Carl-Richard

The only thing that beats aristocratic tutoring for becoming a hyper-genius is getting coached by a hyper-intelligent alien. And considering that it's increasingly likely that aliens (and also psychic phenomena) are real, the smartest thing you could probably ever do would be to try to contact them telepathically 👽👻

?

Your videos have a really chill vibe. You seem like a wonderful human being

Shame on you! Jk

Shame is an emotion that arises as a result of a conscious recognition of conflict between your behavior and a standard of behavior (e.g. internal moral ideals or external social expectations).

You might want to run down the usual list of essentials (diet, exercise, sleep, socializing) and see if you're missing something. I wasn't being particularly unhealthy before, but a few slight tweaks got me to a different level. If nothing works there, it might be more mental: try daily meditation, walks, technology hiatuses, writing out whatever is on your mind and finding concrete starting solutions for those things (and be clear on when you're going to start), and generally cultivate a vigorous to-do-list habit (it helps to off-load unnecessary mental load, frees up space for more important things and creativity).

What you said overlaps nicely with the finding that enlightenment correlates with a sustained reduction in activity of the Default Mode Network and conversely a sustained increase in activity of the task-positive network. Put simply, the enlightened individual is always "tasking", and thus they're always doing what needs to be done. No aimless rumination about the past, no anxious worries about the future, only what is relevant to the task at hand.

I attended this one live just earlier today. Really interesting debate I was mostly interested in the debate because of Rupert Sheldrake, but Tanya Luhrmann surprised me with her rich study of so-called extraordinary (but actually ordinary) experiences that seem to question the materialist paradigm. Anil Seth's view that the brain is not an information processing system analogous to a computer but rather indeed a complex biological system (which is one good reason to think that silicon AI is not privately conscious), resonates with some of my own intuitions (and of course of Bernardo Kastrup, my idol basically), which is also surprisingly not a mainstream view. In that sense, most of the panelists are heretics in their own way (which the moderator cheekily stated). All in all, a really enjoyable discussion. One way the discussion could've been improved is if there was a philosopher on the panel (maybe Kastrup himself) who could've nailed down some of the finer distinctions that they touched on, for example the distinction between "mind" and "consciousness", especially when it comes to differentiating between personal and transpersonal aspects of these things. Nevertheless, there were still references to concepts like panpsychism (but not idealism, sadly), panentheism (close enough), the mystical experience (the experience of Being, God, Oneness, etc.), and the value that these things can bring to our lives, both despite and in line with their objective truth value. The fact that these discussions are now taking place in mainstream spaces like this (hosted by a mainstream university) is a good sign that we're indeed moving culturally and scientifically in the direction of sincerely questioning materialism. Even if the topics themselves seem too milquetoast for this forum which is overly saturated with this kind of stuff, at least this could allow you to appreciate what is going around outside of the echo chamber.

True. That's called being deaf, blind, mute and quadriplegic.

Yup, and when you bring up the evidence (Sheldrake mentioned there are around 30 independent replications of a single ESP phenomena), they will just make vague assertions like "the evidence is not conclusive". Merely doing a bunch of research is not enough if there is a metaphysical bias against it. It will always be labeled as heresy; no mainstream journals will take it up, and there will be no large-scale coordinated efforts or funding. That is why we need people like Bernardo Kastrup who can do the work on the metaphysical level (in a way that is convincing for the Western mind).

You're not interracting with Leo daily face-to-face, the teachings given in text or video format are mostly not procedural or embodied in nature unlike physical sports, although you can certainly gain a lot by having a spiritual guru that gives you those things. Nevertheless, when the teachings are conceptual and processed alone, your focus should not be loyalty, but depth of understanding, which takes time, effort and openmindedness (which can look like loyality).

But you don't literally dissolve your human body or mind. The limitations are still there, but you've opened yourself to a larger context (a limitless one). That is why I think "being awake within the dream" is a brilliant pointer. Your dream doesn't end just because you started lucid dreaming. You still have your dream body and dream mind.

I would put it as a "change" that both subsumes and transcends these things. For example, enlightenment is not merely a change in thought or perception. It's a change ("change") in consciousness.

Spiritual masturbator*

@Javfly33 People are so conditioned to think that "the point" has to be something extrinsic to the thing itself (extrinsic value, "purpose") that they forget that the point can be intrinsic to the thing itself (intrinsic value). In fact, intrinsic value is the only point that truly exists, because some thing's extrinsic value always depends on some other thing's intrinsic value, or else there are no things, only an infinite regression of promised things. In other words, if you can't enjoy something for what it is and always keep looking for an extrinsic value (always placing the value one step outside of what currently exists), then you're not just ontologically confused, but you're setting yourself up for endless suffering.

Not for the ego. If you think you desire awakening, it's not awakening, but an idea in your mind, often based on a desire for something else entirely (e.g. safety, belonging, self-esteem). The experience itself is way beyond what you can ever imagine, let alone desire, yet you've always known it.

Sounds like tulpamancy. Tanya Luhrmann talked about it in the debate I attended live:

"Deterioration issues"? I don't personally think of random lights overlayed everyday objects as a "perceptual upgrade".

I don't know, and that's a weird and random thing to ask. Are you @AtheisticNonduality?

I bought a light therapy lamp back when I thought I was seasonally affected some years ago. It certainly gave me more energy. One of the first times I tried it, I had so much energy, I came to a seminar at my university and finished the assignments in half the time and left early Be careful to not stare directly at it, even if you feel fine while doing it (I tried it sometimes, and it made everything look a bit grey for the rest of the day, and my eyes kinda hurt). Nowadays, I try to let as much natural light into my room as possible when I wake up, independent of the seasons. Even if I wake up too early for any light, I also do short 10-minute walks up to 3 times a day, and the times I get to do morning walks, I'm basically guaranteed some light.

I would say 95% back to normal. A big turning point happened on December 1st, the night before I went to see this debate live (luckily for me), probably because I was meditating deeply while falling asleep. That was also the time I had started sprint training again, which generally has a very positive effect on my cognition. I had thought about trying cold showers, but after that night, I didn't see much need anymore. Interesting. No, I haven't tried it. Damn, I can't imagine having no improvement in brain fog for a full year. That must really suck.

*proceeds to not respond to any other posts* 😂

@An young being @Danioover9000 The OP abandoned the thread, a low-quality thread to begin with, a miracle it wasn't closed. It's on its own two feet now. I feel that this particular discussion is soon over though.

I agree: not all incest is wrong. I don't know how I can make myself any more clear. It can be wrong for other reasons than potential risks too, sure. But I think one of the potential risks (the bullet exiting the barrel) is a big factor. If you want to define actual risk that way, then I can define the risk associated with the power differential that way (as an actual risk). The power differential is "actually there". I don't think "potential vs. actual" is a useful distinction to get stuck on. Both involve risks, and both are therefore relevant to morality. In fact, I mentioned "potential" in a very casual way which didn't affect the argument much. In most cases, that is probably true. Still, power differentials are risky regardless of the particular situation. If you define adult as age 18 and above, especially in a parent-child (or parent-"adult") relationship, there are still potential issues you can point to (financial dependence, role-blending, etc.). I agree. But again, you can still talk about many concrete cases of incest where morality is an issue. Again, I'm not saying all incest is therefore immoral. What does "inherent" mean in this case? I was including professors in that. You could also extend it to other professional relationships (e.g. employer-employee). It has to do with role-blending. But of course this is a more contentious area, but there are arguments to be made there. So you do have a conception of role-blending. I would just apply it to more situations (e.g. parent-child relationships). You're getting somewhere. Again, I'm not. I don't see the point you're trying to make. Again, my main approach to dealing with immoral people is to help them, not shame them. Anyways, I don't see it necessary to mix into the discussion much how we should deal with immoral people, and that we can just focus on whether incest is wrong or not (which you seemed to want to do earlier). I think letting most of your morality hang on a murky concept like "consent" (are we talking verbal or non-verbal consent?), and also morally greenlighting everything that goes on in a relationship past the affirmation of consent, ignores a lot of the complex and covert nature of relationships and how rife these dynamics are for abuse (even with so-called affirmation of consent). 80% is a lot. I would consider something like a cultural taboo to be appropriate in that case, i.e. strong disincentivization, not necessarily punished by law. Morality does not necessarily imply legality. Again, I don't see it necessary to mix into the discussion much how we should deal with immoral people. See "humans versus other animals" in Table 2. The p-value is 0.14, meaning it's not statistically significant (the alpha level is usually between 0.01-0.05).

When you can tie the quantum foam at beginning of the universe to what makes a meaningful life in under half an hour, your name can only be Daniel Schmachtenberger.