Carl-Richard

@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):

When you're in the statistical worldview, - you are acutely aware that many things can influence one thing, and their relationship is statistical (quantitative). Some things can have a strong influence, other things less of a strong influence, and some things only a weak influence (e.g. the butterfly effect). In reality, there is a huge web of influences, where each influence is a particular node or string on the web, and each node is weighted with a certain strength of influence or statistical value. For example, ADHD can be influenced by beliefs, experiences, genetics, etc. Even if you think one of these things have a stronger influence, it doesn't mean it can only be reduced to that thing, and talking as if it can be reduced to that thing can lead to problems with accurately talking about and perceiving reality. Words like "partially", "mostly", "some of", "many", are often used. - you often say things are "probably so", "most likely", "less likely", "probably not". It does not preclude you from making firm and exclusive analytical statements (e.g. "given x and y, z is true or false, coherent or inconsistent"). But you are very acutely aware when something is statistical and probabilistic so you don't overstep or overgeneralize or oversimplify. - you realize a thing can be many things at the same time. There is often not just one way to do things, or one thing you can do at any one time. "Should I meditate every day or should I do retreats where I meditate more deeply?" Why not both? "That's the placebo effect". Why can't it be a real effect and placebo at the same time? "Trans is social contagion". Why can't some of it be real trans and some of it be social contagion (both within and across individuals)? "Yes — both" is very often realized to be the answer. The statistical worldview is a way to conceptualize nuance and holism, as opposed to black-and-white thinking and naive reductionism. It's also related to the modern scientific framework of putting numbers and quantities to these relationships. Modern science, especially human-oriented science (e.g. medicine, psychology), primes this kind of statistical thinking where everything is viewed through statistical associations (mediation, moderation, correlation) and ways of quantifying them (effect sizes, correlation coefficients, measures of statistical significance). If you do enough scientific thinking, in the right fields of science, you will eventually end up viewing a large chunk of the world this way.

@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?

If there was ever only one technique that could be described as "the key" to Enlightenment, it's the letting go technique he describes at 4:47:

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.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

"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 ):