Carl-Richard

I had the same type of guy come up to me when I was out buying some new pants a few weeks ago. He showed me these small pamplets about spirituality and talked about needing money to finance travelling to India. When I gave him the "I'm just a poor student" routine, he said "just out of the kindness of your heart, you know, for good karma; what goes around comes around". I denied and he left, and I thought the same thing as you: "what if he cursed me and my future is fucked?". After all, the guy seemed pretty fluid. What if he was actually awakened and has some kind of spiritual abilities? What if he knew that I was into spirituality because he is just that awake and knew that I would get tripped up when he mentioned good and bad karma? Then I also thought "what kind of supposedly spiritual person goes around guilt tripping people to give them money?". I also think he lied straight out when he said he was a psychology professor as a response to me studying psychology, but I wasn't quick enough to ask him which university and what field, which could've maybe tripped him up. Other than that, he seemed passionate and genuine, but the professor thing made me thing that he could just be a super charismatic conman. I'll never know, but he surely tripped me up a bit.

Obviously because his name is world famous by this point.

@Jehovah increases Be nice.

It's inbuilt. Think of there being an ethics module inside your mind. It competes with other modules. An ethical person is one who achieves a well-integrated functioning across the different modules, who is not unbalanced or stuck on just one of the modules. That often requires some work, and anything that promotes general functioning and health will lead you there.

But here, for randomness to work the way you're describing, you need to presuppose manifestation (and atoms and time), which are patterns. Why are they patterns? Because they are a certain way, they unfold a certain way, and patterns are of course not random. But how do patterns arise? They simply do, through pure creativity. So whatever randomness you're talking about is contingent on presupposed patterns, and therefore I don't think it's even necessary to invoke such a distinction. Infinity doesn't need anything but itself to be infinite.

Maybe it's not a niche brand from her perspective. Maybe you're just unfamilar with brands that sell purses. Maybe she sees the brand everywhere and it's not such a big coincidence in her mind. Maybe it doesn't matter.

So when I was writing my bachelor thesis in psychology on the relationship between mindfulness and physical activity, I came across two cases where a single study tried to measure the same thing (mindfulness) using two different questionnaires and came to very different conclusions for each questionnaire (i.e. mindfulness correlates positively with physical activity vs. mindfulness does not correlate with physical activity). This made me have a moment of "what even is science?". Well, it turns out that my feeling in that moment seems to be echoed in a bunch of articles I've had to read in these past weeks, largely specific to the social and behavioral sciences (and therefore psychology). The articles are mostly addressing possible causes of the replication crisis (for some numbers: depending on the sub-field, some estimates say 50-75% of studies in psychology fail to replicate). Here are some excerpts from one article to show you what I'm talking about: "The generalizability crisis" - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/generalizability-crisis/AD386115BA539A759ACB3093760F4824 Reading those last two sentences took me straight back to looking at those studies a few months ago. It made me feel that the entire quantitative branch of psychology was sort of meaningless. "Just quit!". Will I? What if psychology can be saved? Is it all for nothing? What do you think? Here is another article on the topic: "Addressing the theory crisis in psychology" - https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2

Imagine if you were on that date and you walk past a Nike store and the girl says "isn't that store the same as your shoes?".

When was that (if it's not inappropriate to ask)?

I mean like going on a mission for an extended period of time trying to simplify how you write in general. It's an entire process. I'm sorry you feel that way. I've responded to multiple clarifications. At one point, you stopped clarifying, and I answered with "if you say so". Then you kept clarifying, and I responded some more.

Even worse: I'm actually Norwegian. I will say both "colour" and "color" when it fits me ?

Just curious, have you ever gone through a phase of trying to severely simplify your language? From personal experience, I find that it also helps for thinking clearly It also helps to admit when you don't know/understand things. Maybe you'll come off like a simpleton like I did earlier, but at least you'll be more transparent to yourself, less foggy.

I just don't understand. You should know as it's included in the common definition of randomness that you provided.

Btw, he is not. His observation applies to your cognitive example.

I'm not convinced, but if you say so. If you say so.

I don't see why that necessarily has to be random. Why can't it follow a pattern that you're simply unaware of?

That's what I thought earlier (I didn't post it though), that you were somehow conflating randomness with complexity. That's what Leo means by infinite intelligence (infinite complexity). Hence, I don't see why you should disagree on a substantial level. This is meaningless to me.

@Scholar Ok, so if you are all using the same definition, why does Leo and Bernardo conclude that randomness is just our failure to predict reality while you don't? Maybe I am a bit dense today

Leo, Bernardo, biologists and me are using an idiosyncratic definition of randomness? That doesn't mean anything.

@Scholar I can concede that I don't understand what you're saying, but I do understand what Leo is saying. He is saying what Bernardo Kastrup is saying here: 47:56 And I think the lack of understanding is largely on you. If you want to use the word "randomness" in some idiosyncratic way, go ahead, but you can also choose to be more strategic. It's only a language game after all. Choose the language game that communicates the concept the best in any given situation (and that may require more work on your part). It also helps to think that failing to make yourself understood is more a failure on your part than somebody else's part, whether or not that is actually true.

What does this have to do with genetic mutation?

That is my point. You're disagreeing about language, not substance. I just hear you describing infinite intelligence using the word randomness.

That was the idea ☺️

Read the side note on the bottom:

@Scholar Biologists used to think genetic mutation was random, but today they propose that mutation happens at different rates depending on the location in the genome and survivability of the organism. What do you make of this?