Carl-Richard

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.

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 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?

The solo from Scar Symmetry's Neuromancers is one of the best solos (if not the best) in modern metal: 3:11 It's very interestingly similar to probably the greatest metal solo of all time (Megadeth - Tornado Of Souls). It starts on the same "intro note" (a single sustained root note with a vibrato) and has a similar backing track with high tempo and a melodic chord progression (it even starts at a similar time in the song hahaha 3:09-3:11): 3:09 It seems like the backing track is a huge factor in what makes a solo great. And it makes sense. It sets the tempo, the energy levels and the melodic/harmonic framework the solo gets to work in. And if you're able to actually work in communication with the backing track, especially playing within or at least acknowledging the melodic changes (which Per Nilsson from Scar Symmetry has said he likes to do and has shown in an interview that he is very adept at), you get the best sides of music.

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).

Pukety puke.

🤣🤩

What are some of the highest things you know about and how do you go about sharing it to most people?

Significance, purpose, coherence, mattering. I might add some examples of significance because it was a bit abstract: the taste of ice cream, the feeling of wind across your skin, the feeling of love and warmth from your lover's touch, the experience of fun, laughter, contentment, sadness, etc.

I was about to say.

If somebody struggles with talking to women, I would ask how often do they talk to women. Talking to another person lies well within your skillset. It's literally what humans do, it's what makes us human. Yeah, sit down and actually talk to people. It's so brilliantly banal, but that's how you get good at talking to people. People might be doing it less nowadays for various reasons and you can have various excuses for why it's so hard and you need help and you need the best cheat codes etc., but that doesn't change the basic fact of the matter. We've been talking to each other for hundreds of thousands maybe millions of years. We didn't suddenly need pickup theory to talk to women whenever it arose 40-50 years ago or whatever (unless Plato was a pickup artist or whatever). The reason I bring up music and walking as examples is that they are highly intuitive. Theory might be very important for theoretical stuff like perhaps writing a scientific article or philosophical treatus or starting a business. But for essentially basic human functions like talking, walking, making sounds, connecting with other people, you just need to do it. Get off the screen, get off your ass and walk/sing/talk. And if you have problems connecting to people (which is sort of the point of communicating), work on that. It's as simple as listening, talking with them, being with them. Consider the example of the creepy pickup artist. They might be applying some theory to the perfect extent, but there is just something off. They lack connection, their theory just simply doesn't resonate with the basics of connection, or they lack the intuitive antennas for it somehow (which again, can be trained). What do people tell those people? "Relax, go with the flow, don't be in your head so much, don't try so hard, act like you're dumb and your brain is shut off", etc. These are essentially saying "stop with the theory, go connect". But then of course you could say "but that is theory". Well, if theory is about dropping theory, then fine, theory it is all the way down. But you probably see the distinction between "theory, more theory will save me" and "drop theory, go connect with people".

You have a very "reducing" temperament, I could've expected this response. Then I guess I'm saying being very serious about theory is not necessarily the answer and it might even be detrimental if you're not already somewhat intuitively well-adjusted (and maybe even if you are). It's like if you want to be serious about walking on your two feet, do you have to be very serious about the theory of walking on your two feet or should you perhaps simply proceed to walk on your two feet and see if it works just doing that? Maybe if you want to add a couple of percentages of efficiency on your walking, you will engage in some theory and perhaps slightly tweak your walking patterns, but you might also end up ruining your natural gait and become less efficient.

People learning pickup theory to be successful with women reminds me of people learning music theory to be good musicians. That's like at most a bonus, if it's not a detriment (which it very often can be). Playing music (or making it, be it only in thought) is what makes you a good musician. And emphasis on "playing" and not necessarily "practice". Some of the best musical virtuosos in the world have said they have never actually "practiced" but simply played what they enjoy. So maybe the question is do you genuinely enjoy (or can you get yourself to enjoy) talking to women? Then maybe they will enjoy talking to you too (many women are like pristine mirrors, they reflect yourself right back at you). And as for "I can enjoy talking about things I like but then women won't like me", that's not what I mean. That's literally defined as "autistic thinking", talking only about your own interests while not communicating with the other person. And it's not only women who won't like you then. If you can't tune into the other person and establish a shared space and connection, that's a larger issue of how you relate to people, and that can be trained, and you can get to like that over time, genuinely listening to people and riffing off of them. The trick is to get to talk about your own interests "through" them. You lead, you ask, you probe, you listen, then find a connection and go from there. Or you simply learn to like observing and engaging with different perspectives which then feeds into your interests that way. If there is no connection, get it out then leave it, you are talking to yourself. You want to enjoy talking "to" or "with" them, not "at" them. Shallow gimmicks do not beat genuine connection. When it comes to playing, drop the theory and engage with the music.

Yes, and it lead me to that the brain is more complicated than that. There are 5ht1a receptors in your spleen. Their effect depends a lot on where they are expressed. They just happen to be densely expressed in key cortical regions and the Default Mode Network and largely reduce firing in there. And other compounds can induce proclaimed glimpses into pure consciousness (cannabis/THC, salvia) which act on different receptor systems.

Visualizations of the statistical worldview (mediation models; one variable affecting another through one or more variables): For the uninitiated, C' is the effect that remains when you account for / control for all the other effects in the model, C is the total effect (all the effects combined). Bigger number means bigger effect, negative number means negative effect (but how to interpret that depends on how the variables are conceptualized/measured/operationalized). The more stars the more significant the effect (the more we trust the results to be accurate); complete lack of stars means the effect is not significant (considered not worthy of consideration in this data set). The numbers in the parentheses are related to the stars (if it's too high relative to the effect, it means lack of stars).

There's like a 2007-2010s haircut, and that's it.

@Natasha Tori Maru What about size? Steve Vai has giant hands. By the way, the most seductive song that has ever been written.

I won't try, but I will try through a story: I one time went with some from uni to a bar, and I was with one girl, and then we met some other people (guys) and they were like "your eyes are so amazing, oh my god!" (and they were right to be fair; I even said kinda lowkey "I'm mean it's not wrong..." which was kinda not the best move to be fair but anyway). I've later imagined in that moment that after they left (which was quickly), I could be like "don't you think it's sometimes better that not everything has to be spelled out?" and she would ask "yeah, what do you mean?". And then I would just look her straight into the eyes like a horny predator (and kiss her???).

But do you promote pursuing spirituality/awakening knowing it might increase the chances of a spontaneous kundalini awakening (and dissolution of self which is arguably just as dramatic as kundalini energy)?

Systems thinking is thinking with emphasis on relationships and challenging simple analytical thinking (naive reductionism: "a -> b"), often dealing with notions like complexity, circularity, context. I'm not necessarily invoking systems thinking as much as multiplistic thinking, simply acknowledging there are multiple things, and these things are related in degrees. "Multiple" is statistical, "degrees" also. Probabilistic thinking acknowledges degrees of probability of multiple outcomes; that's also statistical. Bayesian thinking is a very specific framework. The probabilistic aspect I'm talking about is simply about acknowledging probabilities. It's very simple. Everybody should be familar with the concepts I'm talking about. It's just some are maybe less deeply practiced in it or less able to spot the common errors our mind makes. Especially the last paragraph about spotting how things can be two or more things at the same time. For example about the Placebo effect. People often seem to have an idea that once "placebo" is invoked, every other effect is somehow irrelevant. But it doesn't have to be that way, and it most probably isn't that way in most cases.

God is like: Who cares about Leo's argument? Leo's not God.

You're alright, don't worry.

@Never_give_up Also, beware that it's not "you" that reincarnates (you as the ego-mind-body complex, what you think you are). "You" will die, "you" will disintegrate, "you" will become nothing. That is ultimately what you are. And then what reincarnates is a seeming husk of whatever carries the life-force that births the ego-mind-body complex. And then this husk is what connects you to prior ego-body-mind complexes associated with it (but as far as you are concerned, basically only retroactively were you to recall a past-life memory). If you are heavily identified with your current mind and body, physical death will feel like true death to you. You will feel like you're disappearing forever. The experience of death can be quite real for definitely most people. So using reincarnation as some insurance against whatever fears and desires you have, that's ultimately futile, because you will have to face all of it, and the nature of the thing you think you are right now will vanish, relinquished to the memory of nature.

What does taking your life to try to advance in a next life signify? It's an earthworm digging itself into the ground, or a mosquito trying to suck the blood of reality. It's probably not meant to be taken literally, but the trend is that stuck patterns perpetuate themselves, and the way out is "through". If you decide your life is not worth living, that's a pattern you probably will have to work through in your next life, unless you work it out in this life.