Carl-Richard

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

A large sum of money purportedly offered by a non-scientist who doesn't accept actual scientific evidence. 1. The phenomena could be real but harder to control than one would like. 2. How do you know what the CIA does?

Maybe we shouldn't. Electricity does not metabolize or maintain its boundary of inside and outside or self-replicate. Electricity does not build itself through protein synthesis, DNA and RNA transcription, nutrition (although it can arise as a product of such things). A pocket lighter and a fighter jet runs on petroleum products. A brain functions through electrochemical gradients driven by ATP-driven ion pumps driven by metabolism of fuel, neurotransmitters being released and re-uptaken by synaptic vesicles created inside synaptic terminals and docking at proteins, leading to intracellular cascades and changes in DNA/RNA transcription and protein synthesis.

Now do it naked 😊

*emoji of jelly-like jiggly noodly bodily movements*

Ship-through-bottleneck me sideways into a Klein bottle and call me a Quadraceptaurus-degenerate hyperbundle manifold.

This is probably one of the most passionate vocal performances that exists and I think everybody could appreciate it: @Natasha Tori Maru In many ways a male version of Aurora? 🤔

Insane impressionist. His Warren character feels like a real human being. 3:47 His Bill Maher is also off the charts. And last but not least, RFK:

I believe that is what they're discussing in this clip.

If you care about scientific evidence: If you care about personal stories: Tom Campbell recounting shared out-of-body experiences with his colleague at Monroe Institute back in the 70s: 8:13

Another thread another day of religious people bashing religious people. Stage Blue literalist fundamentalist traditionalists is the word you're probably looking for.

Can we not litter the thread with poo? >.<

This sentence combined with the profile pic is just comedic gold.

You still encode the affect of faces in the amygdala 74 ms after the signal, i.e. in the limbic system. That's the starting phase of the cascade. But the neurological model is only a simplification to explain the behavior. The behavioral cascade is signal -> habitual response -> conscious interpretation. Even if some of the habitual response (involving context information) can be said to belong to the cortex, you don't actually evaluate the information consciously (certainly not "logically" as you're talking about) before it's evaluated habitually. 6-7 month olds start to show increased reactions to negative faces, then 8-12 month olds start to use context information to judge the meaning of the faces. Are you saying for you as a 8-12 month old, thinking (logically) happened before habitual emotional responses? Did you think logically as a 1 year old? Obviously no. You were encoding and interpreting habitually, building up that repetoire which you then express still to this day. It's just over time as you mature, you become more adept at top-down responses to the signals. And even that becomes habitual; the suppression that happens more often in men happens habitually, really quickly. Higher-order logical thinking happens way down the line.

Some people think most people are just stupid, uninteresting, morally bankrupt, etc. But it just happens that the former are maybe pretty introverted and don't like interacting with people. And therefore they don't interact with people and they don't learn how people really are. Or they are too consumed by their own judgement that they can't open themselves up to see what is really in front of them.

Killer >:) You give me that word after priming words like "anger". Mmmm.

Is meditation a religious practice?

You mean "comes first" as in temporally? EEG Event-Related Potential (ERP) research disproves this. Just the way the brain is structured disproves this. The cortex receives signals later than the limbic system in reaction to stimuli. The cascade is sensory stimulus -> limbic -> cortex. Men are more likely to suppress emotional responses right after they happen (in the course of milliseconds); it just happens so fast and it's usually habitual (and ignoring or desensitizing that millisecond experience itself can also be habitual) so they might simply be completely unaware of it. And of course, the repression doesn't really remove the emotion as much as it pushes it to the side. The signal still reached the cortex, it was just diverted and not given the right to flow in a particular way. And it leaves a lasting physiological arousal which now is more likely to be interpreted as anger (especially if the emotion occurred in a situation where you feel compelled to externalize some of the cause; "something happened and now I feel this arousal, I didn't like very much what happened and this thing out here was the cause and it must be dealt with, and now I'm angry". It's a very caveman type of circuitry).

If I practice religious practices and say I believe in God, am I religious?

Feeling, unless I feel blocked or unable to or it feels somehow not appropriate in the situation.

These are not acceptance. These are judgments, the opposite of acceptance. Acceptance stays true to what is actually happening, not some idea you have. Acceptance takes what is actually occurring right now and says "I'm fine, I'm open, I'm receiving, I'm free of wanting to control either way".

Depends why. Tears of joy, amazement, lovely. Tears because of something else, also depends.

Year above me in high school, we both went to music class (elective course), tiny group of people in each grade, there was some collaboration between the grades but she was mostly busy travelling abroad or whatever she was doing. She once performed at our school (solo; I think it was Runaway), and after the performance, she got the biggest applause I've probably ever heard ever. And I said to my friend next to me "she is going to be world famous". And yes that happened. I think the only "interaction" I had with her was me and my music classmates came to class and she was sitting in the classroom on a table talking to a friend. She looked at me 🥵

@Natasha Tori Maru Bruh it's so wild that she went to my school 😆

These guys invented "slam" which is a slow breakdown with really heavy palm muted guitars, back in 1991. Death metal was barely established back then and they already invented a new genre (brutal death metal) which also came to define an entire other genre: deathcore (which is built around slam breakdowns). 2:52 Suffocation's sound is what really defined what most people perceive as death metal today, which is these extremely deep, guttural, muffled growls and extremely fast instrumentation and heavy production. Compare it to Morbid Angel above and it's more "open" and forward placed growls and less over the top instrumentation and sound.