Carl-Richard

Maybe a better question is: for all the things that people call Ted a genius, do they like or dislike those things? And for all the thing that people call Ted a madman, do they like or dislike those things?

Intelligence is one of many likeable things that you could ascribe to a genius. And even if you want to define intelligence as something objective, intelligence as a concept is still generally considered a good thing (people like it). Same with "profound insight into reality" as @Salvijus has written below.

A madman sees something nobody else sees, be it concrete things like object/sensory perceptions ("hallucinations"), or value structures or ways of being ("acting insane"). A genius sees something nobody else sees, be it abstract things like thoughts (or indeed concrete things like perceptions), value structures or ways of being. The commonality is being unusual, maybe also 'extremely so'. The difference is that the madman's unusual behavior is largely disliked or disapproved of by the common man. For example, if you hallucinate white rabbits or pink elephants, people generally disapprove of that. If you are neither willing nor able to tie your shoes without assistance or outside force, people generally disapprove of that. On the other hand, if your unusual behavior leads to or is associated with something that people consider a good thing (something they like), or certainly a fantastic thing (something they like very much), because indeed nobody else could've come up with it because nobody else can see it, then you will be accurately labelled a genius. For example, if you find a new technology, a new "accepted" scientific paradigm (more on that later), a new cure for a disease, a new way to make apple juice, or you're just really clever in most situations which astounds most people, people will generally like that, and hence, again, you will be labelled a genius. As for the Katana person, had he been doing unusual things that people like very much (e.g. playing Fruit Ninja IRL and filming it like a high-production action movie with the skill equivalent of 10 000 hours of practice, doing all the work except the filming by himself, fully self-taught, all with stunning world class execution) instead of what people dislike very much (chopping up police officers), I think he will accurately be called a genius. If he had instead been doing unusual things that people like but aren't necessarily blown away by, he would be called clever, creative, innovative, essentially the weaker components of genius. This ties into what I hinted to about finding a new "accepted" scientific paradigm. If you find a new paradigm or theory or way of thinking that people accept and thus like, then that is all good: you're a genius. If it's something they don't like, they will often call you words like "kook", "crank", "nut" and "crackpot". These obviously have a flavor of "crazy", "unhinged", but at the core, it's again being unusual. But the thing here is that these words are kind of a composite of like and dislike, because such people are often recognized as intelligent (which people like) but still deal with things that people don't like (in this case the paradigms, the theories). Had they not been considered intelligent (or had people just failed to recognize their intelligence), then it's more likely that they would be called crazy, mad, insane. When the intelligence is not recognized, that's for example the camp that Leo is sometimes put in.

Here are my thoughts: Mind and body are one. If your mind is solid while chemo is killing the body and the cancer alongside it, your body has a greater chance of surviving. Cancer is cells which have left the program of the body and become parasites. If the poison is delivered to both the host and the parasite but the host is strong, the parasite will be more likely the first to go. So by meditating and contemplating deeper, you are on the right path. But of course, investigate bodily pathways as well.

A profound mystical experience is squarely within the paranormal. My first sober mystical experience I had, I was hovering 10-15 cm over my head and my visual field was expanded as if I was viewing the whole room all at once, and it was as if the sky was opening up above me and I was moving upwards and slowly dissolving. A similar thing happened during another mystical experience I had on an airplane where when I was getting up to leave the plane, I took a look behind me down the aisle and I could see every person's face in focus simultaneously. If you have only had mystical experiences with eyes closed, then it's harder to get the paranormal aspect, but even there, if you simply ask any normal person about such experiences (e.g. "I closed my eyes and slowly my body disappeared and then my mind disappeared and all that was left was a vast blank void with no sense of time or space"), they would probably respond with "that's not possible!". So while a mystical experience can be extremely transformational, while something more innocuous like a premonition or telepathic experience is probably less transformational, they're cut from the same cloth, "chips off the old block" as Campbell would say. But there are degrees within this as well, for example Campbell recounting his experiment of him going out of body and interacting with another guy who were also going out of body in the other room. That experience was extremely transformational for him in terms of his worldview. And to be able to get those types of experiences where you're also able to control them without losing them or becoming afraid, you need to have extreme levels of meditative and mystical ability. Campbell himself is by my estimation enlightened.

The realm of the "paranormal" arguably by definition contains the deepest parts of the human experience. The kind of elevated levels of perception, clarity of vision, intution, feeling and empathy that underlies paranormal experiences, is at the peak of human consciousness.

Don't just copypaste ChatGPT as an answer without declaring that you are doing so, it's against the guidelines 🙂‍↕️

What kind of answer do you have in mind that would satisfy your question?

"Trump is consciousness"? 🤷‍♂️ 😄

If you don't do the same thing then you'll just end up simplistic and confused and believe things like materialistic solipsism, mistaking it for non-duality. You have to reconstruct your mind after deconstructing it. You can't abandon logic, reason, evidence, concepts.

"Trump is a computer" 😂

Tom Campbell actually reminds me of Chris Langan, just a more mystical version: They both have heavily intellectualized (they both emphasize logic) non-physicalist ToEs that they claim can be reconciled with modern physics. They speak very fluently and not very pedagogically/apologetically. They're well-aged men. Independent researchers, against the mainstream. Deep voice.

I believe people report past lives.

Oh yes, that's true. Materialism always finds a way to protect itself.

I really like how psychic phenomena is getting more mainstream attention lately: Tom Campbell on JRE, Essentia Foundation's YouTube channel growing quickly, Rupert Sheldrake's mainstream university debate panel from a year ago hitting 5 million views. And I just realized how much more effective Tom's computer/avatar analogy is for a zoomer audience than for example Rupert Spira's King Lear or Mary's dream analogy.

Weaker opiates and opioids like codeine (I can't speak for e.g. morphine or heroin) are basically like taking your state 10-15 seconds post-nut and extending it for a few hours. It's very calm and mellow, but it doesn't exactly blow your socks off (not that you should take a lot of it for that reason though). Let me also say I don't condone drug use, be it alcohol or "real drugs". I'm just speaking about my experiences. It "works" if you're a stoner with nothing better to do. What I took was pharmaceutical grade codeine tablets with tons of paracetamol in them (which is not exactly good either). I also tried tramadol which has probably one of the most interesting pharmacological profiles: Of course, we're talking about drug's drugs here, something you take mostly for hedonic pleasure (but also psychonautics in its own right), so let's not forget that. But it's essentially how most people use alcohol, just they also get free organ damage (which actually very few drugs do to any comparable extent, except ironically the common ones like paracetamol and ibuprofen).

A big part of being openminded is just being able to understand and reconcile somebody's point of view within your own point of view, which increases as your point of view becomes larger and more complex (cognitive complexity). "Oh you hate immigrants? That makes sense based on your background and cultural influences and psychological dispositions, etc.". "Oh you got a parking fine and you think it's somehow my fault? That makes sense because we were in a hurry and I said "oh nooo, we don't have time... ☹️" and you had to pull up the parking app where you didn't expect to have to register the car that you're not used to driving, and you also thought "it's the day before Christmas so who are out giving parking tickets anyway?", so you took the chance without telling me, and now you're drunk and I'm the one driving home and you're misrepresenting what I said earlier which was "oh nooo, we don't have time... ☹️" as "NO, we don't have time to buy the ticket! 😡" and you have a lot of pent up aggression from the conversation you had earlier and you barely even ate anything and almost only had drinks" (true story). It's not that you actually "consider" their point of view as if it's potentially "the only true point of view" (although this too can be openmindedness). It's that you "understand" their point of view, and of course that you're willing to listen (another big one). It's actually the opposite of being pushover and not saying your point of view. It's actually exactly saying your point of view. I did not say "maybe you're right, maybe I should pay the parking fine". I said (after thinking for a while) "I understand why you think that".

I guess you blacked out? Yup, unless you're consuming very tiny amounts that you know for 100% certainty have barely any effect on their own, never mix depressant drugs with other depressant drugs (which includes alcohol). I say that because I used to drink around one beer back when I got high on codeine a few times (while also smoking weed; holy shit that's an uncomfortable combo). Opiates + weed is kinda weirdly psychedelic, but you just feel so numb it's icky.

There are factors like tolerance and time. I'm sorry, I don't think you're equipped to give advice about lethal substances.

Yes, 15 beers.

"You need this to get drunk, you need this to black out", implying if you drink that amount, you will get drunk or black out but not die, and thus if you want to get drunk or black out, those are your recommended dosages. If you are a tiny 90 lb woman, you can die from drinking just a little more than five 0.33L beers. If you are a tiny 120 lb man (which is what my brother is), it's a little more than nine.

*Recommends drinking lethal doses of alcohol* "The minute details don't matter"

You were actually talking about consuming 15-18 beers to get drunk, 27-36 to black out, which with 0.33L cans is definitely in death territory for most people if excluding tolerance and time. It of course takes some effort to consume that much beer, but once you're in that territory, all it takes is a few shots or mixing the wrong drug. And of course, the risk of dying from other sources also increases a lot (hence my front flip down the stairs). I said six 0.33L beers. 6*0.33L*4.5 = 8.91 3*0.33L*4.5 = 4.455 1L*8 = 8. My estimate was 111.4% of the actual value, yours was 55.7% You definitely can. The question is just about effort. And again, even if it's harder to take it all the way with just cider or beer, it's easier to take it a significant part of the way while finishing it with other things.

Careful, he said it was 8%. 1L of 8% for someone with zero tolerance is actually quite rough. That's about six 0.33L cans of normal beer or eight 0.25L bottles.

I've probably tried both in the same drink. I made this horrible drink (Corona Sunrise) a few times at some parties and I just loved the concept but the taste was like you want to cry (meh, it wasn't actually that bad, it was just this one girl that couldn't handle it and I can't wipe the memory of her frowning while tasting it 😂). The most pukeworthy drink I've ever had would be pure Hennessey cognac on an empty stomach (but it hit). Aquavit comes second.