Carl-Richard

I think my analogy in the original post is a bit more elegant: philosophy would be like a particular skill (e.g. playing tennis or golf), while brain training (for working memory or IQ) would be the muscles and the skeleton. Or another analogy I've used before is the car: working memory is the speed of the car while philosophy would be some of the roads you have discovered, your orienting skills, your map knowledge. Science is a particular set of roads, maybe polluted highways, while philosophy (not the calcified historical ones, but the one you do as a person) could be the mountainous and sketchy roads you see in my country, surrounded by nature and fresh air.

Yes, both written and spoken. Not to brag (yes brag), but my first radio appearance and first wedding speech recently were very successful (according to other people; I'm naturally more critical, probably by virtue of being in the 1st person seat, but I think I did well enough). And I've never been big on that.

Interesting that you've looked more into it. I stopped Quad N-Back because I felt I was giving myself ADHD. Maybe I tried too high N-Back levels, but I would end up impulsively switching my focus between just a few streams to "even out" my scores, instead of trying to keep track of all the streams consistently every trial. Maybe this could benefit somebody who is less naturally inclined towards ADHD, but for me, it's like pouring gasoline on a hornets nest.

Dual-N-Back. I've been going for two years now. I noticed effects instantly the first time I tried it. I think there is a kind of "state" effect you get from it (in addition to the training effect) that is more instant than the training effect, similar to how you get a certain body and mind effect from working out even though your muscles aren't incredibly big yet.

Make a banana baguette, a veiny one.

Probably coolest Meshuggah song.

I just took a small break from brain training and came back again. Anybody who says the effects don't translate to other things are absolutely fooling themselves. I read literally 3-5x faster. And I believe the effects stack multiplicatively when you enter states of arousal or excitement or you combine it with the right forms of physical traning and minimizing fatigue and optimizing nutrition, etc.

And without mothers, no janitors. No millionaires, no billionaires, no Steve Jobses, no Jeff Bezoses, no Elon Musks. Women make the market, the men just grow it.

You described it as a contradiction. That was what I was contesting. Presenting a strangeloop as a contradiction is a choice (be it deliberate or indeliberate). It's not necessary. No. Calling something that is not absolute absolute does not happen as a result of logic or reason. "Multiple absolutes", "multiple Gods", is simply a failure of communication. As is what you said right now. We're already conceding that by talking. I know you probably didn't intend it, but this is identical to a certain naughty word: narcissist gaslighting. Your statements, Leo's statements, are perfectly logical, perfectly precise, all up until the equivocation part. And you want to come off that way. You want to come off as logical, clear and precise. That's why you make a video. That's why you're speaking to me using logic right now. But then, when I point out the contradiction, the error in logic, the equivocation, you suddenly revert to "every statement about God is imprecise". As if every statement you make is imprecise. As if every mistake I point out is actually the mistake. Suddenly it's all completely flipped. It's the same with "that's just a mental projection you're making". Yeah, like every statement you're making.

It gets paid less because it's less marketable. When your profession deals with "things", that's more fungible, more quantitative, more scalable. When it deals with people, it's less fungible. Money is fungible. More things = more money. Motherhood is not very marketable, but it's qualitatively very valueable.

Any fruit for me is deliciously sweet. So I technically start my mornings with dessert.

WHEN YOU REALIZE SOLIPSISM

Balding people who lift 🫡

Were you actually wronged, or did you make a mistake and you didn't own up to it? How "justified" was your anger? I approach emotions like What is the purpose of the emotion? Emotions have a direction, they point you towards something. What do you achieve by expressing the emotion, and is it best achieved by expressing it? If anger arises, does expressing the anger best solve the problem? And while I say that, you should be morally sensitive, not a pragmatic sociopath, but also sensitive with respect to yourself, not just being a doormat. What you'll find if you express emotions in line with their purpose but also in line with your morality, they will arise shortly and then subside. They did what they came to do and you tried to do what is most right.

I've maybe contemplated something once. The rest of the time my mind just spews connections. The times I've "contemplated", it was actually just entertaining cognitive dissonance and being unwilling to let go and realizing I was trying to force something that wasn't a well-formed thought. If something is a well-formed thought, you can't help but to express it. If you can't seem to express a well-formed thought, let it go, it will come back better.

The gym is a spiritual practice 💪 A jail is a monastery 🧘

It can happen without the use of symbols. The experience itself is what is communicated, is what information is transferred. Information can be transferred, communicated, and the information can be an experience. For example, an emotional state from a person is transferred as an experience to another person. There are no symbols involved there, simply a transferring of that emotional state. The emotional state can be a symbol, for example anger being "stay away", but when the anger is transferred and felt, what is felt is the thing itself (granted perceptual limitations), not necessarily a symbol for something else. When a bird chirps and another bird understands and performs the action that the chirp referred to, is that not a case of symbol use? The chirp is a symbol used for suggesting a performed action. If not symbol use, what is language, and how does it precede the transferring of information (communication)?

It's not. It's when you jump levels and you get back to where you started. It does not necessitate equivocation or a logical error. That's a choice you're making. You can always choose to make the steps in the strange-loop explicit so an equivocation doesn't happen. No. The absolute includes everything, including the relative. The relative is a sub-set of the absolute. The absolute is the superset. God is the superset. See how you can choose to avoid equivocation? It's a purely linguistic choice, but it's a choice that increases clarity, that doesn't equivocate. And I'm saying that multiple absolutes defeats the concept. You can choose to be logically consistent in your words, even though reality fundamentally isn't. If you stop holding your words to logical consistency, then anything flies, and you're down the rabbit hole of thought disorder and things that people want to lock inside hospital walls.

It's one thing to concede that God cannot be ultimately communicated. It's another to communicate it badly. You've chosen the way of logic and concepts, but you shoot yourself in the foot. Its like if you want to communicate truth through vibes and energy transmission, but you use a plastic figurine rather than yourself. I can appreciate a strange-loop when it's actually a strange-loop and not an euphemism for equivocating or being incoherent. When you say "if God is absolute, but it breaks itself into 'multiple absolutes', how can God be absolute?", you're just looping, not strange-looping. "God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". That's a strange-loop. "Multiple absolutes". That's a contradiction. I literally said that. I just said what I feel based on the current information.

When people criticize you for using clear, unequivocal and conceptually detailed statements when explaining non-duality or God, the extreme version of that is using unclear and equivocal statements on purpose. That would be my pick for what qualifies as "fake spirituality". It fundamentally boils down to conflating the intellect that points with the truth that is being pointed to. Being a shitty pointer is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Being a shitty user of language is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Unless your every utterance is a mere Zen stick for shaking up somebody's preconceived notions, using unclear and equivocal language is the opposite of being intelligent, the opposite of being virtuous. It suggests some underlying pathology or attachment, or something that needs to be protected, or simply ignorance. Which again is not new. You're probably waiting for the lizard video as well? I want you to radically evaluate the charity you extend to people's claims, the charity you extend to people claiming they're radically special, to people claiming absurd things that they have not backed up. This is what Leo wants for you.

"Strange-loop" is an euphemism for "superfluous". Can God be absolute and multiply itself? Yes. Can God create multiple things that don't know each other? Yes. So what is new here? The trouble lies in treating the things that are multiplied as their own absolutes, which is contradictory (as "absolutes" is relative). What you're actually pointing towards is the concept of the unknown, of postulating something outside what is known. If you're God and you know yourself as the absolute (empirically, through direct experience), you can theoretically postulate something (hypothetically) outside of that. But if you approach it rationally, for something to exist outside of God is antithetical to the concept (it's also ironically a kind of human neuroticism that gives birth to the entire exercise; a thought, hypothesizing, putting up a boundary, a limitation, often about the unknown and its associated fears). You might not know for sure whether the absolute you experience is indeed truly absolute, but rationally, the absolute has to be absolute. Rationally, God has to be the one true God. So the Infinity of Gods thinking essentially just entertains the unknown as a hypothetical while equivocating around the concept of God. If you want to cut the fuzziness and just get the bare points: yes, you can entertain the unknown as a hypothetical, but empirically and rationally, God is still the one true God. I think it essentially is. Aliens are not private property. But hey, I'm open to be absolutely blown away. The common thread through all high-dose, breakthrough, alien encounter trips, is "I communicated with and downloaded an immense intelligence that I have no way to communicate or even remember fully, but I know it was awesome". I think that's what this is.

I think this is exactly what telepathy is, but also empathy, or generally feeling, being the thing that is being communicated. When I feel what you're feeling, it's not a linguistic interpretation, it's a synchronization, a tapping into our shared being. And if you're sensitive, or your self is very expanded, you can't help but take it all in, because that is what is; it is your experience. If I were to use some Sheldrakian terminology: when the field of your mind becomes more receptive or it stretches out far enough, more things become part of that field, not necessarily just thoughts, but often experiences, because all experiences fundamentally take place in the same field.

No.