Carl-Richard

So you're dreaming at night. You dream that you're John in Paris. You wake up and you remember you're Sam in London. You can also wake up (again) and realize you're God dreaming everything. Then what are John and Sam? They are dream characters, dreamt up inside the dream, and they seem to experience the world from their own limited perspective (by virtue of the fact that you dreamed as them and they seemed to be in different places with different impressions and feelings). That limited perspective is their mind. The dreamer of all the minds is God. And God is a big Mind. So what is the brain inside the dream? It's a thing that correlates with other things in the dream. When you touch your nose, you can see brain activity light up related to the nose. When you close your eyes, you can see brain activity related to closing your eyes. You can use brain activity to predict many things that happen in the dream. But the brain is still inside the dream. It is not ultimately "creating" the dream. It is part of the consistency of the dream. Just like when the temperature drops, the thermometer shows a drop in temperature, when brain activity drops, you see a drop in certain behaviors of the mind.

Blueprint Baby Powder 😭😭😭

Idealism, depending on the type, is capable of distinguishing between personal minds and transpersonal Mind. It would say personal minds are epiphenomenal/products of transpersonal Mind and thus not ultimately "real". The greater Mind is what is the ontological ground. This lies behind the distinction between Maya and Truth. This lies behind the distinction between the limited world of perception (sounds, colors, sensations, thoughts; things you divide and label through concepts) and pure Consciousness (prior to dividing it up into labels, categories, concepts). More naive ideas of non-duality actually make this distinction implicitly when they say "everything is mind and everything else is just a concept". Where do the concepts come from? Can it be described, systematized? A good philosophy systematizes useful notions like that, hence it introduces distinctions like personal minds and transpersonal Mind.

That is such a cringe word.

One evening around midnight, I walked past a buss terminal next to the largest shopping centre in Norway. It had essentially been overtaken by 'russebusser' (for non-Scandis: the busses some of the russ pay millions to have a mobile nightclub for a month at the end of high school) and there were russ filled to the brim everywhere, piss and puke everywhere. And after passing the terminal, a new buss came from the road and blasted music from the windows from the best speakers I've probably ever heard, sounded like something out of Mad Max. The busses feel like pirate ships on the road.

Why do you think that is? Is it the oil? What about Sweden? 🤔

Look at how many people fall for this shit 😭

Law of Jante keeping that in check. Aren't you Danish? Why you single out Norway? 😂 Literally textbook definition of delusion.

You don't have to be a physicalist to see that there seems to be a correlation between brain states and aspects of experience. Is he saying Consciousness is caused by brain states or is he saying aspects of experience seem to have consistent neural/bodily correlates?

What do you mean by "quietly" dismissed? Secretly banned, kicked out? Is a doomsday cult not a cult if you don't get kicked out for disagreeing on a selection of issues?

I remember the only time I saw a female drug dealer (out on the job), people flocked around her like she was a celebrity. I mean that also happened with other dealers, but seeing it was so funny.

2-3 months if nocturnal emissions count as a streak ender (although I might be misremembering). I felt like everything was 50% too loud. Muscle tension, sleep issues. Like being on a microdose though.

People protect people they are fond of. Who would've guessed?

@Yimpa Do you use it often?

My cameo only lasted a fraction of a second

What do you mean "start"?

Consider that you would consider a doomsday cult a cult even if they weren't taking any of your money or using "mind control" techniques (which is what exactly?) or the members are "completely free" to leave.

Instead of taking criticism from a retarded bot seriously, take it from the humans in question: I think if you seriously believe Leo when he says he is the #1 authority on epistemology and consciousness, you might be idolizing him a bit too much. "But I'm just open to the possibility". Sure, I'm too (there are many things that are technically possible), but do you believe it to actually be the case by any reasonable probability?

A computer is a rock: silicon and metal.

Think about walking through a crowded PvP zone with high defense/HP vs a relatively vacant PvP zone with low defense/HP. What feels the scariest?

I will throw a rock- I mean a doorstop at you right now through the screen and you will catch it with your left arm, yes? Let's go. My screen is black. Sorry, I've been watching "not allowed to laugh in the cabin", a horrible Norwegian game show that destroys your sense of what is funny.

@Natasha Tori Maru I can't watch AI videos. And is the claim "5-MeO -> death" now? I thought it was "weird beliefs -> death". The video must be using ChatGPT-4o or something, it seems low intellect and hallucinatory.

What happens when you scale a rock?

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.

Even a blueberry-banana smoothie makes me feel wonky (but eating the banana and blueberries in their normal form seems OK). When you break down the fibers, it's like knocking off the 4-HO-group of psilocin and it becomes DMT. I need that steady release or the physiology gets out of whack.