Carl-Richard

Really? 😱 I'm more interested in what OP has to say

Why touch? Seems highly inefficient. Why not just say "I want to fuck, do you?"

Sat, chit, ananda; Brahman, Shiva, Shakti; emptiness, form, energy; computation, algorithm, implementation; spacetime, structure, function. There are many ways to slice it, but all of it is God. Now, I think what you're thinking about is some almighty disembodied voice speaking to you inside your mind. Is that possible? Yes. Is it God? It's not any more God than anything else. But if it's for example a voice inspiring you to be your highest self, then you can call it God in that sense.

You are right now.

26, from Norway, balding at the speed of light

I was expecting schizotypal to be dominant, but I guess not. Compulsive, avoidant, schizoid and hypomaniac seems about right. My mom is pretty compulsive and my dad has bipolar disorder, so that makes sense

@Schizophonia 100% vouch for the antisocial 😂

The things you say are so oddly specific that it couldn't be made up, but at the same time it sounds like it could've been made up.

You basically skipped 3/5 of his criteria, but OK

A YouTube channel asked a question: "If you're told to press a button for $100,000, but the catch is that pressing it means a random person on the planet gets a one-way ticket to the afterlife, would you cash in?" As of the moment writing this topic, the answers were: While you can doubt the sincerity of these answers (especially because the channel that posted it has an audience that would be prone to make extreme statements for comedic effect), I think the numbers aren't actually too far from the norm. Now, you can also doubt the accuracy of self-report, especially because you would probably expect less people to actually go through with it than merely reporting that they would go through with it (due to seriousness of the action). Nevertheless, it think the numbers do reflect reality to some extent. Even if the numbers were highly in favor of "no", I think this topic is still worth talking about. How do we approach these people? How do we instill a sense of moral responsibility in them? Assuming they're capable of rational thought, are there any arguments that are likely to work? I posed a question to the comment section which tries to provide such an argument: Then I followed it up by a thought experiment exploring the question further were they to still answer yes: Essentially, I was trying to prove that what they interpret as self-concern actually cannot be distinguished from care for others. In a sense, their self-concern involves caring for other people, which is a natural human tendency. The question is just how far the circle of concern extends, and the thought experiment is also constructed to show that this circle of concern is arbitrary. In reality, if you care about other people (which you most likely do), there is no principled reason to care about one person over another (or at least that is the argument, which may or may not be entirely true, but at least it makes you think). The reason you would act to the contrary is merely because you act that way, not because of some principled stance (although you can feel free to prove me wrong; I actually intuit it's not fully correct, I'm just not sure how). So far, I've not gotten any signs of serious engagement, but do you think the argument sounds convincing? Are there any flaws in it? Were you yourself affected by the argument somehow? Also, feel free to share any of your own arguments if you have any.

Which is why Western society, individualism and the nuclear family is so toxic, because it places almost all people at a distance and withdraws the things that compel you to care for them (physical proximity, emotional attunement, etc.). Of course, it's not only the worldview that is to blame for that, but also the world that has become so big and interconnected. Back during pre-modern tribal societies, presumably all the people in the tribe were cared for, but at the same time, anything outside wasn't even considered "people", but it was less of a problem because the world was smaller and less interconnected (less clashing between people who don't care about the other). And you can't put the genie back in the bottle: the world will keep growing and keep getting more interconnected, unless of course there is some collective effort to perturb that growth in some way. Either way you look at it, unless you want a collective organism that is divided against itself, like millions of cancerous tumors leeching on its host until the host dies and everybody dies, you have to evolve your circle of concern to the whole organism.

Yes, as long as you want to survive at a baseline level (eating food, buying clothes, polluting, consuming electricity), you will probably contribute to the death of something or someone, and much of that is unavoidable, but it's indirect, statistical, butterfly effect type stuff. Now, pushing the button is something you can avoid, it is direct, not merely statistical, not butterfly effect type stuff. By actively making that choice, you're not aiming to rise above and improve the things that are currently unavoidable and harmful, but you're actively making it worse, which is a sin.

Alien Consciousness V2 - interview with a real alien from inside Area 51.

MeTuLL

I've always wondered why the fractal patterns or distortion effects (particularly the ones embedded in physical textures) look exactly the way they do or why they happen at all, but now I'm wondering why a substance would produce more mental imagery than other perceptual effects

About the Western canon, why an arbitrarily defined period like that should represent the development of music seems a bit reductionistic. String instruments have existed longer than keyboard instruments Besides, cross-pollination is a thing: Yngwie Malmsteen was heavily inspired by classical music, Allan Holdsworth wanted his guitar to sound like a saxophone (and Malmsteen adores Holdsworth; secondary cross-pollination 😊).

By saying "more" vs. "less", I'm implying a spectrum, not a dichotomy. I was making the point that he is exactly that brilliant combination of inspiration and culture. He made one video where he imitated some guitarists, but he is known for his improvisation.

Microenchephaly, like Beetlejuice. Small brain 😊

Yet you would also agree that people are prone to a lack of introspection, self-deception and inner conflict (and external pressures) which could obscure the ideal expression of their values. For example, if I was angry one day and hit somebody I love, that doesn't mean hitting people is something I particularly value. Same with answering questions like these.

Imagine judging brilliance by obscurity 😂 I know of even more obscure players who measure up to them and beyond. Are classical piano players who "study the Western canon" usually associated with improvisation? I think musical improvisation is just a particularly pure example of the type of inspiration I'm talking about. It can often work in tandem with structure and discipine quite brilliantly, and some of that is externally determined. But you have to be very careful to not let the external influences become too dominant, because that could kill the muse. That certainly applies more to less artistically creative pursuits (right-brained) and more intellectual pursuits (left-brained). You can notice when a guitar player has primarily "studied" themselves to learning the instrument vs. someone who has tapped into pure inspiration. Their playing becomes quite robotic, clumsy, unrefined, uninteresting (probably more the case for guitar than piano because of the differences in dynamics, e.g. bending). Still, it's always a balance, and it's actually possible to be highly inspired while also being highly cultured (Guthrie Govan has a video where he imitates like 20 guitar players almost identically). The trick is just to stay inspired.

Yngwie Malmsteen, self-taught, never practiced (has explicitly said that). Guthrie Govan, self-taught, never "practiced" (has said it doesn't "feel" like practice). When you're truly inspired, the most amazing things flow out of you effortlessly. Just trying to restore my faith in humanity.

Inspiration, which comes from within and can be negatively impacted by external pressures. When my guitar teacher got sick, we got a substitute teacher who was kind of like the teacher in Whiplash, and I quit going to lessons after that session. Another example: tell a musician to improvise under pressure. This thread is just me asking questions and seeing if people discover some inconsistency to their first answer to the question. Notice that I always qualified with "most people", "most likely", "probably". I'm not suggesting some universal morality.

🤢

But you would also help her across the road? Why? 🤔

But what if nobody would ever know you did it? Why? It's with the button, same as the original question, only that you helped her across the road once.