Carl-Richard

I've been in both camps: using weed everyday like a crutch and using weed once and then having a full blown ego death experience. Weed is good at magnifying whatever is there (other psychedelics are too but in their own way, and they're perhaps more rude sometimes pulling the rug from under you). If you're a manic guy stuck in his mind, weed will magnify that. If you're a couch potato stuck in your couch, weed will magnify that. If you're a non-dual or psychedelically expanded guy, weed will magnify that. What weed seems to do is it narrows your cognitive lightcone. Your access to memories becomes less wide ("dissociation"), your focus becomes less fluctuating (unless you are in a state of paranoia or mania, which weed will magnify by focusing in on that paranoia or mania). It is associated with the neurochemical system of habit, which is by definition a narrowing of cognition. So whatever is there, or whatever you focus on, or whatever habit you have, weed will focus in on that. And as for the emotionally numbing effect of weed: the way negative emotions work is they are supposed to break habit, interrupt usual processing and make you shift your focus. "Look here, danger — fear, move, retreat", "look here, a problem — rumination, access memory storage", "look, uncertainty — anxiety, predict future scenarios", "look, an obstacle — engage anger, focus on obstacle and eliminate it". Weed just makes you like "whatever man". Most of these things receive a general dampening, unless of course you get focused/fixated (obsessed) on any one of them.

Have a goal that never gets fulfilled.

It's like my friend said: you become a bit like a grandma.

Ego grasping for what it thinks is the ultimate until it dies.

AI allows for laziness because it's so powerful, but you can use AI in a not lazy way. And imagine how powerful that makes you.

If I were to point out corruption, I would never shut up.

Yeah. He talked about self-realization (which to me seems like death) like it was just another experience.

I think if we start bringing back the Stages of Enlightenment models to the forum, these problems of solipsism won't arise, because 1. they don't contain solipsism, and 2. it's harder to deceive yourself (but not impossible) about the stages (especially the Shakti-Shiva progression models, i.e. self-realization, God consciousness, Unity Consciousness). It's harder to deceive yourself about concrete things like presence of shakti in the body or in the spine. And it's harder to get lost in conceptual stories when the models are only reliant on the interplay between shakti (dynamic energy) and shiva (pure being).

I'm re-watching his first interview and I get shakti activating too (I always did but it's still there). And it's such a smooth and flowing interview because Rick Archer is also self-realized so two self-realized people talking to each other is like such a resonance and Rick knows exactly how to add on something Jan says. Gem of the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpellation You said phantaclesis is: Give me one example of phantaclesis which is not described by interpellation. Maybe the difference is in style or tone: phantaclesis could perhaps be described more for cults, while interpellation is more about culture in general. Cults are more "enticing" and "alluring", they call on you, they reel you in, while culture is more like the environment you just exist in and passively soak in.

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).