Carl-Richard

"Am I allowed to have fun?" Cmon.

What would you need to find out to think it's a scam?

You feel better, think better, live better, much better.

There is an interesting dynamic where you will point out something like aluminium and evidence of harm or lack of conclusive evidence and decide "maybe it's good to avoid that", but then you move over to something else where you don't do the same evaluation of evidence. I see this with people going from plastic spatulas to wooden ones, or fluoride toothpaste to hydroxyapatite toothpaste, or from standard deodorants to whatever natural version that also has dozens of different chemicals you can't spell the name of. Where is the research on the safety of wooden microparticles? Where is the research on the safety of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles? Where is the research on every single chemical in the natural deodorants you just bought (and have you read all of it or any of it)? While being health conscious and discerning about what you expose yourself to is a good thing, the right course of action given a consistent application of standards is not always that obvious (except full elimination, while tanking the costs of that).

Don't worry, I can tell

I just thought about why some people tend to like natural drums better than programmed drums (which I tend to resonate with, even though my most listened song on Spotify for the last two years uses programmed drums ). When you listen to natural drums, you can tune in to how the drummer feels while playing it. You tap into the natural flow that the human body is capable of producing, with all of its theoretically speaking "flaws and inaccuracies". As a human, you are ironically more able to accurately resonate with those flaws and inaccuracies than the near perfect accuracy of the programmed drums. And even more importantly, you tap into the state of the drummer which is one of joy and creative expression. On the other hand, with programmed drums, there is nothing like that you can tap into. There is no true depth behind the sounds that you hear. It's just a flat, empty void. This is the same feeling I get when I ask ChatGPT about something difficult. You get this harrowing sense that there is nothing behind the sentences. There is no mind there that understands what is being said. There is nothing to tune into, nothing to resonate with. I hope they fix it with the next version 😛. Similarly, I think listening to another person speak and the degree to which you understand them depends a whooole lot on how well they themselves understand what they're saying. It simply doesn't cut it to read out some words in clearly enunciated language. If the person doesn't have a proper understanding, that is what you will tune into. The understanding itself reveals itself by virtue of what it is — holistically. You cannot reduce something like understanding down to pure syntax and word usage. Any such representations of the real understanding must come downstream from the real understanding to accurately evoke it. The way ChatGPT works is it takes such representations, that indeed generally come downstream from the real understanding, and throw a huge sea of them into a meatgrinder, and each chunk of meat is assembled and recombined together based on its training, nothing of which has anything to do with understanding. Shucks.

We'll see. Btw, you don't have to declare when ChatGPT is not used 😂. It's only if you use it 😉.

The general rule is that whatever somebody else is feeling, if you tune into it and either simply represent it in your mind or emulate it, you will feel it too. We have been given (as a blessing by God) the ability to represent reality within our minds to an astounding level of detail and accuracy, and this becomes very clear when comparing the products of humans in the flesh vs human mannequins in the computer.

(Made a post from here into a topic)

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

Cool initiative. I have some thoughts if you don't mind: Sitting in a position that is highly uncomfortable and that might even impede your meditation, trains willpower but not necessarily awareness (at least not optimally). Awareness is trained the best when you create the perfect balance between relaxed and alert, comfortable and uncomfortable. And awareness is arguably a more refined and fundamental way of addressing the issue of an unruly mind. You can train your willpower by hitting yourself with a hammer and trying not to flinch, but of course that's a bit crude and might actually hurt you in other ways. Besides, if you sit long enough in a meditation where you allow yourself to be comfortable and relaxed, you will eventually start to feel aches and pains in your legs anyway. That then turns into a training of willpower to keep sitting, but you're also in an elevated state of awareness. That said, do whatever you feel is best for you Maybe do the 30 days and then do another 30 days where you allow some relaxation and comfort and see how they compare.

You may think of genius as Albert Einstein or Nicola Tesla, but I also think, after some thinking, of for example Aurora Aksnes and the Buddha.

I just asked ChatGPT-1o what it thinks and I'm disgusted by the absolute sophistry it attempts to spew. Get us better AIs already omg.

Here is an exercise: take any extremely exceptionally "good" behavior and see if it does not fit the label of genius. Take any extremely exceptionally "bad" behavior and see if it does not fit the label of madman/madness. Here are a few: defecating on the street in broad daylight, winning a Nobel Prize, killing all of your family members, landing a rocket on Mars, living on only Mars bars for 10 years, living in a state free of suffering, living in a state of constant suffering.

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" 😂