Carl-Richard

What about poisonous plants? We've been through this before. When in doubt, don't. I prefer sperm. But sperm is actually technically a venom because it's an animal shooting something into an other organism that may cause the other organism to die. (That's a joke and a horrible stretch of definitions outside their common usage 🤓).

😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

I've been watching national cable news in my country and noticed "it's not x, it's y" AI sentences from the news anchors. I've also smelled AI on the radio. I want to pour gasoline on the world.

What about Ozempic but for porn? 😂 Wait... does it already work for porn? 😂

Because we want them to screw open a Coca-Cola.

@zurew And I'm like yeah ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, reality is weird, and it has always been weird. What does Bernardo think about the three body problem or morphogenesis in biology or simply chaos theory? There have always been clear limitations to trying to deduce laws and getting a clear picture of reality. Models have always just been like small doodles on top of an infinite stack of papers. That we find out that big grand daddy God also has a mind of its own, that just adds more to the fun. Models have always been domain-specific. That "seeing through sense organs" explains some forms of vision but not others is totally fine. To get limpy about that is like getting limpy about being able to get ice cream from more than just one ice cream truck. You're still getting ice cream; you're still getting an explanation that can give a satisfying account (if you just drop the idea of "The Ice Cream"). Or in other words, sense organs are nice explanations for the game called physical reality. But you can level up. It's been a while, but I think Tom Campbell's model has a better approach to dealing with these notions (he created his model largely as a response to dealing with psi phenomena). In fact, I remember Tom Campbell's model specifically helped me underscore that conventional naturalism like that championed by Bernardo is a choice or a preference for how to explain reality and that you can go outside of it, and not just by being a retard and retracting all explanatory power like in solipsism or refusing to explain anything like in metaphysically naive non-duality, but by perhaps expanding explanatory power):

@zurew The AI couldn't even find that out

AGI but can't screw open a Coca-Cola.

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.