Carl-Richard

It's a rather uncontroversial finding in psychology. Remember that some terms in psychology don't translate perfectly to every person's intuition of the term. In psychology, the term "emotion" has a very technical definition (with various nuances depending on the model), and it's possible to define happiness as something that goes beyond emotions. For example, consciousness is not the same as positive emotion (although they're strongly correlated depending on your definition). Emotions can change while consciousness remains the same. Is the unhealthy withdrawal from life due to a negative mood? I would make the distinction between traits vs. states. Neuroticism (trait) is not exactly equal to negative emotion (state). States change while traits are more or less consistent across situations. Big 5 personality traits are also considered independent (they don't correlate with eachother). For example, you can be highly extroverted and highly neurotic at the same time, and these different combinations will interact in predictable ways. Neuroticism measures the frequency and amplitude of emotions; how easily your emotional state changes and how strong they are (extreme highs and extreme lows). It's not necessarily linked to negative emotions, but it tends to be associated with that aspect. It has to do with how you tackle arousal and stressors, be it positive or negative. For example, the combination of high E and N and low Conscientiousness makes you more prone to risky sexual behavior and reckless drinking. Therefore, instead of saying that neuroticism can masquerade as introversion (two independent traits), I think it's more accurate to say that negative emotion (state) can express itself as social withdrawal (behavioral response), and that various personality traits can produce these different states and behavioral responses in different situations. A neurotic extrovert could feel very sad in the same situation that a neurotic introvert would feel huge relief.

Happiness is a fuzzy term. Extroverts tend to experience more positive emotion.

While some of what you're saying is certainly true to some extent, one thing you will notice is that extroverts are extremely energetic and present. Unlike an introvert, they don't have to expend much energy in order to "fit in". Fitting in is their natural state, and they feel a lot of positive emotion doing it. In a sense, it's not that they're uncapable of deep thinking or spirituality, but it's rather they don't have the same need for it. Introverts often misinterpret extroverted enthusiasm for inauthenticity and forced conformity, and while there might be a kernel of truth to that, for the extrovert, it's nevertheless fueled by an authentic and embodied expression. If you take this into account, imagine how freaking happy this guy is ?:

All separate "things" share one fundamental identity, namely the fact of existence. Existence is a single, unified and infinite field. If you look past non-fundamental appearances, you'll realize that all things are fundamentally one thing – "not-two", non-dual.

There is one fundamental or primary identity. Any separation or duality is secondary or non-fundamental.

What?! Have you learned nothing? ?

7:09-7:26 is probably the greatest drum fill of all time according to Rick Beato (played by Vinnie Colaiuta):

It's mentioned so often that people forget its power.

Peak reductionism.

If science has no errors, how does it grow? Science makes models that describe the universe in extremely limited ways. A description is not identical to the thing it describes. Talking about surfing is not the same as actually surfing.

So what you're saying is that you're not making any sense. Ok

There is no difference, yet you just called a person a materialist

To me, it seems like you're conflating the concept of material (substance) with the concept of form (appearance). To me, what you're saying is that a person appears to be displaying materialistic tendencies, but that doesn't mean you necessarily believe that that person is made out of matter or is grounded in a substance that exists independent of appearances. The materialists assumption is an additional step.

For the materialist, there is a difference, but it is merely postulated to be that way. There is no good argument for it.

Let's get something straight: 1. logic and rationality are not synonymous with materialism. There exists many theories in various fields that are either fully compatible or completely neutral to non-materialist metaphysics (I pointed to psychology as one example). 2. Analytical philosophy is also done through logic and rationality, and it's not considered a science. What you're missing is empiricism, or more specifically the hypothetico-deductive method: the empirical testing of hypotheses and progressive refinement of theories. However, analytical philosophy can be used to create standards of how theories should be interpreted or treated (e.g. "is it scientific enough and/or should it be discarded?"), for example using so-called "demarcation criteria" (e.g. falsificationism), but "the scientific method" in its purest form basically boils down to empiricism and theory-building.

Duality and form isn't inherently materialistic. You can have an immaterial dream of forms.

I'm misunderstanding you. Is psychology a science or not?

He chooses consensus reality as a baseline and reserves the term "illusion" for the so-called edge case phenomenas that break with that reality. Why not instead place illusion as the baseline reality and treat consensus reality as an edge case?

How is that so? Is psychology unscientific? Does it exclude the study of the mind? Is the mind material in nature? Are all psychological models materialistic? The answer is no btw.

Only in America ?

What the fuck?! What definition of "crash"?

Reminds me of a friend of my dad. "Fluoride is making people absolutely brain dead and incapable of entertaining a single thought" *inhales tobacco smoke and takes a sip of beer*

This picture is the very antithesis to your statement

Imagine that taking psychedelics is like lifting weights. Once you have built up a lot of muscles, you can lift with ease something that other people struggle to lift. Their state might drastically change in their attempts to lift it: they might turn red, start to sweat, breathe rapidly and feel aches and pains, meamwhile you remain basically at baseline physiology while lifting the same weight. You don't actually know the extent of which that is true. The psychedelic experience is of course not the same as an enlightenment experience for an unenlightened person, but if we assume that the brain is responsible for producing different behavior, it's obvious that the enlightened brain works very differently than the normal brain, so why can't their reaction to psychedelics be different as well?