Carl-Richard

Here is like the best examples I could find of each extreme of the spectrum: Fact-based: Narrative-based: List 25 is like "here is a fact, and here is a fact, and here is fact, what you do with them is up to you". Meanwhile Spirit Science is like, well, it speaks for itself.

I have a theory (not a conspiracy theory): the people who get strongly drawn to conspiracy theories are the same people who get drawn to supernatural ideas, like God creating the universe from their own predetermined plan (not simply evolving spontaneously through "natural law"). They are fine with explaining reality top down through an elaborate narrative. There is a seeming plan behind everything, behind world politics, behind alien invasions, behind wars, behind ancient history, and they all connect to a grand meta-narrative of control, of manufacturing, of conscious creating, rather than natural systems acting spontaneously. Those who criticize conspiracy theories point out how that level of organization, of top-down control, is unlikely if not impossible, because of the natural tendency towards spontaneous order and the infeasibility of controlling complex systems. In the "naturalist critique", everybody is a victim of systems, even the supposed people in power, while in the conspiracist's mind, the people in power are the controllers of the systems and the powerless are the victims. Whether one is more correct than the other is actually hard to say, and a naturalist that claims otherwise would then become a conspiracy theorist in their own right, thinking they have the level of insight and knowledge to be able to predict complex systems. As for myself, as a general predisposition, I've noticed I'm fine with either (naturalism or supernaturalism). While for example Bernardo Kastrup says he is strongly opposed to supernaturalism simply as a personal predisposition (which is why he says he sees no point in doing philosophy if nature is not simply naturalistic; no "God" at the top planning it all, intervening into nature and changing the natural course of things). But I would also challenge this idea of naturalism, that you could still try to deduce the "laws" behind God's planning so to speak, and it won't be a completely pointless endeavour, simply a more interesting one. Like trying to understand the psychology of God rather than the "physics" of God.

Neodingus 🤪

I'm saying economics is epistemically more aware than e.g. physics, similar to psychology, for the reasons I listed. Maybe you didn't catch the context of my earlier comments. Psychology is also "barely" a science for its own reasons. That doesn't mean I think economics or psychology are crap.

Neologitis. a) Trying very hard to come up with a new word (and usually failing, or rather there was already another established word for the same concept). b) constantly coming up with new words. You guys are a), Eric Weinstein is b). https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Ericisms Here's an excerpt of words starting with A (just A, there are many more letters):

Interpellation.

Lol. What was in the letter?

I would guess some heart problems considering he had an operative scar in his chest for a while. He seemed to be very "truth absolutist" in the sense he didn't seem to care much about physical health. The famous Pepsi meme I was a bit sad when I heard he died because I wanted to maybe meet him in person one day (I once met him in a dream and it was quite something).

So yes, another social science. Economics is also barely considered a science. Like it's basically impossible to predict things in economics. If that wasn't the case, everybody would be rich (and nobody would be). It seems like the more purely mechanistic and "basic" the field becomes (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology), the more epistemically naive it becomes. The thing about those fields is they can point to very tangible ways which their contributions work (technology, accuracy of measurements and experiments down to 9th or so decimal point, etc.) and they think of themselves as getting at the very fundamentals of those things. So they have a lot of feelings of self-efficacy, self-importance and self-confidence and thus hubris and become epistemically naive. Coupled with the fact that they align very squarely with just one epistemic mode (objective, external), they don't have to question their underlying assumptions much (unlike psychology or social science in general: "which model or research paradigm do we want to approach this question with?"). And when these assumptions also underlie the cultural metaphysical status quo (mechanistic, materialist, ironically Newtonian), that's even less of a reason to question them.

He is specifically known to do that. RIP.

Letting go is what Enlightenment is about. Having crazy experiences is what psychedelics are about. Time to graduate to Enlightenment.

Careful not to be too diplomatic here: they will agree with the former (on the level of words), but not the latter (unless they flipflop because they don't know the difference or are incoherent in their speech which absolutely does happen), which is the entire issue. Rewarding someone for saying what is seemingly right on the level of words but not on the level of concept (being "right" for the wrong reasons) is a punishment in disguise. You are not right if you think it's Absolute truth that your grandmother is a zombie because you're supposedly the only limited being that has an experience.

@Natasha Tori Maru I just see "guy do cool stuff" and I go "woo!". I don't see much philosophy in it, any more than I see philosophy in the fastest or strongest athletes in the world reaching for the highest heights. It's a celebration of life in a sense. "Being remembered in the 25th century" I think you took that a bit too literally, imo that's simply visionary ambition (I don't see it as him wishing to be remembered but he using that mental image, the standards of health in the 25th century, for the standards he strives for). "Ego" I want to use for people to use that ambition to grandstand over others. Direct comparisons and low vibration.

Bryan might want to find the engineering secrets of hacking lifespan. That's his life purpose. But if lifespan becomes infinite and people are healthy, they won't simply die. Maybe most healthy people want to spend their time alive in a different way than Bryan currently is, but they want to spend their time alive, and if they somehow can spend only a minimal amount of time to increase their time spent alive, they probably will do it. Bryan is just in the startup stages digging around, and that takes more time than people might consider reasonable. But that's his job. You just have to wait until the engineering problem is overcome, then you will join Don't Die (proper) probably as a default. If infinite lifespan was obtainable through swallowing a pill every morning (or doing a one-time genetic intervention), and it was basically free, how big percentage of the population would do it?

No: neologism (which is not a new word).

@Natasha Tori Maru "Don't Die" is a marketing slogan. Bryan is a businessman. He sold a company for 800 million dollars. The actual philosophy underlying Don't Die is akin to Sadhguru saying "dying in installments" (and avoiding it), i.e. simply be healthy, and if you're healthy, you don't see a reason to die. If you're unhealthy, yes, that's an issue, and I think Bryan knows that (he was at one point suicidal and overall unhealthy).

What are the pros and cons of reading books vs wikipedia articles or merely doing Google searches? Curious what your takes are. I think books are able to give some more depth sometimes, but often a book has many chapters and they are not necessarily connected in a profoundly significant way. But when they are, it helps drawing larger picture connections. And also of course just staying on a book or just sitting down and reading x amount of time (that you preset) trains your ability to focus and commit to one thing. I think the issue is not necessarily as much about reading books vs doing other forms of research but instead reading books vs not reading anything at all (or watching AI slop, reels, complete epistemic poison). I've personally not read many books outside my university education (which spans multiple fields though), I've mostly been an internet researcher (which might involve jumping into books or proper academic articles sometimes, but it's usually more sporadic than investing time in a structured way). But over the years, you come back to the same topics again and again and you accumulate depth and knowledge that way. It's not necessarily the case that non-books research precludes depth. It just makes it a longer time horizon thing. Your cognition structures it for you, you write the book in your own mind so to speak. Whichever format you think is best, I honestly don't think it matters much as long as you feel you have a clear traction on your goals. One invaluable thing I've always done (but which was calcified in my mind by either Daniel Schmachtenberger or Sam Harris, I can't remember) is to always look up the definition of a word you haven't heard about before. It becomes a little sporadic research program in its own right but it also becomes a springboard to other research (I do absolutely go down massive rabbit holes drawing connections between many words and concepts and sites, articles, persons, books, ideologies, 100 tabs open, not knowing which is which after a while). This is obviously a massive strength by having the internet.

It's not. It's a semantic game, as it usually is.

I believe your motivation for meditation is one of the very strongest predictors of the outcomes of meditation. If your motivation is enlightenment, that will lead to more profound outcomes than if your motivation is stress-reduction or whatever metric you would want to maximize your well-being at a normal kind of level. And changing your motivation (authentically) is hard. It's wired into you. If you're not motivated to meditate for enlightenment, there are very few things that can do that for you. So where would you expect to cultivate such a motivation with greater efficiency? Schools. Children are under creation, they are impressionable, and they are not distracted by life, by having a job, a family to take care of, financial status, social status, etc. Even if you meditate consistently every day as an adult, even while aiming at these higher states (awakening, enlightenment), you might not want to give up your job, your family, your finances, to become enlightened, or to pursue these things more rigorously. You're attached to these things, authentically giving them up is not usually something you can do over night. That's the crux of the issue of an unenlightened society. Nobody wants to give up what they have. They want to cling to what is their current life, the status quo, what feels secure. Even if they know very intimately what the enlightened experience entails, they might not want to actually give (and give up) what it takes to get there. So to create an enlightened Earth, you must start with the soil, you must water it so that the plants grow, you must give the plants the right attention and tools to grow into the potential that you give them. Let the old plants do what they do until they wither away. That's just the state of nature at this point.

Funny = mistake? 🤔 I just don't know what "inner friction" means (unless we're in the bedroom; talking psychologically of course). 🥴

Bruh the pen broke me. Reading cognitive science and neuroscience is basically getting this point hammered into your head again and again. It breaks your mind after a while. "Prediction errors", "forward models", "cognitive schemas", "fast-and-frugal heuristics", "ecological rationality", "Gestalt psychology", "top-down vs bottom-up processing".

I was calling my own comment about you cringe, not you 💀 You thought I thought it was cringe that you pointed out Putin's energy? I meant it was cringe I pointed out my impression of your past and current patterns. It was meant to disarm my next statements, but you took the disarming as an attack 😂

You have these funny concepts.

I can't watch AI videos because they are robotic :,) They rot my soul, and the brain-to-brain connection is non-existent. The organic feelings that try to peer through the surface layer just runs into metal, silicone, 1s and 0s.

It's funny that a video serving Russian propaganda is made soelly through the use of Western AI technology