Carl-Richard

Instagram. Cobra venom is nature 🤔

Then I made a mistake insulting the AI. That does not invalidate them full sale. "Mostly negligible", ok, so you said a bunch of nothing. If you personally can't experience effects from different things, that's fine. Nobody is saying we're doing placebo-controlled double-blind experiments (although sometimes, there is a form of placebo control in that you expected one effect but you actually experienced the opposite or something else entirely). Nobody is saying you should be cautious. You need to make the distinction between a microscopic effect and a bigger effect. Depends on what you consider a big deal. I agree @integral likes to be hyperbolic ("extremely toxic environment"), but that does not negate that there are empirically verifiable and theoretically consistent influences.

@cistanche_enjoyer

It's actually very possible to express any physics or maths equation in natural language. It's how we originally learn the abstracted language in schools and universities. For example, E = 1/2 mv^2 is easily translated as Energy equals half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. I'll try with barely high school math (and some cheating): Work (never mind: weight, or actually I don't know) equals the integral where k is smaller than lambda for all the possible values of the variables g, A, v(?) and wtf and exponent(?) in the element of some variable i times the integral of d to the fourth times x square root minus g times [I cba with this bracket]. I don't know what the letters mean (except W, g, m, F, V) and I barely know integrals . But does @integral know integrals? 🤔

If you ask it kindly enough, ChatGPT will find you problems where there are none. And if you actually take a graduate course, they will teach you how to not talk/write like a retard (I love this word). This was something we were recommended (among a larger document of writing tips that emphasized clarity and precision): https://x.com/sapinker/status/1084490338629242880 In fact, in a slight failure to gauge the culture and expectations, I took concerns about format and word choice (and brevity/simplicity, which is a huge trap) way too seriously, it limited my academic performance (I started essentially censoring myself), so I had to break out of that and allow myself to write more freely. The trap was I started holding back information and literally dumbing myself down instead of simply polishing my message. It's like you take the butcher knife and instead of trimming the fat, you chop off entire limbs and throw them in the garbage.

Sexual intercourse, let alone porn, makes you fall asleep if you did it correctly. That is an influence that lasts not just a few minutes but hours (and of course weeks as well). The "waste of time" comes as a chronic dampening/softening of energy. That said, natural cycles of sleep are good. But only sleep, probably less good.

Energy rises upwards, like in the video.

Solipsism is retarded.

@Saop Mactavish Jesus Christ you people are relentless.

@Basman Tell me if you didn't get it.

Interesting things happen when you resist temptation.

@Basman If you have spiritual aspirations, trying abstinence for up to a month or so can bring a lot of benefits.

So let me perhaps elaborate on the reasoning (about seeing without eyes "indicating" that maybe God could be possessing higher mental functions as a baseline without evolution being a preexisting requirement). When I used the word "indicating" (or "could indicate"), I did not imply increasing the probability of one hypothesis vs another. I simply implied that the hypothesis is now possible and that the probability increased from zero to non-zero (given the preexisting belief that you thought evolution was required). If you were of the previous belief that evolution is a prerequisite for all forms of higher mental functions, then seeing evidence against that removes that cap or limitation. It's now possible, the probability is above zero, but whether it is more possible than an alternative hypothesis (e.g. that God is still non-agential but seeing now happens through another mechanism than evolution), that has not been argued for. So your suspicion was maybe right that you had created a false dichotomy.

Seemingly the same problems as The Diary of a CEO. The presenter is essentially hired to do a job and the larger company makes the script. So anything you see is predetermined and rehearsed and any interest is ad hoc and surface level at best.

Bro are you ok?

The key point is identification drops. When identification drops, identification is with whatever that is. There is a complete openness in that. Then the body or mind may act out in different ways, and then a purification might happen over time where the openness is more embodied in the body and mind. But the identification with source is allegedly constant throughout.

Somehow they manage to replicate the atmosphere live.

"I'm the only authority on this matter and you can leave but then you will waste your life chasing something that is not absolute truth." -> pressure to conform. "And the way you find out what is true is by finding it out yourself. You shouldn't listen to me, that's not how you get to the truth" -> manipulation to justify the conformity. "But if you speak against me based on what you have found out, I will say that you don't know what you're talking about and that I'm the only authority on the matter" -> pressure to conform. And the cycle continues. The reason why you and @Inliytened1 don't feel pressured by these things is because you don't believe it to be true. You see beyond the bullshit. Imagine if you don't.

14 men and 14 women each live on their own deserted island in the tropics and have to survive for 5 weeks. WhO hAs wHat it tAkes to sUrviVe? I've watched three episodes so far and it's pretty fun. I can't be asked to join the "haha lol women" thing before I've watched the entire thing. But there are some differences of course, as you would expect. If I was stranded on a deserted island, I would take @Natasha Tori Maru as medical grade shelter builder and @integral as contamination specialist I would be the jungle shaman or whatever; let me spend some time meditating and I'll maybe give some intuition-based navigation tips or just some wacked-out shit. When watching episode 3, I randomly came up with a possible hunting technique for sting rays that were swimming in the shallows on the beach and some of them tried to catch (if you're interested and you're ever on a deserted island without food ):

Gibberish distinction without a difference. I will not talk to an AI, thank you.

@Jirh Ask it to only treat the statements as false if they are categorically false (and not "so small to be insignificant"). Because me and @integral will immediately jump on that as "but there is something there".

Being more attuned to presence can make you sort of fine with being fractured, because you can always loop back into presence when you discover the crack. But paradoxically, it can also make you better at identifying the cracks and how to solve them. And if you also realize that the endless looping is actually less conducive to presence than smoothing out the cracks, you will hyper-fixate towards fixing the cracks. Because once the cracks are fixed, it becomes smooth.

Cringe. Be an uncouth hobo and attract the 10s with nerfs. Only half-joking. Aside from perhaps basic personal hygiene and bare minimum knowledge of social conventions, people trying to hack social interactions is to me like when somebody uses AI to think or write for them. At some point, you just realize there is nothing there and it's completely inorganic and hollow like a metal tube.

Would "I'm the only authority on epistemology" (or awakening for that matter) and "you don't know what you're talking about" qualify for this? What more would you need?

If you can imagine experiencing anything in a pre-self-reflective state, be it gripping a ball, or feeling pain or any sensation localized to your body, what stops you from imagining experiencing an emotion? What self-reflection seems to do (among other things) is it ties the experience to an abstract experience of "me". But so it does with anything else. It's "me" who is gripping the ball, it's "me" who is experiencing pain or any sensation in the body. But what if you can have just the experience of gripping the ball, just the experience of pain and other bodily sensations, or just the experience of feeling and being moved by the emotion?