Carl-Richard

That would fit right under the Reddit cave exploration posts.

Ironically, a bit like how virtually every post in this thread says or implies "conformity is bad". What you fear, you tend to dichotomize, absolutize, extremize, reject, deny. It creates a solid basis for conformity.

Zizek should have seen me from February to March last year where I slept 1-3 hours most nights, measured people's brains all day, still kept up my workout regimen and still most days made my own food, until my face turned yellow and I had a massive mysterious swelling in my elbow which I took antibiotics and anti-inflammatories for, still kept going without being able to extend my arm fully.

My idea of compatibilism (which I stole from Bernardo Kastrup) is that the feeling of free will is compatible with the insight of determinism. Saying that you have free will in one sense but not another is a psychologically healthy frame, rather than "you have no free will, it's an illusion, you're a leaf blowing in the wind". To be able to say that you have free will is healthy, as per the confusion of the OP, but denying your logical mind is also unhealthy. It's similar to how a frame of epistemic pragmatism is psychologically healthy (in my opinion) as opposed to say realism or skepticism, in that you can say "it's true relative to this criteria" instead of "it's true" or "it's not true". Here it's more about stating your assumptions and making them conscious. It creates a mood of being careful and being aware of bias, which I believe is more healthy than the alternative.

Nah, Bryan would only do grass-fed organic local-raised, with mixed Australian-American accent for extra longevity points 🥴

"Is sex good for longevity? 90-day experiment" 💀

Just read the statistics. Heritability is around 50%.

That, but also some people just want to be like the Hulk.

Try harder.

Your laziness means you suffer.

Never underestimate these Viking lips.

Bro you get high off a quarter b-vitamin complex.

@Bogdan I saw a video of GVS that made start questioning wtf I was doing training like Mr. Mike, feeding into my intuitions. I just saw his video on Goodhart's law and it's essentially one more straw in the hat for "listen to your body, holism is a supreme virtue, your mind and reductionist science usually screws things up more than it helps".

Even if the world is outside of your control and you're connected to the world, you still experience yourself taking actions and being in control. There is no contradiction between these things. You used to feel being responsible, then you learned a philosophy which makes you think you're not responsible, but it's a category error. You still feel being in control, you still feel being responsible. Even if philosophy says every action has a causal chain or if science says we can predict your next action 3 seconds before your make it by reading your brain, your feeling of responsibility matters, it has consequences. It is important.

Technologies of waking up can also make you go insane. With great power comes great responsibility.

Talk about it on a forum.

The ego interprets, makes frameworks, tries to understand Enlightenment. But Enlightenment is not that. Did you try to communicate something else?

Annihilation.

You distinguished between interpretations of experience vs the experience itself in a long-winded poetic "stream of consciousness" (see what I did there?).

There are like 12 definitions of consciousness I can list and trying to argue that one is better than the others is just ridiculous. Same with definitions of enlightenment. You define things for convenience. What you do with the definitions later is what is interesting.

No seriously, my face is on here. A tree, on earth.

I'm able to make "everything is real" and "everything is unreal" commensurate. When I see two people disagreeing about those things, I see it as manufactured disagreement. I'm happy if people don't manufacture disagreement. Same with somebody defining consciousness one way and then somebody else comes and says "well actually, consciousness is not that, but consciousness is this, because x y z a b c". You can define words in many different ways. You choosing a different definition is absolutely completely arbitrary. It doesn't need logical argument. You're presenting your choice of definition as a substantial disagreement when it's not. It's manufactured disagreement. My face is on here (and it looks like this 👺).

Life is like a dream.

Being aware, as in being awareness. Being aware as in a subject perceiving an object, no. What you're doing is assuming a definition and then post-hoc trying to explain it using logic, but the logic actually doesn't do anything because you just assumed the definition without any logic. You're ironically being entirely illogical in what you're doing. This is what you're doing in most threads. You're free to do whatever but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

Sometimes the fruit is obscured.