Carl-Richard

Does it work in reverse?

Going for a run changes breathing too It changes everything. Breathing is one thing.

They've told me about it in retrospect, but just generally, not from that particular experience.

I might've misrepresented some of the details from memory, so I replaced what I wrote with a direct quote from the dissertation.

You can read about it in section 7.6 of Bernardo Kastrup's PhD dissertation: https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA-3.pdf

This also happens online in more close-knit communities like those on Discord, which is good why those things are also discouraged on here.

I suggest you update your concept of sentience by distinguishing it from phenomenal consciousness (qualities of experience). A rock consists of consciousness, in that it has certain qualities (color, texture etc.), and under metaphysical idealism (which you're proposing), these qualities exist outside the confines of biology (brains). However, sentience involves more loaded kinds of experiences which are associated with biology, like pleasure and pain, emotions and understanding, which have a private side (subjective 1st person) and a public side (objective 3rd person). A rock doesn't have that. If you were a materialist, you could more easily avoid making the distinction between consciousness and sentience, because you would believe that neither of them arise before biological life. However, when you're an idealist, this distinction becomes more necessary. The technical term for the split between private and public is "intentionality" and denotes the most basic aspect of sentience (the ability of minds to be "about" something).

Have you read the paper you're criticizing?

You asked me "how does it not add up when you apply statistical methods?", and "according to whom is it the leading model in personality theory?". Tell me, how exactly am I supposed to answer those questions without appealing to external factual information? Do you even care about the scientific method? How do you think quantitative social science should be done?

? That's a nice opinion. It's almost like you read straight from the Criticism section on the MBTI wiki ?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Criticism There is a general consensus among the experts in the field (you know, scientists – people who do science). I've quoted David R. Buss' books in the past, but I'll try something different this time: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/people-are-strange/201910/five-big-reasons-embrace-the-big-five-personality-traits

Every little helps.

This made me think that I might've "blessed" my mother and brother and everybody else sitting on the airplane when I had my most impactful awakening.

Go take a walk. Feel the air, watch the sky. Pet a cat, talk to people, or just watch them. If at any point you feel less connected to any of these things because of "solipsism", you're on the wrong track. Drop that belief.

I don't eat ice cream, because I feel better when I don't eat it. I never get cravings for it either. Internal motivation is a strong force.

They're not mutually exclusive lol. They just don't correlate as much as the others. ...wait, did you think that all the sub-facets are each their own personality type? Please no, I'm going to lose my shit ?

I just mentioned a fun fact lol. If anything, my point is that JP is a bigger deal than most people think. Not many people know he used to be a scientist working on Big 5.

@Leo Gura That's all fine. It doesn't really affect the crux of my point as stated earlier, which is essentially just that humans are very different from machines. Biological evolution is just one lens of looking at that difference.

You'll miss the point if you only use fuzzy terms like "reality" and "seeing". He and his team has proven mathematically that evolution through natural selection makes it so that biological organisms only perceive their environment as far as it benefits their survival. This is just a rehashing of the idea that the world of sensations/perceptions is illusion/Maya, and that God/reality is transcendent and not limited to it (but that it's also both transcendent and immanent). It's perfectly compatible with non-dual mysticism.

Fun fact: Jordan Peterson (and some other person) co-authored that paper with DeYoung, which produced the 10 facets. The dude has made big historical contributions to personality psychology.

Actual correlation coefficients? No idea.

That is so besides the point.

E/I and Extroversion, and N/S and Openness are actually somewhat correlated (0.72 and 0.74). The problems of reliability and validity mostly arise when MBTI says that these things occur in specific dichotomies and combinations, i.e. 16 types.

If you want to be as sure as possible that you'll create human states of mind, the question would be if we could create an artificial cell that could sustain metabolism, homeostasis, and then self-replicate and pass on instructions to its descendants. In a sense, that would be the moment we discover abiogenesis, and we've just created new life. My guess is that such a cell would be more or less identical to a biological one. Natural selection isn't stupid. To then get to human states of mind, you'll just have to make another human.

My point in its simplest form is that taking one human feature (language) and projecting onto it a bunch of other features (sentience) is problematic. I've simply given a detailed account of that. So I would have the same problem with projecting human states of mind onto a hyper-intelligent alien if it somehow fell outside of the domain of biological life (metabolism) or was extremely structurally or behaviorally dissimilar. That said, again, this is only about the parsimony of logical inferences, not about reality as it actually is.

Via. natural selection?