Carl-Richard

"I just follow the dietary recommendations from the national institute of public health; they have 1000s of scientists that have done more research and better research than I could ever do".

I think a good heuristic for diagnosing someone as a "thinker" vs a "feeler" is how often they say "because". Because it indicates the use of logical thinking. "I think this because this is connected to this, and this is this, therefore this is this. Why? Because this is this. And because this is this, this is this." etc. If you are a feeler, you are more likely to just say a sentence and then let it stand on its own. It doesn't need further elaboration, because it's just what you feel. It didn't come from a deep systematic process of going from one thing to the next. Maybe you could derive the process after the fact (and perhaps that would indicate or give more evidence that it would be a more consistent or "true" feeling), but the process you arrived there was through feeling. In that sense, feeling need not be devoid of "logic", but it's devoid of conscious use of logic (logic as a declarative process). It's in a way a shortcut to a logical process (or it can be), but you have less ability to be aware of it and perhaps test if it's sound. You can of course be feeling in an inconsistent way and that would be what people usually look down on feelers for, but it may not necessarily be the case; it could depend on how accurate and attuned your feeling is. And the way feeling works is it's semantic rather than syntactic. You judge primarily by its pure holistic quality, not by relationship to other qualities. But ironically, a feeling can therefore contain syntax because you can feel the whole as a quality. If something is coherent, if there is consistency between the parts, you can feel it. That's how you can judge whether something is coherent with your values or not (without stating your values declaratively). You can simply feel whether there is coherence. Perhaps there is also a feeling element to whether one logical conclusion follows from the premises declaratively. But then, the distinction between a feeler and a thinker is how often or how many connections you feel (and again, declaratively).

@Natasha Tori Maru Yeah that's yeah. Yeah. 😵‍💫

What have I spawned My NatashaGPT prompt is too powerful.

Authentic high heels to nutsack, no AI can recreate.

Long time no see. I was thinking about you. Spoken as the most heterosexual man to have ever heterosexualed.

I'm gay. No.

Calling AI text perfection is like calling a vax figure of Brad Pitt perfection.

It writing out text that makes me puke is all I need to know it's not real.

Try the technique in the video. I recently thought about it as a potential treatment method for akathisia and other movement disorders. It has a way of balancing (quite literally through bilateral symmetry) and gently channeling one's energy into smooth movements which could be helpful for exorcising anxious stuck-up energy.

? Try it.

The concept of a male escort, especially a high-rated one, is really fascinating. Notice the personality type. Notice the social status, the philosophy and values, the type of interactions that women want out of it. They (the good ones) seem like highly caring, sensitive heroes.

I mean does he suffer now with his current behavior (e.g. while maintaining his Blueprint protocol)? Does he feel it's a problem that is negatively impacting his life in some way? Even if he hasn't commented on this specifically, what would you guess? To me, there is a distinction between say a Howie Mandel ("I don't feel in control of my thoughts") and Bryan Johnson "we will conquer mortality". I guess unless he is so much in denial and blind to his own mental life that anything he says about his mental state is inaccurate, it would probably be hard to label it a "mental disorder", but perhaps again "personality disorder" is possible.

It's ok, go marry a mannequin. Yes, there is a tension between the benefits and utility of AI and it invading and corrupting every human domain. That's the problem.

In what way though? Does he suffer a lot due to it? Or is it merely a "personality disorder" in that he doesn't suffer from it personally but it just seems extreme to (or bothers) other people? And it doesn't seem to be limited to food: it's his entire routine. Some people are just highly orderly/industrious and they feel quite fine.

High on A-I. That's what's going on.

Human substrate zapped, cursed, soul-banished, lifeless powder extracted, sprinkled in the shake we call internet.

Taking a multivitamin makes your biomarkers look good, but they make me feel overly wired and funky. Feeling overly wired and funky for 80 years vs not, what effect does that have on lifespan? Bryan Johnson's idea of "trust the biomarkers, not bodily signals" is what clashes the most with my view and might be his Achilles' heel. It might even kill him acutely: Recently, he said he had been doing sauna "all wrong" because according to the way he measures core body temperature (from the insides of his stomach), he was supposedly not getting a release of heat shock proteins. So now he does over 30 minutes of sauna in 93.33 C° at one time. He says it's excruciating. Yet he enthusiastically recommends this. Imagine what other extreme things he could end up recommending if only the numbers tell him to, despite using questionable methods of measurement and questionable conclusions. For me, I leave the sauna when I feel like I'm ready. Not only do I feel benefits despite sitting there for shorter, I could very well be getting the heat shock protein benefits Bryan claims he was missing, because increasing the temperature of the insides of your stomach, a spacious internal organ insulated by skin, muscles, intestinal walls, containing food contents, surely happens later than more peripheral body parts.

At least it's real. There is nothing worse than living in a fake world where there is literally no soul. Even materialist capitalist spiritually dead people have a soul compared to a piece of text printed out by a large language model.

Attracting women (or rather making them experience attraction) is one thing. Satisfying them is another. If you care about merely attracting women and dumping them after your 5-second performance, do your looksmaxxing and psychopathmaxxing and whatever. But if you care about developing lasting, meaningful and deep relationships with women, be someone they want to be around. The desire for safety and being cared for is what underlies "eww what a creep" and dumping the attractive guy who is an asshole or is unable to provide, and perhaps paying a male escort who is sensitive and caring. When they're in the situation of willing to pay for a set and planned deal, they're already looking for safety, for care. So that need perhaps becomes more readily apparent in that situation. That doesn't mean they won't experience attraction from perhaps somewhat of an asshole, or just a good looking guy despite of their behavior. But you have to take into account the former if you're looking for something prolonged.

Imagine a zoomer meeting a medieval Buddhist and they start talking about auras.

Dick so flaming it developed bioluminescence, functioning as a flashlight. Hence enlightenment. We have to be open to alternative historical interpretations. I'm the Graham Hancock of buddhist history.

Thunderbolt of Flaming Chlamydia.

It's not going anywhere when you're not engaging. People also drink alcohol every day.

People are doing hard drugs every weekend and going to work. Viewing a thing as either completely good or completely bad for all people at all times in any dosage or any context, that is religious thinking.