Carl-Richard

I always pictured my mid thirties as the age I'm like "supposed" to be.

The poll is stupid if you can see the results before it is closed. Anyways, if you're rational and not retarded, you would hope everyone presses the red button (just for their own sake), because then everybody survives regardless, and regardless of how many pushes the button, you will survive. But of course there is always one retard who doesn't understand this. So if you're willing to bet that more than 50% of people are willing to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to save one or more retards (or they are simply retarded themselves), then go ahead, push blue.

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.

Have empathy for people who hate pedophiles, or hate in general. You don't hate a child for being low consciousness, so you don't hate a child for hating. That makes you a child. And what's worse; actually raping children (that's what many people think pedophiles do) or merely hating people who do that? I would also not try to speak as if getting raped as a child is not so bad or is less bad than being decapitated (or raping children is not as bad as decapitating people). You have to live with potentially very traumatizing memories and fucked up sexuality and potential pedophilic feelings yourself for the rest of your life as a result. And some people who hate pedophiles might hate them because of these reasons or because they've experienced it themselves (which can of course be contradictory if they themselves end up with pedophilic feelings, but perhaps they pride themselves on self-control or their feelings are not exclusive to children). There is a psychological dynamic of preying on the vulnerable that is very repulsive and intuitively morally condemnable. If somebody threathens your children, that's one of the strongest if not the strongest evolutionary drive you have to oppose something. And as sexual attraction is also one of the strongest evolutionary drives (it's what created the children after all), then naturally those who are sexually attracted to children are a supreme threat to children. Sex and reproduction are very strong forces, invoking very strong feelings of morality and drives behavior, and pedophilia is stuck right in the middle of it.

You have free will in the sense that you feel like you're in control of your actions. If you deny this feeling, you are self-sabotaging yourself. Be very rigorous about distinguishing between the feeling of being in control and any metaphysical notions of free will. They are NOT the same. "I could do this, but there is no metaphysical free will, so why bother?" is a thought that ruins your sense of self-agency and control. It's a purely delusional and self-sabotaging thought, it doesn't help for anything but immobilizing yourself and denying yourself the right to be who you want to be. And I suggest dropping the idea of solipsism and simply going with what you actually experience. Thoughts about solipsism don't matter. They are ultimately distractions. The point about absolute truth is it doesn't depend on what you merely think about it. So don't even think about it. You don't have to. It's ironically another form of self-sabotage. Your goal is to realize what is beyond thinking but you keep thinking about it as if it is supposed to help. It's not. Drop it if your goal is realizing the absolute.

-> The incredible juxtaposition (a.k.a. logical contradiction). Some women get kicked out of stores because of acting like children, and some women moderate online trolls for acting like children.

I have no idea what government regulation has to do with burden of proof, but ok. This is what you said initially: What if I say porn is not harmful, is the burden of proof on me?

Bro what the fuck are you talking about. She has problems with emotional regulation. It's a problem of being a 3 year old toddler in an adult body. "Female temperament", pfft, this is a child's temperament. "I want my dad!"

Wrong desert.

My boy Bernardo Kastrup, I just realized he is an ex-director of ASML, the largest company in Europe. And now he is about to land a 100m dollar fund for his new AI company Euclyd. Boy's brain is out of this world. 1:47:55 And how does he get that funding? Well, currently the leading chip manufacturer for AI is NVIDIA, and they make graphics cards designed for gaming. They were not designed with AI in mind, so they are very inefficient according to these startups that want to corner that market. Bernardo postulates their chips can reduce electricity usage by ~100x compared to NVIDIAs chips. Interesting times ahead not just for AI but for idealism and non-duality considering the seats of power and influence some of these people inhabit.

I mean technically he already did that once. Give it another 7 year cycle and it comes around probably. And Essentia Foundation is "essentially" running itself anyway. I have a feeling he might have been partially spooked from academia after realizing naturalism seems more and more futile (he said he doesn't really see the point of doing philosophy if naturalism doesn't apply, which I personally think is just a slightly rigid definition of naturalism born out of clinging to old ideas of how reality ought to work, and you can still proceed and try to find a rule set for things despite various issues related to NDEs and psychic phenomena, but he seems to think that level of complexity is a bit unsatisfactory, which he attributes to his hard science / analytic temperament).

📞*123-actualized-thread* "Hello, do we speak concepts here or only words? Thought so."📞 ☎️💢 😝

I've entered the single sentence thread. I will try to comply.

Ah, the curse of having to choose between world domination through tech or world domination through academia 😝

Maybe consider that confusion is not an indication that you've landed in some kind of absolute undeniable truth, but rather your mind is simply confused. When truth is seen, it should be clear as day.

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

You can distinguish between self-awareness (meta-cognition, meta-consciousness, self-reflection), sentience (feelings, perceptions, senses) and pure consciousness (Consciousness as infinite being, before any I, body, or self). A rock would be pure consciousness, but it is not necessarily sentient (which in the normal worldly realm seems generally related to sense organs) or self-aware (which in the normal worldly realm seems generally related to having big brains and especially complicated social interactions). That said, there is nothing in principle that stops a rock from being sentient or self-aware, but from the perspective of observing things in the world and drawing conclusions about them, you'll probably have a harder time arguing for the sentience and self-awareness of rocks than e.g. pigs or humans.

It may involve that as a common feature but it's not limited to that. And "misidentification" is key here. Misidentifying whether something is your own internal voice or some external thing is on the spectrum of the human tendency to sometimes misidentify the causes of and generally be confused about perceptions and events, where the types of experiences I described earlier exist somewhere on the normal part of that spectrum. A professor once told me about a case where a schizophrenic described seeing a ghost and the ghost passing through them, and as it was passing through them, they could feel tactile sensations of the ghost and also smells of rotten fish. It's a pretty wide spectrum of possible experience. There is a point where "misattribution" or "misidentifying" doesn't do the experiences justice, but indeed hallucination or simply dreaming. And you can experience this yourself if you've been very sleep deprived or stressed or ill. Suddenly the distinction between "reality" and dream becomes very foggy. Or simply laying and taking a nap, you are floating between "true external" and "generated external" (which really is only a distinction made for cultural convenience; modern cognitive neuroscience is all about prediction models or "controlled hallucination"; schizophrenia is sometimes conceptualized as a breakdown of the prediction machinery).

I'm simply going by what I remember from my statistics courses in psychology (and Bernardo Kastrup talking about it as a side note in various videos). So essentially a statistics book (maybe specifically inferential statistics). They go through the bare minimum of concepts like causality vs correlation (and related concepts like mediation, moderation, perhaps less relevant in this case).

Nope, it doesn't have to be a sole determinant. That would simply be a perfect 1-to-1 causal relationship (or a collinear correlation which is causal). Very few causal relationships are like that. In the heat transduction example, it's often the case that the heat is tranduced from (and to) other objects as well not currently under consideration.

The behavior doesn't have to be interpersonally evident. It can be mostly private or internal to ones own mind. You're assuming a behaviorist or objectively visible definition of behavior. I'm talking about behavior as in how something unfolds, e.g. behavior of the mind. If science is the study of the behavior of nature (how it unfolds), then psychology is the study of the behavior of mind. The example is not about the internal voice. It's about hallucinating. Now you just displayed signs of thought disorder. Have you ever been at the verge of falling asleep (e.g. when reading something but being too tired and you start dozing off) and you start hearing things that sound external to you but as you drift in and out of sleep, you notice that the sounds were not in fact external to you? Or you think you heard somebody call your name in a public place but you're not sure if you even heard it correctly or if it was directed at you? That could be a hallucination or it could be a delusional belief or state (but it's less easy to know in that moment). Such subtle misattributions and confusion about perceptual content are the seeds of pathology seen in conditions like schizophrenia.

Identifying with the change. You can have the belief that working out is better for your health, but if you don't care about health (which if you truly question it, maybe you do, but let's assume a surface-level understanding of health like "not being fat, weak, out of breath or living shorter") or other things associated with working out, then you probably won't start working out. But if you start caring about the things that is associated with working out, maybe by expanding your definition of health (to include mental well-being, emotional stability, bodily comfort, higher functioning in everyday life), then you might start to care enough to start working out. But even if you know all these things intellectually, even if you think you care about these things, if it doesn't resonate organically or intuitively with your very body or being, then it's not necessarily going to happen. It has to be identifying with the change on an authentic "karmic" level, you must simply be ready to do it, or wanting to do it. And this is less easy to pin down when or how it happens. For example, I've observed my little brother go from not caring much about working out, to caring about it on an intellectual level, to then finally embodying it on a more intuitive level and then actually starting to work out on his own accord (before, he needed to go with his buddies). My mom was always like "how do we make him start working out?". And I was telling her ever since the beginning that he simply has to start wanting to do it on his own accord, it's not ultimately something you can force from the outside (but outside influences help, of course, but it's not something you can easily pin down exactly what will help or how to make the change truly happen). He already knows so much about the benefits, it doesn't really help him to tell him about those again and again, and he knows he cares about many of those benefits. He must simply get to the point where he feels moved to actually manifest it. And not long after, he came to that point. And it could happen perhaps after seeing how he feels on a physical or mental level after he has trained vs not training, that he starts to make the connection intuitively that this is something that his body and mind wants, and then over time, the shift happens that way. So small experiences like that can start pulling you in that direction. But all experiences do this in their own way. It's in the end simply a question of time.

Mental disorder is normal human behavior pulled to such extremes that most people would like you locked up because they can't tolerate you, or you're just simply unable to function at a basic level such that your physical survival is threatened, or it's causing you or other people so much suffering that you want to change it. Take schizophrenia for example. Everybody has probably at one point in time heard a voice they thought was real but was actually imagined (really search your memory, you will find something), i.e. hallucinations. had trouble thinking clearly or making themselves understood, i.e. thought disorder. thought somebody was out to harm them or that somebody was conspiring against them when it was actually not the case, i.e. persecutory delusions, paranoia, psychotic beliefs. Schizophrenia is just drawing these things to the ultimate extremes. Same with anxiety, ADHD, autism, OCD. We only label it a disorder once the problem becomes so severe and obvious that most people want to do something about it. And of course psychedelics can produce such states that appear as mental disorders, because they tend to make things more extreme, like a magnifying glass.

Your perception of what they are saying has simply lost a dimension of depth. That you can't imagine or make the mental connection that I'm typing these words from a limited perspective, that's just what it is, a limitation of your ability to imagine. Is that "true"? What a weird thing to be "true". It's like if I had lost my ability to wiggle my toes but I'm still able to walk, that this specific thing somehow gives me insight into what is really true.

How do you conclude they did that once or twice and how would that lead to you being in there for 5 months?