Carl-Richard

Standardized causality, hmm. So science. I should maybe not have divided up your sentence because I'm uncertain what you mean by "unit" (I take it to mean something like a unit of measurement in physics, e.g. meters, grams, liters; it's unclear to me how you can refer to that unit as an "it" that can interact with other "types of influences").

Contamination conscious: being aware of (and often proactive against) the health effects of contaminants, pollutants and toxins in food, environment and air (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, teflon, microplastics). Alternative: toxiconscious.

@Natasha Tori Maru Our boy Siim recommends sardines and herring, generally smaller fish further down on the food chain. I might start eating those.

You reinvented the concept of causality(?) in the realm of behavior and cognition (karma?)?

I never eat tuna. I think I ate it on a cruise ship once by accident 8 years ago thinking it was chicken or beef ragú or something. But I was not in the mental claritymaxxing game by then and was chugging soda from the soda dispenser every waking moment of the day (so much so I got bored with soda and craved normal water). It's not so much mercury in itself I'm pointing at. Mercury is just one of many things that tend to be elevated higher up in the food chain (and cod seems to be higher up than salmon). Mercury is like the placeholder of environmental toxins that accumulate up the food chain.

If mental disorder is a behavior considered severely maladaptive by the surrounding society or evolution, then a cat that for example displays excessive aggression could be considered mentally ill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology

???? If you have an experience with laundry detergent making you feel awful and then you expect other disruptions in the air to do the same but they end up doing the opposite, that would indicate the feeling is probably real. But that is not to say your feeling cannot be real otherwise. It's just harder to know. And because it's harder to know (and especially when the feeling and situation is subtle), you should probably be more skeptical until you gather more pieces of evidence. And I'm not saying you don't have more pieces of evidence. The response I made to your question was about me, not you (I wasn't making a point about how you're probably wrong).

You are talking about him being the orchestrator of the millionaire project. But oh well, only my two cents.

Rock hard 🤣

I think I'm saying if you find the Avengers of building houses and pay them enough, they will build your house, even if it's a massive cock made out of diamonds.

Shoestring budget is the very thing I'm challenging (and perhaps mud box too, I don't know). You want a spaceship budget (hyperbole yes). And if you want to do it on a shoestring budget, you might end up doing it on a spaceship budget anyway in terms of time spent and potentially resources wasted on failed attempts or getting stuck on seemingly unsolvable problems like here in this thread. Money is conveniencemaxxing, timemaxxing, it tends to come back around anyway you approach it (unless you're a genius and your discoveries create a discontinuity in money-time/spacetime and become a rapid fount/stratovolcano of value; excuse my sleep-deprived neologitis).

If you wanted to build a spaceship with kitty ears on it, you would probably still want help from a rocket scientist or an aerospace engineer (and workers, skilled laborers) Any serious project that could in theory work, could in theory be marketed. It's not like he is the first one out there building a weird house. If you yourself can plan it out in a way that will work, then an engineer, architect, etc. probably can too. Unless it requires actually reinventing the wheel and you're saying these engineers and architects are useless.

Apparently, you don't just need looks to mog, you need drugs. Imagine spending so much time smashing your face in but then it doesn't matter unless you get smashed while going out.

I think building a house (at least in the context of everyday life) is probably the #1 thing you don't want to do if you don't have the knowledge, resources or manpower to do it, especially a house that nobody really builds. That's why you have money so you can buy that. Money is conveniencemaxxing. If you're serious, you would probably be better off saving up a shit ton of money and getting the help you need. No need to reinvent the wheel in your own backyard or playing Leonardo DaVinci. But hey, maybe you are that guy.

You're asking if @Basman is a robot? 🤖 He studies psychology; he knows about Kahneman's System 1 vs System 2 thinking (unless it's only a graduate course 😬). Well, actually I think you could engage "rational thinking" (System 2) in such a situation, but it would potentially cost you (especially if we're talking about milliseconds).

AI bad with that non-existent double-capitalized periodic element.

Because I thought salmon and cod were equal in their contamination prior to that, and I had been seemingly fine eating salmon. I expected to be fine but I was not. I found out about the difference in mercury levels after the fact. I had a similar thing happen when I tried a zinc supplement for the first time. I thought since because it increases testosterone, it would make me more hyped at the gym (I took it at the gym), but instead it made me more calm and relaxed. I was actually extremely surprised by this, and then I believe I looked it up at the gym and was like "ah, it has like 200 functions in the body, maybe that's why". If something goes against your expectations, then it's much less likely to be placebo/nocebo. Placebo is very much tied to expectations, that's how placebo pills work.

But it helps citing a mechanism of action (like I did with the fish), because then you have one less reason that you might be simply imagining it or having some psychosomatic reaction (and not much else).

I'm not talking about simply making observations. I'm talking about testing it up against alternative hypotheses, what's called "dissociation" in experimental science (or rather in neuropsychology specifically, please forgive me). In other words, you could say that drinking coke seemingly leads to a certain outcome, but when you ask "why", that's more tricky.

Did ChatGPT tell you this? ChatGPT psychosis is real. The thing about these subtle things is that even if you go by experience first ("this seemingly makes me feel x way") and then trying to find a suitable hypothesis for why, is you want to be very clear about testing alternative hypotheses. For example, I didn't understand every time I eat cod, I get supremely tired. But it did not happen with some other fish or salmon. Turns out cod has around 5x more mercury in it than salmon and other fish at that level of the food chain. My mom blames tryptophan, but then it would also happen if I eat chicken or beef, but that doesn't happen. Are you doing any of these alternative tests with your hypotheses?

You disidentify with the ego. End of story.

By the map, it looks like family, sunlight and lower rates of alcohol use (or drunkenness) could be it. Middle East and Indonesia and North Africa are largely muslim, South America is largely Christian (low atheism rates). Muslim and Christian means more family and less or no alcohol (definitely less drunkenness). Alcohol is not just a comorbidity with depression but also a mediator for suicide.

People outside Norway don't know there is a Southern Norway and then there is a Northern Norway. Pretty much night and day (quite literally). Compare education levels, income, daylight hours, climate and temperatures in Finnmark vs Oslo.

Because no matter what you do, it's there.

I think it's a stupid question honestly. Which is what I think about the original question and most pseudo-philosophical (and philosophical) thought experiments. Setting aside the obvious problems like the irreducibility of context like @Natasha Tori Maru pointed out, and that the scenarios are usually simply unrealistic given any reasonable world, and while it's also related, they are usually too vague to be interesting. If you want to ask an interesting question, ask "what principle would you use to determine the answer?", or "what do you feel most emotionally attached to?", or "if you were to make it an universal rule, what would the answer be?". What these vague formulations do is they mix such potential answers together and then people who only can keep one thought in their head at one time jump at each others' throats for disagreeing when they actually might not have to disagree. It's manufactured polemics. Yeah duh, people have emotional attachments to things/beings close to them. Yeah duh it's generally stupid to reflexively use emotional attachment as a ruler for moral action. Tell me something that I didn't already know. The question is about as interesting to me as "would you shit yourself on the bus?". "Other people might not like that (morals), so with respect to that, probably no, but if (context) I really can't keep it in and I don't feel like I have a choice in that (feels/emotion), then yes".