How can you trust your mind?

[TheAvatarState]

2 hours ago, Roman Edouard said:

Technically money does make you happy. For a short period of time. Anything that causes happiness only causes the happiness for a short time period. If you have a lot of money then it can cause short bursts of happiness over a long period of time because you'll be able to buy the things you need for survival. There is no being "truly happy." That makes no sense. One cannot just be happy in general. 

It's laughable how some people don't think money gives you happiness.

LMFAO, it's laughable how some people think that money gives you happiness. That's a belief you hold, and not grounded in anything whatsoever.

This belief comes from a fundamental ignorance of what happiness is. I would question this belief to death and get to the root of what makes you happy. If you do any digging at all, you're going to quickly find how baseless your claim was.  

[lmfao]

@Roman Edouard

2 hours ago, Roman Edouard said:

Technically money does make you happy. For a short period of time. Anything that causes happiness only causes the happiness for a short time period. If you have a lot of money then it can cause short bursts of happiness over a long period of time because you'll be able to buy the things you need for survival. There is no being "truly happy." That makes no sense. One cannot just be happy in general. 

It's laughable how some people don't think money gives you happiness.

Money can get you a bunch of material goods and services. Saying that money will keep you happy in the long term is the same as saying that hedonism will keep you happy in the long term. I feel as though adressing your claim that money will keep you happy alone just requires adressing the hedonistic mindset. The idea that purchasing whatever you want will make you happy.

I think the biggest advantage of money from a happiness point of view is the fact that wealth is gonna be correlated with your social status and position in dominence hierarchies, but that will not keep you happy if you get obsessed with it and pursue it at the cost of authenticity. 

Do you have any sort of hardcore addictions? Have you ever done an activity again and again and found it leaves you unhappy? Because if you do, I think looking at that is one way to see through the illusion that hedonism will bring you happiness. 

Imagine a person who who starts to indulge in unhealthy food. For simplicities sake suppose that person starts to eating burgers and pizza every day. For the first week or so, it feels amazing. However, the pleasure from the activity starts to get diminished. 2 weeks into the thing, they probably don't even enjoy eating unhealthy food. In fact what has started to happen is that they consume more and more food because the pleasure has become diminished. If they don't have access to the food they enter deep suffering, but before starting this habit this person would not have been in deep suffering with no access to the unhealthy food. In fact they'll eventually reach the point where they're in deep suffering whilst they indulging themselves. 

This just doesn't apply to food. It applies to sex, having power over others, watching television, watching porn, video games and etc. 

I said that by indulging in unhealthy food too much the pleasure received from the activity quickly deminishes. From my experience I have found that not only does the pleasure diminish in the particular hedonistic activity you repeatedly do, but pleasure diminishes across all other hedonistic activities which you might not have even excessively indulged in. That's because by being hedonistic with just one bad habit (e.g. Sex) you destroy your brains chemical system and the joy it receives from other things (e. G. Food).

Edited December 28, 2018 by lmfao

[Roman25]

1 hour ago, lmfao said:

@Roman Edouard

Money can get you a bunch of material goods and services. Saying that money will keep you happy in the long term is the same as saying that hedonism will keep you happy in the long term. I feel as though adressing your claim that money will keep you happy alone just requires adressing the hedonistic mindset. The idea that purchasing whatever you want will make you happy.

I think the biggest advantage of money from a happiness point of view is the fact that wealth is gonna be correlated with your social status and position in dominence hierarchies, but that will not keep you happy if you get obsessed with it and pursue it at the cost of authenticity. 

Do you have any sort of hardcore addictions? Have you ever done an activity again and again and found it leaves you unhappy? Because if you do, I think looking at that is one way to see through the illusion that hedonism will bring you happiness. 

Imagine a person who who starts to indulge in unhealthy food. For simplicities sake suppose that person starts to eating burgers and pizza every day. For the first week or so, it feels amazing. However, the pleasure from the activity starts to get diminished. 2 weeks into the thing, they probably don't even enjoy eating unhealthy food. In fact what has started to happen is that they consume more and more food because the pleasure has become diminished. If they don't have access to the food they enter deep suffering, but before starting this habit this person would not have been in deep suffering with no access to the unhealthy food. In fact they'll eventually reach the point where they're in deep suffering whilst they indulging themselves. 

This just doesn't apply to food. It applies to sex, having power over others, watching television, watching porn, video games and etc. 

I said that by indulging in unhealthy food too much the pleasure received from the activity quickly deminishes. From my experience I have found that not only does the pleasure diminish in the particular hedonistic activity you repeatedly do, but pleasure diminishes across all other hedonistic activities which you might not have even excessively indulged in. That's because by being hedonistic with just one bad habit (e.g. Sex) you destroy your brains chemical system and the joy it receives from other things (e. G. Food).

Let's say for example that you win 5 million dollars. You feel super happy. Now you get a stomach ache because you ate food that didn't mix so well together. You're pissed off. But once you're done being pissed off you'll feel happy again since you use the money for something that brings happiness. It's basically a cycle. And since you don't have to have a job or go to school that opens the opportunity for you live while you're in more control of your life. You won't waste 8 hours a day at school or at work anymore.

That's what I mean when I say money provides long-term happiness. You will still be able to feel negative emotions when certain life events happen but the money will open the door for you to do what you want in life.

Are you hungry? Are you not happy with where you live? Do you need to go on an adventure? Do you want to take a trip? Do you need medical care?

Money fixes all these issues.

The issue is if you don't teach yourself how to manage it properly. I'd personally use it to buy healthy foods and I'd never buy something super expensive like a Lamborghini or something. With my average day, I play the game team fortress 2, never watched porn before and I'm never going to, don't enjoy tv very much unless I'm watching a movie with my mom, I like watching educational videos, watching anime every now and then, learning about science, and listening to audio-books. I hate reading real books though. Money would open up the opportunity to do these things for longer periods of time.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Roman Edouard

[lmfao]

@Roman Edouard true, money will give you more opportunity to do cool shit and also develop yourself. By luck I have been born in the west, and wasn't born to a poverty stricken  family in a third world country where everyday I would be struggling to even sustain physical survival. I would have never learnt about mindfulness or conciousness work at all. 

Mindfulness is something people of all wealth levels can engage in provided they've learnt the basics, and I believe its theoretically possible for somebody in even the worst possible life environment to be happy if they are fully enlightened and in the present moment. 

Money is an enabler for happiness, but it won't fix a rotten psyche which is miserable and depressed. That's the way I see it. 

[TheAvatarState]

@Roman Edouard You said that it's not possible to be happy all the time. Why do you believe that?

[Roman25]

16 minutes ago, lmfao said:

@Roman Edouard true, money will give you more opportunity to do cool shit and also develop yourself. By luck I have been born in the west, and wasn't born to a poverty stricken  family in a third world country where everyday I would be struggling to even sustain physical survival. I would have never learnt about mindfulness or conciousness work at all. 

Mindfulness is something people of all wealth levels can engage in provided they've learnt the basics, and I believe its theoretically possible for somebody in even the worst possible life environment to be happy if they are fully enlightened and in the present moment. 

Money is an enabler for happiness, but it won't fix a rotten psyche which is miserable and depressed. That's the way I see it. 

Ah I get your point. That money won't fix your issues if you have food or alcohol problems and things like that. I understand what you mean now. The thing about quitting an addiction is that it's a slow process. I used to have a youtube addiction where I would watch youtube for hours on end. It took many months to quit that lol. So I've been very catious after that about what I get involved with. And I set up rules to protect me. Like: don't watch porn, don't watch too much youtube, let go of strong cravings for sugary foods, drinks, and so on... It's always beneficial to set yourself up with defenses for what can become an addiction.

13 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

@Roman Edouard You said that it's not possible to be happy all the time. Why do you believe that?

I'd say that it's not possible to always be happy because it's been scientifically proven that your brain doesn't want to be happy all the time. And if you are then your brain will start turning off receptors (don't know if they're called receptors, read that a while ago) so that you can no longer feel the happiness emotion. Pretty funny how that works.

Edit: They are called neurotransmitters, not receptors. And when I say you can no longer feel happiness, I mean for a temporary amount of time.

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Roman Edouard
Didn't word that very well

[lmfao]

@Roman Edouard

2 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

I'd say that it's not possible to always be happy because it's been scientifically proven that your brain doesn't want to be happy all the time. And if you are then your brain will start turning off receptors (don't know if they're called receptors, read that a while ago) so that you can no longer feel the happiness emotion. Pretty funny how that works.

I think that most people on this site would give you the perspective that it's the "ego" which doesn't want to be happy all the time, and that it's possible to reach a new form of permanent happiness once the ego is gone. Its a happiness which goes beyond what your ego deems as "pleasurable" or "painful". I don't necessarily know if this perspective is right but I'll elaborate a bit.

Our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensations, feelings, colours, sounds, thoughts and etc. There are certain sensations which are deemed pleasurable and there are other sensation which are deemed negative. I've come to feel from meditation that the raw sensation of something "negative" isn't actually negative, its just a different flavour from something "positive". Saying that the raw sensation of tasty food is superior to the raw sensation of fear might be like saying " blue is objectively superior to red", when these things are just different from each other and are equal in value. But for some reason unbeknownst to me, our mind at a subconscious and conscious level will cause some sensations to be seen as bad whilst other sensations to be seen as good. But is it perhaps possible to change the way your mind processes these different sensations through mindfulness? 

 

[Roman25]

1 minute ago, lmfao said:

@Roman Edouard

I think that most people on this site would give you the perspective that it's the "ego" which doesn't want to be happy all the time, and that it's possible to reach a new form of permanent happiness once the ego is gone. Its a happiness which goes beyond what your ego deems as "pleasurable" or "painful". I don't necessarily know if this perspective is right but I'll elaborate a bit.

Our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensations, feelings, colours, sounds, thoughts and etc. There are certain sensations which are deemed pleasurable and there are other sensation which are deemed negative. I've come to feel from meditation that the raw sensation of something "negative" isn't actually negative, its just a different flavour from something "positive". Saying that the raw sensation of tasty food is superior to the raw sensation of fear might be like saying " blue is objectively superior to red", when these things are just different from each other and are equal in value. But for some reason unbeknownst to me, our mind at a subconscious and conscious level will cause some sensations to be seen as bad whilst other sensations to be seen as good. But is it perhaps possible to change the way your mind processes these different sensations through mindfulness? 

 

Ego doesn't exist for the hell of it. It has a very strong importance in human survival. Without ego, one would have no motivation for self-actualization, high self-esteem, and healthy habits. Ego does have its downsides where people get arrogant and selfish, but without it, you'd be no different from a rock in terms of motivation.

Leo knows more than me about mindfulness practices and consciousness than I do. So I recommend that you ask him directly about whether you can change your sensations through mindfulness. Leo isn't the most credible source when it comes to skepticism, math and science, but he is a genius in the self-help, spirituality and building healthy habits fields.

[ground]

9 minutes ago, lmfao said:

@Roman Edouard

Our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensations, feelings, colours, sounds, thoughts and etc. There are certain sensations which are deemed pleasurable and there are other sensation which are deemed negative. I've come to feel from meditation that the raw sensation of something "negative" isn't actually negative, its just a different flavour from something "positive". Saying that the raw sensation of tasty food is superior to the raw sensation of fear might be like saying " blue is objectively superior to red", when these things are just different from each other and are equal in value. But for some reason unbeknownst to me, our mind at a subconscious and conscious level will cause some sensations to be seen as bad whilst other sensations to be seen as good. But is it perhaps possible to change the way your mind processes these different sensations through mindfulness?

That's the point. Mind has the capacity to overcome its own ignorance. Mindfulness is appropriate if it is embedded in appropriate view.

Edited December 28, 2018 by ground

[TheAvatarState]

5 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

I'd say that it's not possible to always be happy because it's been scientifically proven that your brain doesn't want to be happy all the time. And if you are then your brain will start turning off receptors (don't know if they're called receptors, read that a while ago) so that you can no longer feel the happiness emotion. Pretty funny how that works.

What happiness are they measuring? Short-term dopamine levels. You are correct that that isn't sustainable, and you'll stop seeing things that made you happy as making you happy after a while. Money works this way. If you got a thousand dollars today, you'd be extremely happy and thankful. You get the same amount tomorrow, you'd also be happy and thankful. But after weeks of that, due to law of diminishing returns, that some sum of money will no longer give you the same positive response. You may even start resenting the money, because it just brought up a bunch of other problems, and you'll start wanting more money to fuel your new lifestyle. It will never be enough. I'll let you in on a little secret. Rich people who live a rich lifestyle always want more, and because they're always longing, they're fucking miserable. On the outside, they're on top of the world. On the inside, every single one of them is dying. They'll never tell you that (perhaps some of them have told their therapist), but that is what's really going on. I want you to start to understand that this cyclical lifestyle isn't happiness. This is denial.

Start thinking of happiness more like contentment and acceptance. Is it possible to be surging with dopamine and crying at the beauty of everything for the rest of your life? No. But it's possible to have a more mellow, content, underlying state of happiness for the rest of your life. I'm not going to keep any secrets from you, so here is the true definition of happiness: Happiness is the degree to which you can accept and be conscious of the present moment. That's it. Contemplate that, and bring that into your direct experience to see if that's true. This mind state is not sustainable to you now, but it could be with much practice. It is possible.

[TheAvatarState]

3 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

Leo isn't the most credible source when it comes to skepticism, math and science, but he is a genius in the self-help, spirituality and building healthy habits fields.

What did I tell you last week? No ideologies or dogma of any kind. This belief is not grounded in anything other than your egoic desire to want it to be true. Become aware of that.

If you'd like to explain this statement further, then I'm all ears. But I have a hunch that you can't actually explain what you just said with any credibility or resourcefulness.

[Roman25]

5 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

What happiness are they measuring? Short-term dopamine levels. You are correct that that isn't sustainable, and you'll stop seeing things that made you happy as making you happy after a while. Money works this way. If you got a thousand dollars today, you'd be extremely happy and thankful. You get the same amount tomorrow, you'd also be happy and thankful. But after weeks of that, due to law of diminishing returns, that some sum of money will no longer give you the same positive response. You may even start resenting the money, because it just brought up a bunch of other problems, and you'll start wanting more money to fuel your new lifestyle. It will never be enough. I'll let you in on a little secret. Rich people who live a rich lifestyle always want more, and because they're always longing, they're fucking miserable. On the outside, they're on top of the world. On the inside, every single one of them is dying. They'll never tell you that (perhaps some of them have told their therapist), but that is what's really going on. I want you to start to understand that this cyclical lifestyle isn't happiness. This is denial.

Start thinking of happiness more like contentment and acceptance. Is it possible to be surging with dopamine and crying at the beauty of everything for the rest of your life? No. But it's possible to have a more mellow, content, underlying state of happiness for the rest of your life. I'm not going to keep any secrets from you, so here is the true definition of happiness: Happiness is the degree to which you can accept and be conscious of the present moment. That's it. Contemplate that, and bring that into your direct experience to see if that's true. This mind state is not sustainable to you now, but it could be with much practice. It is possible.

Yeesh, that was worded well. I like your point that you don't have to be experienced short-term dopamine levels. And that you can learn to be in a state of contentment. I think my said that same thing a while back. That law of diminishing is something that I've experienced. I bought a gun in the game team fortress 2 for $5 and I thought it would be really cool to have. But I stopped caring after a while and I'm used to it. So I like your point of happiness being "the degree to which you can accept and be conscious of the present moment." 

[Roman25]

4 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

What did I tell you last week? No ideologies or dogma of any kind. This belief is not grounded in anything other than your egoic desire to want it to be true. Become aware of that.

If you'd like to explain this statement further, then I'm all ears. But I have a hunch that you can't actually explain what you just said with any credibility or resourcefulness.

On this video for example he doesn't fully understand the wisdom of pyrrohism.

He spent two hours saying nothing about self deception. He keeps saying we are being deceived but fails to prove his case. To claim deception you would have to know the truth, but then that calls into doubt how do you know such truth? It’s pretty much amounted to “this is what reality is and if you think otherwise you are deceiving yourself”. It’s the same as anyone with an opinion who expounds on it.

 

The “paradox” argument is a cop out. Experiencing something for yourself doesn’t make it true or real because the sense can be fooled and don’t tell the truth or lie. 

As for why I don't think he is a credible source for science is the fact that talks too much about the flaws with science in his videos and doesn't discuss how the flaws are negligible for how it can aid someones outlook and understanding of life.

I say that he isn't a credible source for math since I saw a mathematician claim that Leo "knows nothing about math" on quora. And you can tell that the man is very experienced in the field of mathematics from his other posts.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Leo-Gura’s-Actualized-org-a-scam 

The very first guy named Lance Everette is the quora mathematician. I don't agree with him that actualized.org is a scam and I don't agree with most of his arguments though. I would tell you where he says it but... I'm too lazy to skim it and find the word "math" because of how absurdly long his comment is. But he definitely does say it though.

[ground]

1 minute ago, Roman Edouard said:

...To claim deception you would have to know the truth, but then that calls into doubt how do you know such truth?

That is a minunderstanding Deception is revealed through analysis which contradicts it. Thus the deception is non-implicatively negated. One does not have to believe in 'truth' which cannot be found anyway.

[Roman25]

With all of that being said, I have nothing against Leo. He means well for others and he's very smart. Just don't agree with every single thing he says. And too many people see him as a god figure whether they want to admit it or not.

[TheAvatarState]

53 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

On this video for example he doesn't fully understand the wisdom of pyrrohism.

He spent two hours saying nothing about self deception. He keeps saying we are being deceived but fails to prove his case. To claim deception you would have to know the truth, but then that calls into doubt how do you know such truth? It’s pretty much amounted to “this is what reality is and if you think otherwise you are deceiving yourself”. It’s the same as anyone with an opinion who expounds on it.

Did you know that it's a 3-part series, and that parts 2-3 go into the details and examples? Truth is found by bringing up examples in your own direct experience, and you didn't watch the part where he did that. I can see the viewpoint of if you only watched part 1, it would seem that way.

 

56 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

The “paradox” argument is a cop out. Experiencing something for yourself doesn’t make it true or real because the sense can be fooled and don’t tell the truth or lie. 

Really? Tell me something: What do you have other than direct experience? I'd be happy to discuss this with you, because I know you'll have objections and misconceptions about it. Breaking through the mind and all your programming is not an easy task, I get that.

 

59 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

As for why I don't think he is a credible source for science is the fact that talks too much about the flaws with science in his videos and doesn't discuss how the flaws are negligible for how it can aid someones outlook and understanding of life.

It is not his place to discuss the benefits of science. That is everywhere you look, widely known. He has a deeper appreciation than most scientists for what science can and can't do. In no place does he say science itself is bad (the culture and dogma around it, yes). He loves and studies science. He has stated that his favorite book is "Godel, Escher, and Bach," one of the most challenging and beautiful books ever written about this stuff.

1 hour ago, Roman Edouard said:

I say that he isn't a credible source for math since I saw a mathematician claim that Leo "knows nothing about math" on quora. And you can tell that the man is very experienced in the field of mathematics from his other posts.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Leo-Gura’s-Actualized-org-a-scam 

The very first guy named Lance Everette is the quora mathematician. I don't agree with him that actualized.org is a scam and I don't agree with most of his arguments though. I would tell you where he says it but... I'm too lazy to skim it and find the word "math" because of how absurdly long his comment is. But he definitely does say it though.

It is quite apparent from reading that article that Lance is writing from egoic backlash and confusion. There's a hint of contempt and judgment in everything he writes. Not only that, none of what he said actually holds water. He is the preacher giving the sermon, committing the same mistakes that he accuses Leo of making (which Leo actually does not make). Notice how Lance appeals to your fears and rallies you up.

"Leo Gura literally uses hypnosis techniques as a means to brainwash vulnerable people. Do not go to Leo Gura, or any unlicensed source, for psychological help." Huh?

"It is no wonder Leo Gura advocates psychotropic drug use, it makes his victims far easier to hypnotize." Lance throws out this crazy hypothesis (to get you riled up, to hypnotize you), coming from ignorance on what psychedelics are and why Leo advocates for them.

"Upon watching his content on spirituality, and reading through the commentary, I was GREATLY unnerved by the lack of skepticism displayed by the arrogant anti-rationalist nihilists who have decided that they are “enlightened,” that they are deities and identified with whatever kind of notion they have attached to the label “Absolute Infinity,” and that they are above any sort of level-headed interpersonal conversation with people who have contrary viewpoints." Complete ignorance on the matter, and conceptualizing stories to pander to his ego. None of what he said is based on anything, it's delusion. Leo is the biggest skeptic I know; a true skeptic. Skepticism taken to the extreme. Lance is not skeptical of his own beliefs, or the basis of math and science. Such a self-deception.

"Scientific theories do not contain semantics. THERE ARE NO METAPHYSICAL OR EPISTEMOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS." Yes, exactly, because it's not the scientist's place to explore them (it should). Just because science is not aware of them does not mean they don't exist. Science views each discovery from the lens of materialism, and is not aware of its own paradigm.

"FURTHERMORE STILL, he is claiming that there are metaphysical implications of Gödel's theorems. Ask any reputable mathematician knowledgeable on the subject, and they will assure you that this is not the case in the slightest. Really? You're going to trust Leo about mathematics, over the mathematicians? Leo doesn't even know what mathematics is." Why would you trust mathematicians to be aware of the larger picture of their discoveries? Are they not fundamentally pursuing a small field of study? This point makes no sense.

[TheAvatarState]

29 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

Just don't agree with every single thing he says.

Notice that agreement is a very shallow term only based on your own past experience; it is not grounded in anything but your own ego. Agreement, disagreement, who gives a shit? Aren't you after truth? I've never believed a single fucking word Leo has ever said. I've immediately challenged it and contemplated it, or experienced it where I could. At the end of every video, especially his recent ones, he says to be careful not to turn actualized.org into an ideology, because it can happen. I'm aware of that, and you should be too.

33 minutes ago, Roman Edouard said:

And too many people see him as a god figure whether they want to admit it or not.

You can say this about any great figure who has ever lived... It is not your place to judge other people for that, and certainly not acceptable to discount Leo based on that fact. People are going to do what they're going to do, and egoic people can lead themselves to self-deception. That is not Leo's doing.   

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Roman Edouard

Hello Roman,

Thank you for the discussion.

It appears you are comfortable with the material paradigm, it's good as long as you are there.

With the happiness discussion I would say that while a happy state is not permanent, serenity can be state-independent upon a practice of acceptance. And it will bring more satisfaction in the long term. I love having money and buying nice things, and also love to be independent of circumstances. These can sure go together!

Cheers.

[Nahm]

16 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

 

All failed except thoughts and appearances. Based merely on the first filter (direct experience).

What is there but thoughts and appearances?

You’d have to keep going. ‘Run’ that through the next filter.

[ivankiss]

I trust my mind because I am my mind.

There is no other mind to trust. There is no better, saner mind.

There is no more or less deluded mind than mine is.

You need to love the mind. Including all of it's delusions.

When the mind is loving enough, it sees no deluded minds.

It sees unique expressions of it. 

It stays where it is and does what it's designed for.