Carl-Richard

I do think materialism has quite a few negative side effects, but I see this more having to do with the confusion around consciousness rather than life. What do we gain by redefining life that we don't gain by redefining consciousness?

Then why is your petition about plants and not humans?

How can you seriously suggest that? 😵‍💫

It certainly doesn't hurt to understand the character from a Tier 2 perspective, but unless the director wants to explicitly communicate that understanding, it's not necessary.

I don't see how that is relevant. The act of naming things or drawing distinctions is not scientific. It can be inspired by scientific observations, but the decision to assign a name to something is not scientific. Likewise, naming something life vs. non-life is not scientific. I wasn't talking about causality. I used the word "associated", which is compatible with "correlation". And I don't think you're mad: I actually agree with you. But again, I don't see how that is relevant. Well, like I said above, "life" is also a construct of language. I don't see how that is relevant. If life is beyond language and all forms in the universe, then why are you drawing firm linguistic distinctions between which forms in the universe count as life and which don't (some animals = life; plants ≠ life)? Sure, but how is that relevant to the discussion about naming plants as non-life? I don't consider you crazy, but I don't think you are particularly good at saying things that are relevant to the discussion, but that is also just my limited experience talking to you.

Green 90s Technical Death Metal 🤭

In that case, you'll notice that your experience doesn't merely consist of single sense perceptions arising independently but rather a cohesive experience of being an organism; of seeking certain things and avoiding others, of maintaining your bodily boundary; of generally pursuing survival. This sense of being an organism probably goes way deeper than merely having a few seemingly complex sense organs (eyes with a lens, nose with nostrils, ears, etc.). You could probably stretch it as far down as unicellular organisms. Complex sense organs might produce "richer" experiences, but simpler ones might still produce experiences nonetheless. Also, some of our sense organs are arguably not that complex. For example, the sense of taste is merely chemicals binding to receptors. It's simple and "mechanical" like photoreceptors in plants (or mechanoreceptors in the skin and musclefibres). They are still associated with specific experiences. "But they're linked to a complex nervous system". Maybe, but that complex nervous system is also linked to a complex body. Which one is more complex? Obviousy the body is already extremely complex, with or without a nervous system (even a single cell is). While it's true that some of our (gross) experiences seem to correlate strongly with our nervous system, the nervous system obviously interacts with and is integrated with various other systems in the body (hormonal systems, the digestive system, various organ systems). When these systems change, our experience changes accordingly. Thus, in a very real sense, the systems themselves are our senses (or their own form of sense organs), as reflected in our experience. For example, you can feel the difference in your experience after eating an apple vs. eating a steak, as subtle as it might be. So which is more likely to come first: experiences associated with changes in bodily systems, or experiences associated with changes in very specific bodily systems? So in summary, I think to single out specific components like specific configurations of sense organs or specific bodily systems like neuronal systems misses the bigger picture of the unitary organism working with processes like homeostasis and metabolism to produce an unitary experience of being an organism.

How similar must the sense organs be? For example, plants have photoreceptors. What about unicellular lifeforms? After all, plants evolved from them.

Life is a very vague word. I asked a sincere question: why is your petition not about fungi?

What about fungi? Metabolism is a good definition of life.

Usually with prog rock songs, even if they're sonically varied, you can feel a sense a cohesion throughout the song. This song is just straight up 10 genres/styles in the same song. It's so interesting, I've never heard it being taken to this extreme before. It like turns into its own thing. And somehow it's still quintessentially Haken. It goes from some kind of classical/proggy intro, to Gentle Giant, to Avenged Sevenfold, to some industrial sound, to Queen?! And on and on... Just listen :

My guy, that was 2 months ago. Is that also the Mandela effect?

You took LSD while going to sleep again?

Wtf

That's the norm. But if you ask an academic like the guy in the video, it's generally a much wider category.

It's literally true though 😂

True, but it also increases IQ by decreasing task-irrelevant thoughts (thoughts that interrupt your attention on a task), which is arguably much more specifically related to IQ than stress levels.

Everything impacts your mind and by extension your IQ. But if there is one big one, it's chronic stress.

You can do that without giving up describing things.

Sadhana is like a trampoline. Letting go of attachments is like a ladder. Awakening is like glimpsing the roof. Enlightenment is like sitting on the roof. You can't sit on the roof without a ladder, but a trampoline can help you see what is up there. You can also use it to jump a few steps up on the ladder. It can also strengthen your legs to help you climb the ladder. Sometimes it helps to use the trampoline more. Sometimes it helps to use the ladder more. There is not only one way, and what works best at what time depends on the person. Trying out one over the other for some time might be smart, but unless you are on the very last step, you will eventually go back to the other thing in some way.

"Dishonest" should be reserved for people like Andrew Tate.

What is "practical spirituality"?

You're probably still New Age though People conflate New Age with a very particular aesthetic (hippies, "peace and love", crystal healing, Burning Man). That's not really it. The aesthetic sometimes co-occurs with New Age, but New Age is much more than that.

Exactly. Even if you're all aboard the formless train, when you profess that to other people and practice it in your own life, that looks like something (it has a form), because you're indeed a formed human being. And whether you prefer to practice it alone in your closet with a YouTube video running in the background or in a monastery with deeply trained and knowledgeable masters, that's form too. You can indeed reach the formless despite the presence of multiple egoic forms in the same room, or despite deriving practices and principles strictly from one kind of doctrine like a good religious boy. In fact, sometimes that is even the better alternative (in my opinion). And in fact, it's really unavoidable: the only question is if you indeed prefer your own eclectic mix or the original package (or the mix that you got passed down from some other eclectic talking head on YouTube, like the good religious boy you are).