic representations from a set of concrete experiences. At an even higher level, this ability is expressed through an internal narrative structure, i.e. representing icons linearly across different contextual frames (situations and time frames; story-telling). This is what distinguishes humans from animals: we create narratives that try to explain ourselves and our environment. From here, complex language, culture and an individual identity is born (self-awareness). Further on, narratives of a higher-order of complexity like the Christian dogmas likewise reflect the underlying survival-drives of our species. The point that JP is trying to make, which Lawrence Krauss is struggling to understand (even granted good faith), is that on the most fundamental level, even science is a narrative that humans are constructing, and that by recognizing how narratives are at the base of "reality" so to speak, he claims that studying narratives of all types and abstracting out meta-narratives is a very useful way (in fact the only way) of understanding how reality is structured, not just in a descriptive sense ("how things are"), but in a normative sense ("how should we act?"). The thing that Krauss gets stuck on is his materialistic worldview (which is not surprising coming from a theoretical physicist), and consequently he holds science and the objective realm in higher favor than the subjective and normative realm. The reason I think JP is at a level above Krauss in this respect is that he reconciles both worlds by conceding that some narratives like science are better as descriptive tools than other, and that other narratives are better as normative tools. His theory of meaning is therefore in my estimation an attempt at going beyond materialistic science, not by contradicting it, but by integrating it, and in that sense, he is a Tier 2 thinker (construct aware, theory pluralist, "transcend and include" etc.). Does that mean he has fully extended this understanding into other domains like society and politics? Not necessarily, but maybe he could surprise us there as well.

Nothing.

A decision is a narrative: "Will I do this or will I do this?" "(...) an internal narrative structure, i.e. representing icons linearly across different contextual frames (situations and time frames; story-telling)." "River" is an icon. "I will go to the river and gather water" is a collection of icons represented across a contextual frame. You can also think about e.g. a specific river (concrete internal image) without connecting it to an abstract icon and still use it to do basic problem solving (e.g. sequential operations). Some animals are thought to do this.

Do you celebrate birthdays?

I'm sorry that I don't have anything relevant to say, but your choice of substances primed a memory in me which I'll nevertheless share here, as I typed it out rather spontaneously: One time I microdosed on LSD, took L-theanine, 5-HTP, cannabis AND meditated. I tried a Zen gazing technique on a tree maybe 2 miles away, and while I was intensely focusing on a specific point on this tree, I started to see a tiny version of those morphing effects that happens when you look at a grainy texture on LSD. Then I realized that what I was looking at was not physical, because it felt like I was looking at the tree as it was rendering, not like I was looking at a tree that "was there". Just as this happened, I had a tiny realization of "oh shit this is ego death!", and then I stood up and went for a walk, because I was not expecting that level of action. I then sat down on a bench surrounded by some tall trees on a hill overseeing a gravel football field. I felt fine just sitting and enjoying the peace. As I was looking out at the scenery - the football field, the gravel road leading up to the bench, and the houses across the football field - I did a slow, blissful blink, and my imagination flashed an ethereal-looking eagle taking off slowly, which was rather random but interesting. Just after that, I felt a sense of connection to my relatives on my dad's side, most of whom have some kind of psychotic illness, and I had the distinct insight that "this state of being, it has been experienced many times before; it runs in your blood." I then felt my body slowly getting lighter and less solid, and then I had the distinctive feeling of having to resolve a dilemma: "should I dissolve or should I go home?" I chose to get up and walk home, just as I chose to stand up during the previous meditation, just like I did my first meditation, and my last. I'm still standing up today.

mRNA vaccine technology has been under serious development for over 10 years since the founding of Moderna Inc. in 2010 (ModeRNA). Combine this with the fact that we've completed multiple clinical trials for several mRNA vaccines, it's clear that any skepticism about side effects is now confined to the domain of the potential and the long-term (e.g. "what if something happens during the length of a lifetime?"). With this in mind, let's test the consistency of people's long-term threat sensitivity: Are you worried about the potential long-term effects of Wi-Fi on your brain and body to the point where you're not using it? Are you worried about EMF from your mobile phone so that you're not wearing it in your pocket or having it close to your head? Are you worried about GMOs to the point where you're not buying it? None of these things have been tested long-term, yet you most likely don't care. Let's also not forget about Neuralink. At the risk of being reductive, I'll still mention that the psychology behind vaccine skepticism is very much tied to the fear of poisons, which is a deeply ingrained survival drive. The idea of a foreign substance being intentionally and certainly introduced to your body is threatening on a very primal level. Maybe even more importantly, you have the tendency to prefer the analytic lens (individual bodies, individual substances, certainty) over the systemic lens (collective forces, degrees of influence, probability). On the other hand, invisible forces like viruses that spread collectively and probabilistically from person to person, or undetectable electromagnetic frequencies, are conceptually much more abstract and vague to attend to. They don't have the same primal punch as actually being injected with something that you at some level interpret as a physical poison. Obviously that isn't to say that vaccine skeptics are not able to think abstractly, but it's rather that the primal fears often precede, co-opt and drive higher thinking. There is no rationality without emotions, and the mind rationalizes its own survival. Then add some collective hysteria and skepticism about institutions on top, and you have COVID-19 denialism.

The relative is dual. The Absolute is non-dual. Duality is comprised of two parts that make up a whole (e.g. hot-cold, up-down, big-small). From the relative perspective, duality is two. From The Absolute perspective, duality is one.