romansoloviov

I've heard many times that psychedelics can "shake up" the brain like a snow globe and reset it such that you stop repeating bad patterns. For example, many people report quitting smoking cold-turkey after trying LSD. I've been struggling for a while with silly bad habits, like junk food, and am wondering if psychedelics can help with that. Has anyone used psychedelics intentionally to change habits? How should you go about doing this and how much change can you realistically expect?

Well, sometimes you don't know whether something is worth finishing until you start it

I find that in the past, the more I listened to Leo, the more my mindset shifted towards self-actualization. For example, from hedonia to eudaimonia, from working on external things to developing myself internally, towards questioning my metaphysics more, etc. Sometimes I would watch a video 4-5 times before the message really sinks it. Seems like it literally rewired my brain over time. Would then listening to videos/audios like this be as effective as something like affirmations for programming the subconscious mind with certain beliefs? I find affirmations to be a bit boring, whereas listening to theory on repeat is more enjoyable and could have the same benefits. I'm aware of the too much theory, too little practice trap, and don't really have issues with that; I'm more interested in specifically how effective the technique is for reprogramming the subconscious.

It'd be great if you could dedicate a specific section of the interview to clearly explain why materialism is untenable. If I was a materialist and watched the first interview, I'd probably think: "Yep, interesting theory, but I can't see any reason to abandon materialism and mainstream science supports it, so let me just wait until science explains consciousness under materialism". A separate timestamp in the video description, like "03:32:40 Why materialism is untenable", would be awesome for people skimming the interview.

Agreed, it's great to see this stuff explained to someone who hasn't previously seen Leo's work, from scratch.

This doesn't seem true in my direct experience, because of the following observations: (1) I have control of my body, (2) all thoughts in my direct experience are pertinent to my ego, (3) I am at the center of my visual field. Yeah, but I'll still have to discuss metaphysics with others at some point. I can't just disengage and refuse to discuss it for the rest of my life. Agreed, I too find these questions interesting and not sure how to answer them. Could you elaborate? How is it different from option 1? ––––-- I see people suggesting to formulate it as a dream. I agree this is easier on the mind. That said, the dream analogy still implies that within a dream, there is a dream player that the consciousness is playing, and NPCs. So between me and the person I'm explaining this to, either I'm the dream player and they're an NPC, or vise versa; either way would be hard for that person to accept. And there is definitely a difference in my direct experience between being a dream player and an NPC, please see the beginning of this comment.

I find that Leo's worldview is hard to make popular/attractive among most groups of people (both big groups, like the mainstream, and small groups of smart/open-minded people) because it claims that other people don't exist. So when discussing it with others, you have two options: 1. Tell people how it is, and essentially claim that only your consciousness exists. Obviously nobody likes it because it comes across as very selfish. You might lose respect of your friends over this, not just money/status. 2. Compromise integrity a bit and pretend that you believe in some other version of idealism. People are more open-minded to this view, and you're sort of easing them in, but the downside is you're not really speaking what you know to be true. What do you all think is the best way to navigate this?

Thanks everyone, that helps.

So I'm not mature enough for enlightenment yet, because I have a lot of survival stuff to handle, like living, relationships, skills, etc; I'd say I'm at least 10 years away from being able to give up material life. I know in my position it's probably best to focus on building life, with maybe spiritual practices just to maintain baseline level of consciousness. But sometimes I get into these slumps where I keep thinking "Oh, but I already know that my model of reality is fundamentally untrue, so how can I even live life on this false foundation. I have to be enlightened, otherwise I'm living in falsehood". I know logically that most people, including me, can live normally without enlightenment, but I can't get this thought out of my head that I must know how everything "really is" before I can go about living life. I think that's counterproductive because I don't have nearly enough time to do enlightenment seriously right now, so I'm just spinning my wheels trying to do both survival and enlightenment at the same time, instead of doing one, then the other. How would you go about solving this?

I think variety matters, it gets boring to do the same thing for too long. Also how easy it is to progress and how immediate feedback is. You can definitely play video games for 12 hours a day

It seems though like love for doing something is always an acquired taste. There's an initial event that piques your curiosity, but you definitely need to spend some time to learn the craft so that you can then appreciate finer distinctions. Doesn't that make passions also arbitrary? For example, right now I might enjoy programming. However, if I wasn't tinkering with programming projects early in life and participated in school debates instead, I might have been passionate about law. And to me the field of law is roughly one huge blur, whereas programming is intricate, has multiple paradigms in it, many languages, huge applications in the real world, etc; in other words, I appreciate programming more because I've had more experience with it. So passions are also contingent on your past. The implication here is that it's best to focus more on what you find fulfilling/impactful/important for the world or practical (but not overly-practical like just going with the highest paid job on Wall Street), and then trust that you will learn to love it in 1-2 years, rather than focus on what you love doing right now, which is only the result of some experiences in your life. I think that's close to Cal Newport's philosophy. Basically meaning/fulfillment > enjoyment in the moment. Like being inherently creative or ambitious? Would you say stumbling onto a new passion is normally accompanied by some regret over not being able to fully pursue the old passion? Or, I guess, not so much regret as just wondering sometimes "aw man what could've that been like". Is that a sign that the initial passion was more genuine? For example, did you miss video game design a lot after dropping that career and if yes, how long did it take you to get so excited about personal development that you didn't think about game design anymore? Did you ever feel like you've made the wrong choice? I realize it's hard to answer this in the general case, but some info about how it went for you might be helpful. Oh, one more question: what books you can suggest for how your past shapes you? And if they're in your book list, then without giving out the titles, which section are they in?

Hi @Leo Gura! I have a few questions after watching the new video about survival. 1. What are some ways to change up our ingrained patterns and habits? 2. What specific things did you do to stop craving external approval? Looking for a "relative" solution because I'm still handling my survival and am probably years away from any meaningful degree of enlightenment. 3. Can efficient survival methods disguise as passions? For example: someone really enjoys basketball, spends hours playing it every day, and dreams about being an amazing basketball player, while studying the more boring engineering in college – fits the passion narrative. They become really good at it, maybe one of the best at their school. But upon introspecting they realize they've pushed themselves to excel at basketball because it was their way to gain status and approval from guys and girls in high school and college ("omg look how good he is at basketball!"), and that it's not that meaningful to them (e. g. if they had $100m and all the love and approval they realistically need, they would do something related to engineering with, by their definition, more direct impact on the world, and play basketball as a hobby). Is basketball that person's passion? 4. It seems like our "authentic self" is just a collection of past experiences and can change a lot. Let's say someone wanted to be an artist, but had to go into business after college due to circumstances, which was much less enjoyable than art. Eventually they learned to enjoy business and made it meaningful and impactful in a positive way (life purpose), maybe even incorporating a little bit of art into it. Does it really make sense at this point to say they're authentically an artist? Of course, everyone else is welcome to share their thoughts too! Thanks.

Isn't he correct about certain relative domains? This essay of his is really interesting, it's about how technological progress is exponential and not linear, and therefore are we often underestimate what's possible short-term, but underestimate (and can't predict) what's possible long run. He's not conscious of the absolute truth but his ideas are useful for survival -> useful for eventually getting 'others' to the absolute truth.

What are some things preventing us from doing it, how to develop it, examples of independent thinkers.

How to think 10-20 years ahead. Why long-term always beats short-term. Obstacles to clear long-term thinking. How to stop overvaluing the immediate consequences over the long-term consequences.