Carl-Richard

Maybe, but if you're struggling to lose weight, maybe cut the potatoes. As an example, potatoes have almost 3x more carbs than broccoli. What about eating those carbs in broccoli and see how satiated you'll be in comparison?

In theory, yes. However, diet is mostly about finding what's practical. Everybody knows the theory behind weight loss (calories out > calories in). The problem is how to do it in practice. Some foods are easier to gain weight than others. Try eating nothing but carrots and you'll get my point. One facet of health is about getting just the right amount of each nutrient. Even though the carbohydrates in potatoes aren't exactly poisonous to your body, it's very easy to get too much, and that is unhealthy. So in that sense ("in theory"), it's not really so much about what you eat as how much you eat. But then again, eating the right types of food helps with that "in practice".

It makes you gain weight if you eat too much

In an absolutely infinite universe, all distinctions collapse. Then, the only "a priori truth" (true in all cases) that could exist is "there is existence, reality, oneness": any differentiation within this "whole" is either local (i.e not true for the whole) or merely assumed (postulated without evidence) and thus not "a priori" . If the universe is absolutely infinite, there is no such thing as pseudoscience. Magic is real, elves exist, gravity is reversed.

Experience: making runescape private server videos 10 years ago using windows movie maker

The problem with solipsism isn't that it's narcissistic; it's that it's not narcissistic enough. If the solipsist dared to collapse all distinctions and claim it all as himself, then he would go full circle and realize that there is no longer a self to be narcissistic about ??

Confusing non-duality (the Self is the only thing that exists) with classical solipsism (the small self is the only thing that exists) is literally just the relative/absolute fallacy. Non-duality says the Self is the only thing that exists — the small self doesn't exist. There are no people, including yourself. End of story.

The inverse of sociocultural conformity (willingness), compatibility (natural inclination) and functionality (ability). In other words, are you unwilling, not inclined, or unable to conform? Then, from the perspective of the sociocultural environment, you are considered insane.

There is also variability of your own system that can cause averse reactions. Keyword: "long break".

Well ain't that stupid?

If you want a really good example of Se, look up TrainwrecksTv. He is a really great storyteller because of how he fills it to the brim with descriptions of external details. It almost feels like you were there.

I don't know where to post this, but it's about "kriyas" (sponatenous movements caused by kundalini energy). This singer is what you could consider a one in a million natural talent, but what I'm interested about is her hand movements. It reminds me very much of kriyas in the sense that they're fast-paced, smooth and erratic all at the same time. Might she have an awakened kundalini? I tend to get a really a substantial "contact high" so to speak from listening to her. Maybe she was born with it as well (could explain her unique talent and personality). I know of one other person who claims he was born with an awakened kundalini (Jan Esmann), and he is a professional hyperrealist painter, extremely talented.

Weed causes brain damage Q.E.D

Fuck it, I made my own chart with those numbers: Close enough

None of the images are linked to the original source, but you can search through Google Scholar and find similar studies with similar numbers. This one seems the most promising: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.4219/jsge-2004-449?casa_token=FP3maiTlUFgAAAAA:0KhGSw94xqC7yCiHXfB8VM2wOMBw2CZ3ldRVrv39q4rlebQw7LgupoOFquFPmMq9yj_75uumTgc The ratios in this table seem to roughly fit the chart after you divide them by a factor of 2. For example, INTP = (12.05/3.54)/2 = 1.70. The person who made the chart may have done that for aesthetic reasons. The numbers might have also been adjusted slightly if the chart comes from a later study (or a completely different one), which might explain why INTP ratio is 1.76 and not 1.70 in the chart. I can't find a table for that though.

Thanks — now I want a chart for that too

@integral I don't get the frustration. It's like you've been assigned to count fruits in a basket but you insist on calling it apples. That is besides the point my man

The study uses academic giftedness (they sampled the academic perfomance of students). It could be used as a rough measurement for intellectual giftedness.

@k0ver Dw, I could infer your experience from the first post. I get your point and I can see a similar progression in my own life. I had my Harris-Hitchens-Dawkins phase, McKenna-Sheldrake phase, Watts-Spira-Sadhguru phase, done psychedelics, fasting, diets, nofap, daily meditation, sober samadhi experiences etc. I can see how debates can help you along the way and how conversation adds a certain richness of language or a new dimension of information flow, but at the end of the day, when one reaches the "higher levels" (while knowing how obviously pompous that sounds), you either know what resonates or you don't. You intuitively know what you want to apply to your own life. You can watch 1000 hours of videos on the same topic, have tons of conversations and learn to capture all the different nuances in words, and that may serve you well, but you can do all that and still not manifest it in your life. There, the work is more often simple than not. A debate isn't necessarily going to help you with that. In that case, Leo's emphasis on diversity of content over plurality of formats can be understood as deliberate.

I ran into this graph again and found a great way to generalize the results in terms of cognitive functions: "intuitive aux>dom, introverted dom>aux and thinking functions are predictors of giftedness." You can essentially deduce the relative positions of each category (rationals, intuitives etc.) and most of the types from that statement alone

Exactly People who consume it frequently enough to worry about pesticides are virtually in all cases smoking it, atleast from time to time.

I find "pseudoscience" an endearing term at this point. Besides, you have "real" philosophers like Paul Feyerabend who've deconstructed the entire demarcation problem (effectively saying there is no such thing as science vs. pseudoscience).

@k0ver Look, I wouldn't mind seeing Leo in a conversation or debate. I would actually want to see that. But realize what Leo's job is. It's not about convincing nay-sayers. It's about helping out those who are already committed to this work. Him "ironing it out" is what the 3hr three-part videos are about. Sure, if he finds someone on the same wavelength, who aren't butthurt and only wants to settle some personal matters, maybe beautiful things can come out of it, but practically speaking, who would that be?

Then again, inhaling any form of burnt vegetable material will inevitably cause health problems. And before you tell me "oh but edibles aren't bad for your lungs", please show me a stoner who only uses edibles. You can't ?