Carl-Richard

My guy, the "no one to understand" is you. It's just not the blabla.

Hahaha I knew there would be a possibility for a woosh there. My bad. It was a jokie. The irony of me doing exactly what you were pointing out became equivocated with me supposedly pointing out that you were being hypocritical somehow (the former was intended, the latter was an unfortunate coincidence). Emotional damages how much, I repair now 😚🥲🫢🫣

Beyond what?

Who discovers it?

This is just you explaining things in order to get a better grip on a situation that just unfolded 🙄

I'm not claiming to not take a position. I'm trying to show that the solipsist is also taking a position, which not necessarily has to be taken. Because the Absolute doesn't actually care.

How to solve the solipsism problem: So we have absolute truth which is that which exists before anything is said [1]. Then we try to say things to make sense of things using words. A brilliant word for this is "convenient fictions". Solipsism, idealism, even non-duality, as far as they are spoken, are convenient fictions. They are us trying to put things into words in a way that makes sense, in a way that explains our experience of reality. Our convenient fictions tell us the world works as if the convenient fictions are true. But they're not. They're just good generalizations, good models for telling us what is going on. Convenient fictions. The idea that there is an external world is a convenient fiction that explains why I can return to the same item in the same place again and again after I've left it out of sight. The concept of time is a convenient fiction for explaining how things change and often in a predictable way. The concept of space is a convenient fiction for placing objects in a shared "place" which has extension and distinctions you can point to visually. Etc. Now, what do you do as a solipsist? Do you say "the external world is a convenient fiction, no need to treat it as anything else", or do you say "there is no external world, all that exists is this current appearance of sensory phenomena"? Now, isn't that also a convenient fiction? "We don't need 'external reality' to explain what is going, we only need 'appearances happening right here right now [2]' to explain everything that is happening". See how you're appealing to explanation, in other words what is convenient? See how you're appealing to words, not that which happens before words? Does the absolute fundamentally need an explanation (in order to be absolute)? No. Does the absolute fundamentally need words? No. Does the absolute fundamentally care about which explanation is best? No. Does the absolute fundamentally care about which words are best to describe reality? No. So solipsism or any "ism" that exists to describe reality (again, even non-dualism, even the most conservative "One is all, nothing else needs to be said"), is a convenient fiction. The Absolute is fundamentally neutral to whatever convenient fiction you happen to use to explain whatever is going on. Now, we can talk about which convenient fictions are best to describe what is going on in reality. And there I would say solipsism is, not, good. But that's again a battle of convenient fictions. The absolute needs no battle. It only needs silence (while it watches the battle from the "sideline" as a neutral observer). So if you hold solipsism as anything more than a convenient fiction, perhaps it's time to reconsider that position. [1]. The absolute is not dependent or reducible to anything that is said; it may involve "things" that are said as the absolute is everything, but it's also beyond it. [2]. Notice how "right here right now" assumes time, and also space (which we have both shown to be convenient fictions) and that these things seem to decide what counts as "real" (which essentially means "valid within this convenient fiction").

"Women or men are better" is like the nerd equivalent of adopting a football team and cheering like a monkey.

There was a time I didn't think drugs like weed should be legal, like everybody else in the tribe. Then I thought and concluded it was not rational since alcohol is legal and it's a not at all innocuous drug. And that was a month or so before I was introduced to weed by my friends, and then I distinctively felt like a sense of pride that I had rationally concluded that weed should be legal "before" I had entered the weed tribe. So absolutely rational thought can change your mind, if you're open to that.

You know how many diagnoses of ADHD are determined using brain scans? Zero. They are determined behaviorally. So whether the cause is supposedly "brain" or "trauma" (which as you say aren't at all separate categories), has really no bearing on how ADHD is diagnosed or defined. If you simply meet the behavioral criteria for ADHD, that's all that matters for whether you "have" ADHD or not.

When I was taking 30 mg zinc picolinate and just a standard multivitamin and my vitamin D + cofactors stack, I was dialed in like a mf, but I didn't like it because I couldn't really relax and my body feeling was weird. I think that had more to do with the multivitamin than the zinc though. Now I just take 15 mg zinc along with the vitamin D stack (and omega-3). It also somehow made me think quite differently, like in this autistic left-brained way, and I also think it made me less refined and less careful, like making too quick judgements (going deeply into something requires staying with something and being relaxed). I also just missed that kinda softer right-brained way of thinking which I also think can be more effective in many ways.

If then. Any proposed structure or lack thereof of "the dream" is itself the dream that must be woken up from. That's the absolute perspective. Anything else is a model, for the sake of understanding "things" in the dream or for trying to speak of that which cannot be spoken.

Yes. Be very skeptical of talking, if you want to understand the absolute. "If then" is a model. There is no "if" in truth. It is. What is (especially) wrong is people who go on talking about two specific and distinct concepts, "lack of experience" and "other", as something that must be seriously entertained and that must somehow occur together, while it's a delusion to think that any of those two things, either in separation or conjuction, have anything to do with truth. There is one thing that freaks me out and that's truth without any bullshit attached.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

1. That was not wild at all and I've been saying it for years long before I got demoted. 2. I like to think that is entirely false. I went wild before I was demoted. Although of course not being in that role does slightly impact some aspects of behavior.

Ez. Solipsism is bs. You are one and that's all. No talking about others required. Talking about others is a model. Not truth.

"Islam is a political movement that forces its strategy upon everyone" -> "ban mosques" It's Gil from the adapter store.

See, there is nothing behind those eyes:

I started thinking about this with "energy production". You can't actually produce energy according to the first law of thermodynamics. "Energy production" is actually about converting less useful forms of energy (e.g. motion of atmospheric products like water, air, heat) to more useful forms (e.g. electricity). Notions that you can create energy can lead to mistaken inventions like "energy producing machines" that seem like they're doing something clever that produces energy but actually it only ever loses energy (you put energy into the system using useful energy like electricity and you get out less due to friction, heat, inefficient transfer of energy in each step of the process). You only get out what you put into it (and usually less, as again, it escapes outside the system you have defined as useful).

AI is good at finding alternative sources but horrible at judging how they support a given conclusion unless you force them to be very specific. Statements like "too loose to make the claims hes making" are more often than not essentially just hallucinatory AI slop, formulaic vague vacuous linguistic routines. Countering epistemic pervertry with epistemic pedophilia is not a good idea. The reason Hancock's theories are not accepted in archaeology is that they are speculative hypotheses ("myths -> reality") rather than clearly studied and materially supported (by substantive and numerous archeological findings). It's the difference between science and empiricism as the main focus vs philosophy and theorizing. Archeology is concerned about studying and explaining things you actually find in the dirt, Hancock's pseudoarcheology is about making inferences based on interpretations of things like myths. It's the difference between fact-based and narrative-based cognition, autism vs schizotypy:

Give me your best explanation. Best explanation gets a cookie (laced with meth).

That's how I felt throughout my entire psychology degree (undergrad and graduate). Structure vs Content in particular I got from this paper:

1. You said Leo was a pioneer in these kinds of things, which is wrong. 2. It's not as much speculation as a feeling and simply asserting something to be the case. It's not much logical thinking or explanation involved as far as you've shared. Tell me why you think he pioneered these kinds of topics and why you think he influenced Alex.

"Don't follow your passion" is the stupidest idea that has ever been uttered. Complete fallacious marketing clickbait "the truth is more complicated".