Carl-Richard

On what grounds were you free to leave after five months?

My understanding is you end up in a psychiatric care if you act inappropriately (unless somebody somehow forced you to go there when you were not acting inappropriately). And you get a schizophrenia diagnosis if you meet enough criteria for the diagnosis. I don't know the practices or standards of care in your country or whether your parents did it out of spite or simply missplaced concern so I can't comment on that. Nevertheless, the core point is awakening does not mean you meet the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia.

@Michal__ What happened afterwards? Have you been to the psychiatric hospital since that?

And at one point you realize you can't go purely by emotions so you create an arranged marriage/relationship for yourself. For a relationship to work, you can't expect them to be completely like you or reflect your desires and wants perfectly. And ironically, traditional arranged marriages partially solve this by marriaging somebody together when they're young so that they grow up together and become more like each other.

What were your other symptoms?

If Buddha was not hallucinating (e.g. hearing voices) or having persecutory delusions or psychotic paranoid beliefs or exceedingly weird lines of thinking and trouble functioning in everyday situations in an appropriate way according to the surrounding society, I doubt that. Being awake is not equal to schizophrenia.

Materialism and Jesus, interesting combo.

I don't even take creatine, never have, no pre-workout, never have, no protein shakes, actually basically never have (except some weird chocolate milk with barely any more protein than regular milk from the store 12 years ago; and I tried my brother's whey protein shake once and felt like a pile of shneash), no coffee, basically never have (except one or two cups in high school), no caffeine (anymore). I drink water, eat food and have long hobo beard. Cavemanmaxxing. 💀

Just don't hurt anybody or yourself. But also question whether you "believing" there are no other people is necessarily something true. As for the palpable effects, you might just be destroying your ability to think and imagine things outside your current experience. It might not reflect anything true about reality. Because even if you were able to perceive reality "as if" it is not solipsistic, this wouldn't have to change whether or not solipsism is true or false. Again, it might just reflect your own lack or state of functioning.

Good to have a Plan B I guess. "I can fix her".

This tracks squarely with Tim Leary or Ram Dass' prediction that when the kids of the 60s enter the top positions of government, you will probably see changes. A 15 year old in 1960 would be 81 today, and if they made a career in politics, they would have done their job by now.

What a horrible way to die. And the health personell being like "calm down I can't talk to you if you're screaming 😗". Can you even save someone who ingested that much cocaine while in the hospital?

Cod is 5x more, tuna is like 6-35x more.

Lol. Why do you just assume that? It was not stomach upset. It was extreme tiredness. Yeah I'm not saying I've without a doubt concluded what the most important mechanism is. Environmental toxins is just a likely contender. And it could be multiple mechanisms at the same time that contribute essentially equally.

@Natasha Tori Maru By the way, I meant to say "I never eat tuna" earlier, not "never eat tuna!". If you can eat tuna and be fine (whether you feel fine or you don't care about contamination estimates or you do whatever seems reasonable), it's all good. Whatever floats your fishing boat.

I think causality can encapsulate all of it. Whenever you can say "x because of y", that's causality.

It seems like you're creating a philosophy, or a conceptual (or maybe just linguistic) framework. I'm just trying to see whether you're hinting at some new concepts or if you're just giving new names to existing ones. My alternative interpretation of what you meant by "unit" earlier is simply a "thing" or "cause". So you were essentially saying things/causes interact through causality and that there can be different properties to these causal relationships (which can be investigated through experimentation/observation, i.e. science). So yes, if you want to be saying something different to this, maybe "subtilon" has to be fleshed out.

Standardized causality, hmm. So science. I should maybe not have divided up your sentence because I'm uncertain what you mean by "unit" (I take it to mean something like a unit of measurement in physics, e.g. meters, grams, liters; it's unclear to me how you can refer to that unit as an "it" that can interact with other "types of influences").

Contamination conscious: being aware of (and often proactive against) the health effects of contaminants, pollutants and toxins in food, environment and air (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, teflon, microplastics). Alternative: toxiconscious.

@Natasha Tori Maru Our boy Siim recommends sardines and herring, generally smaller fish further down on the food chain. I might start eating those.

You reinvented the concept of causality(?) in the realm of behavior and cognition (karma?)?

I never eat tuna. I think I ate it on a cruise ship once by accident 8 years ago thinking it was chicken or beef ragú or something. But I was not in the mental claritymaxxing game by then and was chugging soda from the soda dispenser every waking moment of the day (so much so I got bored with soda and craved normal water). It's not so much mercury in itself I'm pointing at. Mercury is just one of many things that tend to be elevated higher up in the food chain (and cod seems to be higher up than salmon). Mercury is like the placeholder of environmental toxins that accumulate up the food chain.

If mental disorder is a behavior considered severely maladaptive by the surrounding society or evolution, then a cat that for example displays excessive aggression could be considered mentally ill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology

???? If you have an experience with laundry detergent making you feel awful and then you expect other disruptions in the air to do the same but they end up doing the opposite, that would indicate the feeling is probably real. But that is not to say your feeling cannot be real otherwise. It's just harder to know. And because it's harder to know (and especially when the feeling and situation is subtle), you should probably be more skeptical until you gather more pieces of evidence. And I'm not saying you don't have more pieces of evidence. The response I made to your question was about me, not you (I wasn't making a point about how you're probably wrong).

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