Carl-Richard

I drink maybe a sip or two of water right after the meal to rinse my mouth (I also take vitamin/mineral/fishoil supplements with a sip of water during the meal). Perhaps a sip or two after brushing my teeth (not necessarily). Then the rest of the day if I'm not working out and only taking walks and working on the computer, I've noticed I sometimes don't actually need to drink before the next meal (although I can be misremembering; I have not done this specific meal that many times yet). I noticed this also with my previous version of the same meal (which used toasted bread and instead of porridge and less blueberries), after I started with the sodium-potassium salt. When I used regular salt, I used to be much more thirsty. If you look at each single meal component above (in finished/cooked form), they sit at around 70-90% water all of them (even the eggs). So reductionistically speaking, the meal should be just as hydrating as a fruit monomeal.

I had an insight and I wrote about it. Notice I put both conspiracy theorist thinking and the opposite tendency roughly equally in their own boxes. But of course the former is more salient as a societal question (it brings up more feelings, because of the negative valence as @LastThursday brought up, but also because there is a societal or cultural bias or stigma against that kind of thinking, again because we're culturally embedded in an analytic and post- traditional-religious framework). That's probably mostly why I put it as a title.

Notice I laid out the cognitive style that underlies supernaturalism and conspiracy theorist thinking. In a culture like ours, overt supernaturalism (in terms of traditional religiosity) is naturally suppressed, so you would expect less people to be overtly supernatural but perhaps they start gravitating toward conspiracy theories to fill that need for narrative-based cognition. Traditional religion is of course considered a meta-narrative that explains everything, gives a history or a plan for everything in reality (teleology, escatology). You could see how that can be replaced by the belief in the Illuminati or repetilians or hidden global world order or something like that. Paranoia and anxiety actually links to narrative-driven cognition (or are sort of the core ingredients of it, but with negative valence). Paranoia is driven by suspicion ("this thing could be indicative of this thing, that would be really bad"; assumption -> conclusion, a micro-narrative), and anxiety is driven by worry ("what if this thing happens in the future? That would be really bad"; similar assumption and conclusion). Paranoia and anxiety is associated with mentalistic cognition (drawing inferences based on sometimes very little information), i.e. more psychotic-like cognition, while more concrete cognition requires more details or facts and often very obvious inferences, i.e. more autistic-like cognition. Mentalism is more holistic, narrative-driven, suspicious, again drawing loose inferences based on less information, while more concrete cognition is more analytic, fact-driven, stable, drawing very few inferences based on very obvious connections. So you're really touching on the same phenomena (of course in a bit of a peripheral way). And when the meta-narrative of conspiracy theories is control, domination, deception, then naturally the narratives become negatively valenced and thus suspicious, paranoid, anxious, worried. Which can be driven (among other things) by a lack of fact-driven approach and drawing more loose inferences based on less information. Of course lower intelligence is also relevant, but that also feeds into facts-acquisition and inference-making (how fast do you do it, how much information can you handle at one time, how is your pattern-identifying skills, perhaps refinement and precision; IQ and working memory, pattern-recognition, intellectualism, all that). Hmm, narratives? Narrative-cognition being more efficient and appealing to the mind? Hmm.

As are those who try to debunk the conspiracy theorists, or what?

I mean you can say that in principle, but as a fact, you don't know the actual plan of God, and that plan can be studied, and you might find out that it unfolds only in a certain way that only fits with a few narrow hypotheses. It's not like NDEs are without coherence or substance. They are highly structured, highly meaningful. That's when the naturalism collapses into the supernaturalism, in that you can start giving an account for what is happening that is supposedly supernatural. What Bernardo calls supernatural is really just due to a sort of paradigm-locked version of naturalism, that relies on current assumptions about how reality works. Once we can explain how NDEers see without eyes, that becomes a part of the naturalist framework. The notion of "spontaneous" assumes the notion of law or principle that guides the spontaneity (or else there would be no structure). Once you uncover the law, you can call the products of the law spontaneous. That's what we do with human minds (Sam Harris style): it's not really free will (and being an author of thoughts, ideas, desires, plans), it's the illusion of free will, but it's really just nature acting spontaneously through a set of laws (brains, neurons firing, atoms colliding, etc.). When we do it with God's mind and its plans, we have recapitulated the "acting spontaneously through a set of laws".

Let's say I eat a meal, I get dehydrated, I drink, and I'm no longer dehydrated. What is wrong there? The video actually didn't explain why transient dehydration is bad (except "animals don't drink with their meals, we never observe that in nature", which is itself dubious). Also, please rate the hydration of my new morning meal: 1 kiwi fruit (with skin) 5 eggs (lightly scrambled; cooked on low heat in pan until chunky but still slightly moist/runny). With freshly ground black pepper and tiny amounts of 50/40 Na/K salt. Quick oats porridge (100 ml quick oats, 2.5 dl water, brought to boil and cooked for 2 minutes in pot). 10g of pumpkin seeds (cooked together with the oats) 200g frozen or fresh blueberries (mixed into porridge when done cooking).

You read my post.

In the beginning I was like wtf is he talking about, but at the end, I think I got it.

NDE stuff. I think most of Sheldrake's stuff (parapsychology and morphic resonance) is actually consistent with a naturalist conception of reality (Bernardo's conception; spontaneous at the bottom layer). He is mainly just challenging the idea that laws of nature are fixed (which doesn't necessarily allow for divine intervention, only that the laws might change slightly over time). But I think I remember he believes in divine intervention as well judging by his talks with Bernardo where he claimed something like God can have a plan (which would also be consistent with his Christian leanings, of course depending on how you define Christian again, that's always a problem, and I'm not just being a Peterson about this). What was that specifically? The Fine-tuning argument, in my limited knowledge of it (or rather almost purely intuitive understanding of it), never made much sense to me. Like the universe is the way it is, and if it wasn't like this, it might've been different or not been able to exist, therefore it must have been planned? Couldn't you just add infinite time to the equation and perhaps Sheldrake's idea of laws not being fixed and then over time, this universe is inevitable? Or is it that it being planned is more parsimonious than simply adding infinite time to spontaneous order and slight changes in constants over time? But isn't infinite time already the case (or what's the loophole there)? I don't know.

Are you living with roommates or with family?

Not really. It's about being top-down vs bottom-up, narrative-driven vs detail-driven, holistic vs analytic. You can be perfectly capable of rationality at either style. It's just a different orientation of the rationality, of what you decide to focus on. But of course, supernaturalism tends to appear at earlier stages of development, because cognition is efficient at dealing with narratives, less so with details.

Not really. Tell that to multiverse theory enthusiasts (who are virtually all naturalists by the way; it's often used as a defense mechanism against the Fine-tuning argument). Not a shred of evidence for a billion billion hidden universes or whatever with all slightly different physical laws. And the very reason why Bernardo Kastrup entertains the supernaturalist position as a naturalist is because there is evidence that threathens his position.

Now link a retarded atheist. I'll link a non-retarded Christian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

It goes a bit deeper than that. I used to think this when I was 17. Truth is, especially when young, you soak up any and all ideology like a sponge. It doesn't matter much which one it is. And a woman who gets hit by their man in say Saudi Arabia or Iran doesn't necessarily pick up feminism.

Choose one and change it later if you feel it's a good thing to do.

What the fuck

I used to do static stretches every single day, every part of the body, 30 minutes, using mostly the techniques I learned playing football lol. It got me smooth like a piece of jelly. My body was completely weightless while walking at times (the meditation helped also).

When you realize hanging out with friends is not about you, it matters less what you think about them. Like, do you hang out with a child because you want to squeeze some zest out of them? Or do you simply enjoy them for who they are, even if they are limited? And can you appreciate the joy they get from hanging out with you, and can that be the whole joy? That said, I do not hang out with my friends really at all anymore, but when I do, I do enjoy it more than not. I never got "entertained" by them spiritually/intellectually in the first place anyway, even before starting spirituality (only some in the more peripheral friend group).

There are cases where natural can be more safe (less potential for certain kinds of contamination, beneficial sister compounds, evolutionary adaptation to the overall natural cocktail rather than single-chemical loads), but when talking about toad venom, those differences might not matter as much. But on a more alternative note, maybe there is a morphogenetic field connection across toad venom ingestions that can be beneficial (you tap into a shamanic tradition and its collective mindspace).

Man.

Self-inquiry is of course a known way to prime recognition of awareness. But do you acknowledge Leo uses contemplation for literally everything under the sun, e.g. morality, purpose, development, conceptual things? And he also claims you can have true "insights" into these things that somehow go beyond mere belief (and concepts?) and penetrates to the core of the thing (which I believe is not possible). What are your thoughts on that form of contemplation?

Do people know that SSRIs are thought to work partially by rebuilding the hippocampus and then when you're back to a normal level, you can actually stop taking them and you're better off than you were (granted other side effects; I'm not suggesting to hop on SSRIs necessarily)? If 5-MeO does something similar with irregular doses (and less side effects), it might be a good longevity agent (but of course, the Default Mode Network effects might be even more important, as it sustains the stress response through repetitive thinking).

That you're lost in a fantasy. That you will realize you're lost in a fantasy. Probably, if you find it. Probably less so. Meh.

@Leo Gura You know what would be absolutely terrifying? Instead of these pussyfooted confused interviews with no-name podcasters, picture a panel of your harshest critics that have watched you for 10+ years and just spend time grilling you one by one with their most well-prepared questions. Or just a one-on-one with one of them. Just a wild thought I had before hitting up the sleep dimension.

Problem is there was no argument. Unless your argument is just "you don't understand, you need to experience the thing to know it's not personal illusion".