Carl-Richard

You are talking about him being the orchestrator of the millionaire project. But oh well, only my two cents.

Rock hard 🤣

I think I'm saying if you find the Avengers of building houses and pay them enough, they will build your house, even if it's a massive cock made out of diamonds.

Shoestring budget is the very thing I'm challenging (and perhaps mud box too, I don't know). You want a spaceship budget (hyperbole yes). And if you want to do it on a shoestring budget, you might end up doing it on a spaceship budget anyway in terms of time spent and potentially resources wasted on failed attempts or getting stuck on seemingly unsolvable problems like here in this thread. Money is conveniencemaxxing, timemaxxing, it tends to come back around anyway you approach it (unless you're a genius and your discoveries create a discontinuity in money-time/spacetime and become a rapid fount/stratovolcano of value; excuse my sleep-deprived neologitis).

If you wanted to build a spaceship with kitty ears on it, you would probably still want help from a rocket scientist or an aerospace engineer (and workers, skilled laborers) Any serious project that could in theory work, could in theory be marketed. It's not like he is the first one out there building a weird house. If you yourself can plan it out in a way that will work, then an engineer, architect, etc. probably can too. Unless it requires actually reinventing the wheel and you're saying these engineers and architects are useless.

Apparently, you don't just need looks to mog, you need drugs. Imagine spending so much time smashing your face in but then it doesn't matter unless you get smashed while going out.

I think building a house (at least in the context of everyday life) is probably the #1 thing you don't want to do if you don't have the knowledge, resources or manpower to do it, especially a house that nobody really builds. That's why you have money so you can buy that. Money is conveniencemaxxing. If you're serious, you would probably be better off saving up a shit ton of money and getting the help you need. No need to reinvent the wheel in your own backyard or playing Leonardo DaVinci. But hey, maybe you are that guy.

You're asking if @Basman is a robot? 🤖 He studies psychology; he knows about Kahneman's System 1 vs System 2 thinking (unless it's only a graduate course 😬). Well, actually I think you could engage "rational thinking" (System 2) in such a situation, but it would potentially cost you (especially if we're talking about milliseconds).

AI bad with that non-existent double-capitalized periodic element.

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

Because I thought salmon and cod were equal in their contamination prior to that, and I had been seemingly fine eating salmon. I expected to be fine but I was not. I found out about the difference in mercury levels after the fact. I had a similar thing happen when I tried a zinc supplement for the first time. I thought since because it increases testosterone, it would make me more hyped at the gym (I took it at the gym), but instead it made me more calm and relaxed. I was actually extremely surprised by this, and then I believe I looked it up at the gym and was like "ah, it has like 200 functions in the body, maybe that's why". If something goes against your expectations, then it's much less likely to be placebo/nocebo. Placebo is very much tied to expectations, that's how placebo pills work.

But it helps citing a mechanism of action (like I did with the fish), because then you have one less reason that you might be simply imagining it or having some psychosomatic reaction (and not much else).

I'm not talking about simply making observations. I'm talking about testing it up against alternative hypotheses, what's called "dissociation" in experimental science (or rather in neuropsychology specifically, please forgive me). In other words, you could say that drinking coke seemingly leads to a certain outcome, but when you ask "why", that's more tricky.

Did ChatGPT tell you this? ChatGPT psychosis is real. The thing about these subtle things is that even if you go by experience first ("this seemingly makes me feel x way") and then trying to find a suitable hypothesis for why, is you want to be very clear about testing alternative hypotheses. For example, I didn't understand every time I eat cod, I get supremely tired. But it did not happen with some other fish or salmon. Turns out cod has around 5x more mercury in it than salmon and other fish at that level of the food chain. My mom blames tryptophan, but then it would also happen if I eat chicken or beef, but that doesn't happen. Are you doing any of these alternative tests with your hypotheses?

You disidentify with the ego. End of story.

By the map, it looks like family, sunlight and lower rates of alcohol use (or drunkenness) could be it. Middle East and Indonesia and North Africa are largely muslim, South America is largely Christian (low atheism rates). Muslim and Christian means more family and less or no alcohol (definitely less drunkenness). Alcohol is not just a comorbidity with depression but also a mediator for suicide.

People outside Norway don't know there is a Southern Norway and then there is a Northern Norway. Pretty much night and day (quite literally). Compare education levels, income, daylight hours, climate and temperatures in Finnmark vs Oslo.

Because no matter what you do, it's there.

I think it's a stupid question honestly. Which is what I think about the original question and most pseudo-philosophical (and philosophical) thought experiments. Setting aside the obvious problems like the irreducibility of context like @Natasha Tori Maru pointed out, and that the scenarios are usually simply unrealistic given any reasonable world, and while it's also related, they are usually too vague to be interesting. If you want to ask an interesting question, ask "what principle would you use to determine the answer?", or "what do you feel most emotionally attached to?", or "if you were to make it an universal rule, what would the answer be?". What these vague formulations do is they mix such potential answers together and then people who only can keep one thought in their head at one time jump at each others' throats for disagreeing when they actually might not have to disagree. It's manufactured polemics. Yeah duh, people have emotional attachments to things/beings close to them. Yeah duh it's generally stupid to reflexively use emotional attachment as a ruler for moral action. Tell me something that I didn't already know. The question is about as interesting to me as "would you shit yourself on the bus?". "Other people might not like that (morals), so with respect to that, probably no, but if (context) I really can't keep it in and I don't feel like I have a choice in that (feels/emotion), then yes".

Would you save your mom or your father?

A comment I found under this video (where Frankie Muniz expresses the common opinion that "he hates Skyler"): It encapsulates the crux of my earlier point about how the show is a lesson in ego identification. When you skip all the manipulation, the excuses, the scheming, the justifications, of going through all the experiences from start to finish and just look at the pure endproduct, you see through all of it. And when Bryan goes through the logic with Frankie, you see how he quickly understands how ridiculous it is. Which is another point on how ego identification works: it is so engrossing and captivating in the moment, you get hypnotized by it, but when you step back, you see how ridiculous it is. This happens a lot when people have an argument and then step away and realize that they might have been acting foolishly. They realize they were so engrossed by a very particular and limited story, they couldn't see outside of it. And that's of course one of the main mechanisms of the ego: it works by limiting your attention and pulling you into a limited point of view. And it's maybe not so coincidental that we use the words "acted foolishly". You in some sense realized it was an act. It was a role you played. And that's how shows can reel you in to their story even if it's all an act. Because there is fundamentally no difference in terms of the mechanism of how it happens. And that's also maybe why somebody I know is unable to watch Breaking Bad because they think Walter is that much of an asshole and watching it is seemingly just too frustrating: she is unable to drop her role and identify with the character.

Maybe more for simple knowledge-harvesting use, but for more creative use, then maybe not so much. Then, at the end of the day, it comes down to your own conscientiousness and grit. You can write an essay yourself in a sloppy way and only read over it once and phone it in, or you can write it with great rigor and read it over 100 times and make it better. Same with AI; you can make AI do it all in one go and settle with that or you can give it 100 prompts and refine whatever it produces. Socrates worried writing would make our memory weaker (and presumably make us dumber), meanwhile it serves as an incredible technology that frees up our memory for more important things. AI can be said to do the same thing. If you are using it to do important things, your focus on those important things will most definitely be enhanced. Maybe you will lose some skills you used to have, but to think about it as a net negative is maybe not the way.

@Cred I was pointing out your use of the word "caring". "Caring" can involve an expression of insecurity or self-deception, that's all. And we often don't know where the insecurity or self-deception begins or ends and where authenticity begins or ends. That's an ever-unfolding process, and we're free to do whatever within that. And I can agree with the general logic, but I would say it's not limited to ADHD. Everybody I look at who push themselves way past what they want and repress the consequences of that (and that is most people who have a "job"), develop this kind of depression and lack of embodiment, and they are as neurotypical as they come. I always looked at people in high school who talked about how they wanted to become a certain person in a certain profession, and I was always like "really?". And not coincidentally, years later, I could see them struggling, or using drugs (like Mike does; I'm referring to regular use of weed). And most people I see have this "lowered" consciousness or emotional state, not truly passionate, not truly tapped in, just getting by and forgetting about why they feel the way they feel. There was recently an article in my country about the rampant use of alcohol by politicians; probably the most neurotypical profession there is. And just the alcohol culture in general, it exactly fits this dynamic of "drowning out" whatever you are truly feeling when you finally get off work and have time to feel. This disconnection, alienation, repression, is ubiquitous. It has to do with swallowing whatever outside standard was put in front of you and not introspecting into how you yourself feel. But sometimes you don't know better or you don't have the privilege to choose, and again, sometimes we want to pursue our insecurities or self-deceive ourselves. That's our prerogative as humans.

By only listening to the piano, you would never guess it's from a Black Metal song. The melodies are just superb. The composer of the piano parts (Mustis) is truly musically tapped in.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).