Carl-Richard

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.

I don't know about the nuances here. Anger is frustration on speed dial.

The way causality is claimed for a statistical relationship is when you can determine the timing of the cause and the effect (the cause must precede the effect) and you have a plausible causal mechanism that rules out other potential causal mechanisms. The problem with medicine is that the latter is rarely achieved. You usually at best get competing causal mechanisms. I'm not reducing it to a "scientific lens". But what's a statistic? If I say "ADHD has been especially linked to 32 types of events", or "it's been shown that young boys have a 31% probability to be diagnosed with ADHD in school", what's that called?

Bodily movement that involves coordination is goal-oriented. Most 4-month-olds can hold objects. Closing your fist around an object and holding it involves coordination. The goal is to hold the object. If the 4-month-old fails in that goal, that could be a source of anger.

Regarding behavior that repeats: what about novel events like Michael Jackson being born? But isn't every birth also novel? Every cycle, every repetition? It's just a change in the particular configuration of the entire universe. Also, I don't see how you could separate behavior from the conditions. Like if an elephant spawned 40 ft up in the air in front of your front porch, how would you know whether that wasn't supposed to happen? "Laws" are just best guesses best on previous observations: per Hume, you can't say for sure whether you have found "the conditions" that produces the behavior. So not sure where we are going with this. The NDE point I made that you're referencing was essentially this (and it's a bit more specific than "NDE events"): If we find out we can see in a way that is not requiring sensory organs built through millions of years of evolution, then it makes you think that maybe other things we previously thought required evolution (e.g. higher thinking, planning, deliberation, intention) could also exist prior to evolution, and maybe that applies to God itself. So it's not just thoughts and intentions floating around in the ether perhaps as non-physical formed etherial beings but they are at the foundation of the workings of the entire reality. It may seem like a big jump, but it makes you think in that direction. As for assigning a probability to this suggestion, I have virtually no idea. But it seems like it opens you mind towards thinking in that direction. The alternative would be that you would not discover the way of seeing without biological sense organs and then the thought wouldn't even arise. Then you're certainly further from thinking about concluding in that direction. Now, I deliberately avoided addressing the following issues for sake of clarity: I spoke about two types of naturalism in that thread, and in the response above, I talked about naturalism in the limited sense of biological evolution and other mainstream contemporary ideas being the "physical laws". While in the other sense of the word, I talked about it as being essentially compatible with what we now like to call "supernaturalism": i.e., if we were to deduce the laws governing the mind of God were the mind of God be agential and capable of planning and other higher thinking functions, then we have capitulated naturalism while still conceding to supernaturalism. So when you ask me how do I square naturalism and supernaturalism (or how do I move towards either and away from the other), we have to make clear what idea of naturalism we're using. By the way, sorry for "dodging" the few last times, sometimes I just forget to respond (but I actually didn't forget this time, I just had to wait for the right time).

You don't prove a causal relationship by finding a correlation. That requires a bit more. You're simply pointing out the difference between a causal relationship and a spurious correlation. They can even disagree on metaphysics, like "is the world physical or mental?". Pretty on point.

Anger can be pre-egoic (if the ego is a self-aware identity). The way anger decreases as "consciousness" increases is that you identify with whatever is happening so that becomes your goal (or you perceive the circumstances with such fidelity that everything is expected and understood as part of the process to the goal) and therefore anger doesn't actually arise when so called "bad things" happen. Everything is supposed to happen. And you can also have anger arise and have the awareness to deal with it in the way you like (re-interpreting it, not reacting to it, or externalizing it the way the emotion is intended). People who have anger issues typically have a lack of control mechanisms, lack of awareness, of their internal state and outside affairs. They simply perceive everything as an obstacle to their goals, or they have such narrow goals or narrow perception of their goals that everything stands in opposition to those goals, so anger arises frequently, and they lack the control mechanisms to deal with the anger so they express it intuitively/compulsively without thinking about it, so they externalize anger frequently in an unfiltered and unthinking way. The jump from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is marked by a marked decrease in anger. You understand more, you see how it's a part of the larger picture, you identify more with all kinds of people, their anger, their lack of awareness, their goals are accommodated with your goals, their anger and lack of awareness is ultimately not seen as an obstacle to your goals (because you see them as a part of the process to the higher goals).

Along with the "proper definition created by cult researcher and cult deprogramming expert Steven Hassan".

May I politely offer an Earth-sized facepalm for me and the rest of the thread sir. You can disagree about what scholars think cults mean without throwing all of scholars (but one, conveniently) under the bus regarding all of epistemology.

That definition seems to fall under the definition of "destructive cult". Yeah yeah, I don't understand understand anything, only your perspective is right, not a cult.

No, that's your cult definition of a cult. But I will agree the word "cult" is garbage, it's mostly used to sling poo at people you disagree with, and not all cults are super destructive and exploitative. And I'm not co-signing the garbage video above either.

I think nobody here has even read the Wikipedia page on cults and are just having an emotional freakout to being called a cult. When I learned about cults in uni, it was defined in contrast to sects in that sects create their own version of (and claim to be the "true version" of) some existing mainstream religious denomination, while cults essentially create their own kind of religion. Their beliefs are not tied to just one single religious denomination. They may synthesize many of them or simply create "their own beliefs" (if that's possible), often through the personal machinations of the leader. And as a result, they end up being at odds with the surrounding society in some way. And that increases group cohesion, and especially when the leader is very charismatic and has self-proclaimed superiority over not just the members but perhaps the rest of the surrounding culture and society, that is where the psychological and group dynamics commonly associated with cults start to take form. And before your mind goes to "but Actualized.org is not a religion", feel free to read the Wikipedia page on that too.

"To call us a cult, you must join". 🤔

Phuack wymyn - Norwegian Institute of Public Health (and the literature they're basing it on 🧐).

@TruthFreedom What about sharing love just because you're that loving?

My stepdad gets so angry when I start talking about environmental toxins in fish and he's like "I simply follow the recommendations from the institute of public health and they say we can eat fish; instead of doing my own research, I just trust the 1000s of scientists who have already done the research and have done it better than I could ever do on my own". (It's not that simple by the way; he has probably not read any of the more specific recommendations that deal with contamination of e.g. self-caught fish and fish organ meats, avoiding certain species of fish during pregnancy). Meanwhile I'm like "hey, I just use it as a hypothesis for why I feel tired after eating cod and not salmon, and the institute of public health doesn't have a specific answer for that, so then I have to do my own research". He's like computing me talking about contaminants in the food he likes as "do not eat fish". He is really sharp and quick in a certain way, but he lacks any and all finesse and nuance sometimes. Businessman, super concerned about being pragmatic and forward-moving, getting results, not so much about getting to the bottom of things. It's like a complete clash, my entire being threatens his entire existence lol. Also, the way the institutes settle on a recommendation depends on cut-off values for what they consider to be safe, and those rely mostly on studies on developmental deficits (neurological and behavioral) in children (and sperm quality lol). There is probably no way they would capture the issues I'm concerned about like acute post-meal effects on cognition and performance and general energy levels (in adults, let alone children). Yeah ok, if you don't eat more than two portions of fatty fish per week, you won't be "brain damaged" per the definition of the institute, but what about say a 10%-30% acute drop in working memory performance?

There is like a spectrum of the alleged authority of the leader: At the very top-end, nobody is like the leader and nobody will ever be like them. That's like the peak Heaven's Gate type cult (not sure how accurate this is, but you get the point). Then under that you have where nobody is like the leader currently but that may change or is promised as a possibility. That's where Actualized is at. Then you have where the leader does not treat themselves as supreme and there are other examples of the same level of realization or teachings (but they still claim to be pointing to an Absolute truth). That would be perhaps some contemporary non-duality communities (maybe Sadhguru, Spira, Tolle). Then you simply have leaders or communities that claim special knowledge that is not necessarily absolute (or the leader is just charismatic) and they draw people in and exist on the margins of society. Perhaps Charles Manson's cult. Regardless of this, the point is that the more power is given to the leader, deliberately or not, the more cultish the dynamics become. The siloing from the larger society and the various psychological dynamics become stronger. And it doesn't matter that the concrete teachings are about independence of thought or becoming aware of self-bias or whatever clever and virtuous teachings that make the members feel like they're in control. The fact that the leader proclaims to be in that position of power, creates conflict with such teachings, and it will play on the members' psyches in pernicious ways. And such teachings will be used to protect the teacher. "You're just not openminded enough". "Be aware of your projections and biases". "You're too attached to your survival story". You can watch the Bentinho testimonies for all this. Cult dynamics are notoriously tricky and shifty and may play in large part under the surface in line with ego defense mechanisms of the members (suppress, deny, accommodate) and systemic effects across members (scapegoating, keeping the peace, maintaining group harmony, etc.). And again, the concrete teachings can create a false sense of security and even perpetuate the very cult dynamics they are purported to prevent.

One of the funniest videos on YouTube. Absolutely unhinged genius comedy.

Who said perfect?

Alien Anti-Biotics™

The only serious thing Actualized.org has going for it regarding the cult accusation is that the "leader" claims to have knowledge that exceeds anybody else in (as far as he claims to know) the entire world (and that this is the highest knowledge you can seek). This is different from merely claiming you have access to some Absolute truth.

The goal is to talk to women or "have success" with women (talk, connect, sleep with them, simply be with them, whatever you consider success), which is what I was commenting on pickup in relation to. All of that lies well within your skillset as a human being. Walking and music and other intuitive activities are good analogies. Pickup other than a few books from the 70s and 80s is terminally online / antisocial people trying to find a way to not be terminally online by consuming more terminally online content. And because they're terminally online, talking to women is framed as you're this soldier in Vietnam who ventures deep into the jungle on a mission encountering dangerous creatures and daunting tasks. Meanwhile in the real world, people simply talk to each other and hang out and then things develop from there. Pickup essentially does not exist in the real world. The real world equivalent is "dating". Pickup is in large part a vehicle for invading a social circle or space. And when you're not a part of the social circle, you're just an invader, you are generally not able to establish lasting meaningful connections, and the whole game usually becomes about being fast in and out, clinical, transactional, maximizing numbers, not real depth. It's the intersection of antisocial behavior, modern social spaces and capitalist mentality. It's understandable given the times, but sometimes one should question the solutions that are available. It's also seemingly a strategy for people who genuinely are on the spectrum to learn socialization. They seem to need rules, need concrete techniques, or they just prefer that mode of approaching problems. If you are that, sure, go for it. But if you are simply not talking to women, interacting with them, and you wonder why you feel awkward, anxious or incapable of talking to them, maybe it's a problem of practice; just like trying to walk after lying in a hospital bed for 6 months. EDIT: It is almost a tangent at this point, but you earlier discarded what I said about learning music theory being at most a bonus if not a detriment to being a good musician, and I think it's still relevant, as talking to women and whatever proceeds is still super intuitive: Aurora Aksnes, musical genius, said she was self-taught on the piano with no music theory knowledge when she wrote "Runaway" at 11 years old. That song has 1.25 billion streams on Spotify. I have more examples in that vein.

The statistical worldview is largely confined to observations or empiricism (what science is primarily concerned with; how reality behaves dynamically in the world, moment to moment; factual things, things you can measure; essentially gathering and making conclusions about data). That's why I said it does not preclude you from making analytical statements that have clear-cut Yes- and No-answers (which is more general, more philosophical, less tied to on-the-ground facts, more tied to logical contigencies, pure structure). Theorizing, hypothesizing, the thing you do before measuring, before putting a number to things. "Try meditation", or "try this in your meditation". Suggesting something does not require absolutistic statements of fact. Then I will say "why not both?". Deconstructing rationality does not preclude you from engaging in rationality. I did not describe the statistical worldview as an exclusive one (and perhaps that would be antithetical to the idea). I also thought about calling it "statistical thinking" instead but I feel it encapsulates a larger way of viewing the world than simply a way of thinking, it (ironically) encapsulates "many" ways of thinking (about structure in space, time, of how to use language and approach problems). But of course it's not an all-encapsulating thing or worldview, at least for me. It's just seemingly a large part of how my thinking mind works. Not everything, only some things.

I mean the known laws of physics is just the known laws of physics. If something appears to break those, that doesn't give much of a sign that it broke "the" laws of physics. And if the laws of physics is just reality and not some conceptual model or constraint we have defined, then I would say it was in line with the laws of physics. Everything would be in line with the laws of physics. But this is a categorical issue, not about probabilities. You would have to define more what you mean about the laws of physics if I were to start going into probabilities.

I actually have a hard time imagining an example of something breaking the known laws of physics in a way that relates to the listed hypotheses. Can you give me a concrete example?