Carl-Richard

?

@Scholar Is randomness an innate property of reality, or is it just our inability to predict some aspect of it?

You should've told that to one of our political leaders before he got caught stealing a pair of sunglasses at the airport and had to resign from his position as party leader. I still can't believe how stupid that was https://www.politico.eu/article/sunglasses-norway-bjornar-moxnes-red-party-resign/

I literally believe you only disagree about using the word random or not. It's not a substantial disagreement. You both believe in the ineffable divine intelligence of the universe, and you both are levying it as an argument for calling it random or not.

It's been over 5 years since I last took LSD, and I can still induce HPPD symptoms if I try (its probably always present to some degree). I also have a history of migraines. I'm actually not sure if it's mainly due to past heavy weed use or LSD.

I find your disagreement to be nothing but a word game.

I've unironically started invoking the name of God in Arabic instead of whatever my culture pushed on me (I'm Western), and it feels quite the same actually (no disrespect to my muslim brothers). I should probably stop doing that, it's weird

?

I think it's good that you feel more grounded following Christianity, but don't expect people to adopt that here.

Now I removed most of the strong black colours so it's even easier on the eyes.

The virtue of balance again ? Fun fact: the model has a cultural East-West split in two places ("Being"-"Meaning" and the two "wings" on the abstract bubble). All wisdom traditions are equally represented (balanced). Also, the concrete domains look visually like a brick wall, and the abstract principles and virtues look like connecting thoughts. I did put some thought into it

The concrete domains (bio-psycho-social) should be thought of as the core domains you need to engage in to achieve things like well-regulated emotions. In a way, emotions skew towards the "lower" bio-social domains (reptile-limbic), but really all of it goes into developing your emotions (which goes back to the virtues of balance, integration, etc.). You could model it in a different way of course, but I like the bio-psycho-social split because it seems to pop up everywhere; from the Ancient Greeks, to modern psychology, to neurobiology.

My IQ just decreased 13 points by reading this

@Yimpa I also think you're trolling a bit much in this thread.

@Buck Edwards Telling someone to get psychiatric help without much elaboration and when they didn't introduce the topic themselves, can be viewed as an insult.

Not music related but some quotes I came up with:

Let's be nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism Here are some of my virtues:

What are your virtues?

Masochism is not stoicism.

I don't do any substances because I like the mental fortitude that comes with extreme stability. How is that for stoicism? Your take on stoicism sounds more like "YOLO" than anything the Ancient Greeks would've come up with https://www.dictionary.com/browse/yolo

Activating a receptor system is not inherently damaging. That is not really why smoking is damaging (nicotine is actually quite an innocuous substance on its own). Smoking is mainly damaging because you're inhaling burnt vegetable matter with hundreds of carcinogenic chemicals in it. Smoking any type of plant is most likely not good for you. As I said, it's not the good type of resilience. You can define resilience in the broadest sense as the ability to withstand some stimuli. You can also define it in a narrow sense like I did in the beginning of my previous post by tying it to increased general functioning and health. If you smoke regularly, you can handle more of the psychoactive effects of smoking, meaning you'll be more resilient in the broadest sense, but not in the narrow sense in this case.

Then quit smoking. On a serious note, the right kinds of stress, in the right doses, will make you more resilient, in the sense that it will increase your general functioning and health. Smoking is not that (and I've actually thought about this point specifically). As far as I'm aware, the only thing that smoking makes you more resilient against is the pharmacological effects of smoking itself (i.e. nicotine and other substances in tobacco), through downregulation and dependence. So you'll need to smoke more for the same effect, which isn't actually a good thing if you think about it. Maybe you'll also be more resilient towards certain harsh sensations in the throat and lungs through dulling of the sensory systems. But again, these are not "good" or useful types of resilience. The only thing that I can think of that is worse is than smoking is radioactive radiation, because I'm not sure if you can adapt to it in any way (or if you can, it will most likely be of the useless kind). Actually, you'll be more resistant to certain cholinergic chemical weapons if you're a smoker. That's one benefit of smoking.

Not caring about IQ is like not caring about money.

Nope. I thought about it while reading the last article in my scientific methodology course. I think my mind was getting tired of being in left-brain mode all the time and needed a break.