Joshe

The prefrontal cortex allowed us to think greater, but the more thinking opted for over just going with the flow and feeling, the more burdensome. Some minds are glad to pay the tax because the cost is worth it, for whatever reason.

@Natasha Tori Maru I don't see your questions and overall engagement with me as good faith. 2-3 weeks back you asked me some questions about how I got to where I did and I spent 30 minutes or so answering them in sharp detail, explaining to you how my position was built, and your response to me was to not waste my time. So I don't think you're actually curious about my positions so much as you wanting something else. Possibly for me to not sound so sure of myself. Which is a matter of style that just rubs you the wrong way. (current best hypothesis) I assure you, it's the ideas or the consequences or implications of them I'm putting down, not the people. I don't want anyone to feel put down. I should perhaps be more sensitive and less prickly. Ok, let's see if we can get along.

😂

It is not a fact that pink is the best color. But if I say it is, I'm going to have you on my ass talking about "that's not actually true". I'm not going to mark each of my sentences whether or not they're factual. You assumed I held it as a fact because I stated my position without disclaimer or acknowledgment that it wasn't. It was just me saying "this is how I see things and how I operate - my current best understanding". The things I think are true, I will state as if they are without disclaimers, even though they might not actually be true or may be lacking. We've been over this before. I don't have some weird thing about being wrong and not being able to change my mind. I act and speak with the best understanding I have at the time. You might think this is irresponsible or whatever, but I hold an open mind at all times and everything can be revised. This is second nature to me. Show me a better way, and I adopt as soon as I see it. The implication here is that I don't have to go around parading uncertainty to demonstrate my epistemic hygiene. I wasn't saying that. My whole point about direction and use was a tangent that spun off being told not knowing would do me some good. It had nothing to do with user's engagement on this topic. There you go again telling me what's factual and what's not, lol. I can't explain it to you, but your model of me is just wrong on so many levels, and you have no idea what I can know. Also, when I state my reads, they're just that, reads. They could be wrong. I'm basically just stating my reads and you seem to take it personally. Rather than always arguing about me being the way that I am, just argue how I'm wrong. I arrive at a conclusion and then argue on its behalf, to see if it wins out, not to put anyone down. I'm not a sadist. I actually care about transfering my understanding, not about others not having it or holding it above them. I've re-read some of my post and thought they did sound quite arrogant. And I was like, "shit, am I like Leo?", lol. FYI, my modus operandi is more to improve my models of reality, which involves testing them. I don't get much luck here though. The only thing that usually gets tested is my character. I think you and I are not going to get on well. I don't think you have good intentions, and you obviously can't stand my style. So let's just keep a little distance. You can continue to make snide remarks about me, but let keep engagement to a minimum if it doesn't involve good-faith battle of ideas.

No worries bro. I don't mind a little combativeness in argumentation, if you couldn't tell, lol. When I attack or mock ideas, I'm not mocking the people making them, so if I ever seem combative or rude or whatever, that's just a little fun rough-play. We should all want our bad ideas to be playfully mocked to the high heavens, lol.

Obviously when I make that statement, I'm not stating a fact. When I say "the point of arriving at a conclusion is to provide you with direction in thought or action", I'm doing two things: 1) Saying this is what the point of it is to me and what I think it should be. 2) Implying that if the point is something other than this, that's an inferior way, in the sense that those other ways are less wise. The 3 not being equal isn't a belief I hold as fact. It's a position I've worked out. You seem to see these options as all equally valid approaches. You can rank the 3 under "What's the best way to live or be?" and see which is more wise, more mature. Of course it will be a matter of opinion and personal preference, but some ways of being and opinions are wiser than others. Which you obviously agree with because you're telling me that it's best to be open and "not know" and to look very deep to find the things you've found regarding "not knowing", and then you suggested a book to help me reach those understandings. You imply there is a "proper way". Same thing I did. Neither, lol. There are deeper motivations. "Truth for its own sake" needs to be unpacked and reconciled with how psychology actually works. Someone having a deep curiosity about aliens does not equal "I care about truth for its own sake". lol. At best, "I care about truth for its own sake" is a lazy description of one's true motivations and reward system. At worst, it's a tool of the ego and fosters self-deception. Here, it's most often a blessed-from-on-high virtue signal. A fine specimen for the "conformity" thread.

I'm not saying to never rest at "I don't know". I'm saying people are avoiding moving away from "I don't know" because they prefer not to. Not because they're thinking clearly and staying humble. They're prefer exotic explanations over mundane ones. Also, I botched my idea with action/non-action. The point I was trying to drive home was that the whole purpose of epistemology is to arrive at a conclusion, and the point of arriving at a conclusion is to provide you with direction in thought or action. Moving in the right direction is what it's for. I'm advocating for the application of sound reasoning, critical thinking, and honest updating. To critically test every claim and to objectively weigh the evidence. That's all. For each incident, exhaust the mundane before reaching for the miraculous. If you do an honest accounting and still find the mundane explanations lacking, fine. But you have to do the honest accounting first. Otherwise you're just doing what Q'Anon and flat-earthers do except you're wearing an "I don't know" humility costume, thinking it buys you cover.

Sounds like it's doing you harm. Not-knowing is meant to be provisional, not something you mire in indefinitely. Many here don't seem to understand the point of good epistemology. The point is to arrive at the most accurate conclusions given the data. And what's the point of arriving at conclusions? ACTION, or maybe better "Non-action" Good epistemology is a filter. What is the job of a filter? To collect clean outputs by discarding pollutants. It's meant to be a tool, not an identity. Not a badge of honor. Not something you parrot, but something you actually fucking employ. You say it's possible you're just spinning webs of bullshit. How about you elaborate on that in the same loving detail you apply to your alien project? You don't build a detailed classification of things you think you're inventing. You're making this shit up and believing in their possibilities to a large degree. Then, at the end, you build an escape hatch. The flat-earther has done at least one thing epistemology requires. They've stuck their necks out. Perpetual one-line hedges that you could be full of shit, then not making any gains in one direction or the other isn't what good epistemology looks like. You work toward a conclusion of what is most likely, then you state your position. You falsify and weigh evidence until something gives. At least Q'Anon and flat-earthers have the balls to make falsifiable statements. "I could be wrong" disclaimers and while not updating is a tell that you're not trying to be right or wrong at all. And that's the point of these alien projects. They're pure entertainment for you and most everyone who indulges. To prove them bullshit would bring your fun time to an end. To never arrive is the point. Which is why you spend the majority of your time consuming content aimed at their truthfulness rather than content calling out the bullshit. Do you realize this is the same exact thing flat-earthers say. The same exact thing Q'Anon, astrology, ghost believers, and Scientologists say? When your best defense against a serious critic maps 1:1 to the best defense of Q'Anon and the like, that's a strong signal worth paying attention to. Aliens almost certainly exist in our universe, but your 70-80% or whatever conviction that they're visiting us on earth is an unfounded, fantastical leap. Every piece of evidence anyone has presented, when put under a critical rigorous analysis, has mundane explanations none of you can refute. Yet you all are making gigantic leaps, dismissing those analyses, and saying "I still think it's true, we just can't know", and it's all licensed by Leo, your epistemic authority, because hey, he's the most epistemically responsible human alive, right? Leo would get torn to shreds in an actual debate on this. His "high volume reporting - not everyone is full of shit", his 1930's Italy, his Navy video, all of these have very good explanations that you're all dismissing in favor of something more exciting. Typically, that's fine, but it's maximally hypocritical for this specific community.

lol. That’s some cool art.

Yeah, I’ve seen those grainy grayscale videos. When you look into the tech and the artifacts they produce and the conditions under which the videos are taken, it doesn’t look good for your case. A black and white video with nebulous shapes taken by a camera strapped to a jet traveling god knows how fast, tracking objects thousands of feet away in the dark. Lol. Fuckin aliens bro. I’ve thoroughly debunked this before but can’t recall the most damning bit. Have you looked deep into the technical aspects? Try to find all non-magical explanations first and see how plausible they are compared to the alternative. I think you’ll find that they’re not only plausible, but likely. A microscopic bug might have been on his camera lens doing weird shit for all you know. A jet pilot is also a human who can misperceive things. And let’s not discount the fact that the government has used UFOs in the past to serve some hidden agenda.

Do you think ghosts are literally real, yes or no? By ghost, I simply mean a translucent or even fully opaque non-human but human-shaped thing observable from this reality. If you do as Leo suggests and put stock in the alien sightings due to sheer volume, you also have to put stock in ghost sightings, because there are far more ghost sightings than alien sightings. So we should now bet that ghosts are real? Absurd af. If you thoroughly understand the ghost sighting delusions, that understanding transfers perfectly over to the alien sighting delusions. The mechanisms responsible for the ghost sightings are the same mechanisms responsible for the alien sightings. What is responsible for ghost sighting delusions?

Do you have any idea the number of people who swear on their life that they’ve seen a ghost? Understand thoroughly how that delusion works, then replace ghosts with aliens. That’s how you explain the 10k reports.

Brilliant

He’s a grifter and his audience would largely find it interesting. A bunch of right wing grifters started talking about aliens during Covid, so he’s late the party. Totally not surprised at all.

Project Hail Mary on Amazon was badass. Wish I had an endless supply of movies like that. Arrival is an all-time fav.

Some guys just don’t care about amusement, thus they’re bad at it because it’s not something they’re naturally drawn to. I took some phenibut the other day and was totally thrown into self-amusement with 0 inhibition, and was very outward-oriented and expressive. I basically became an extrovert. It was great but I’m not naturally like that, and I’m not interested in trying to change myself on a fundamental level to entertain women. If one did want to be more like that, I recommend trying the substance to get a feel for what it might feel like to be what you guys call a “natural”. It can show you what it feels like to be an extrovert and give you a good frame of reference for it. I also realized that the self-amused state would be very good for a hook or lure, but it would need calibrated once they’re hooked, otherwise you’d just be doing and saying dumb shit, like the video above describes.

I would offer a product that didn’t require me in the loop after delivery - no weekly calls. Maybe do keyword research on musician stage fright or performance anxiety and target those searches with advertising. I’d have a cheaper offer that could funnel into your larger offer. People will pay to solve emotional problems. Maybe you need to acquire the skills of writing effective copy and online advertising.

Visions and anti-visions are powerful motivators during conception, but they stop providing energy after a while. You have to figure out how to make not scrolling valuable TODAY. Whatever ideal you want to live up to, it needs to payout when you practice it, not just pay out in the future. "What kinds of experiences does my nervous system naturally find rewarding, and how can I redesign the workout so it contains more of those?" Then there's the problem of energy. You have to be careful not to put too much on your plate. And you have to do something in your leisure time. Why not block off some time to scroll if you enjoy it?

https://a.co/d/0cVslcI9 "The Fifty Deviant States Ten states for each of the five skandhas. Every one carries the same verdict: a temporary state, not sagehood — harmless if not claimed as attainment, ruinous if it is. His body can transcend obstructions — the body feels unobstructed, like open space, and it's taken as a spiritual power. Internally the light pervades and he can extract intestinal worms — he can see and reach inside his own body without injury, and takes it as mastery. His essence and souls alternately separate and unite — he hears the dharma being spoken in empty space and assumes an external teacher is speaking. The state changes and Buddhas appear — the world turns gold, all beings appear as buddhas, Vairochana is seen on a light platform, and it's assumed to be real. Space takes on the color of precious things — space appears jeweled and luminous, treated as a realm actually reached. He can see things in the dark — vision in total darkness, taken as a faculty permanently opened. His body becomes like grass or wood — the body goes insensible to pain, fire, or a blade, taken as having transcended the body. He can see everywhere without obstruction — walls and distance stop blocking sight, taken as omniscience. He sees and hears distant things — remote perception, taken as clairvoyance. False visions and false words — visions arrive with speech and doctrine attached, taken as revelation. Suppression of the self leads to sadness — overwhelming grief and self-reproach, read as compassion or purification. He praises himself as being equal to the Buddhas — a surge of energy and certainty, read as parity with the enlightened. Samadhi out of balance brings much reverie — sinking into dry absorption and daydream, mistaken for depth. Wisdom out of balance brings much arrogance — clarity outruns stability, conceit follows, and the conceit is read as authority. Passing through danger leads to anxiety — dread and weariness with living, read as an advanced trial on the path. Experiencing ease leads to joy — uncontainable joy and laughter, taken as confirmation. Seeing the sublime and becoming proud — he glimpses something genuinely fine and becomes proud of having seen it. With wisdom comes lightness and ease, which leads to complacency — effortlessness read as completion; practice stops. Becoming attached to emptiness and slandering precepts — emptiness used to deny cause and effect, which licenses misconduct. Becoming attached to existence and indulging in lust — appetite reframed as teaching, compassion, or transmission. Greed for clever skill — wants brilliance; gets fluency, and speaks doctrine he doesn't actually hold. Greedy for adventure — wants extraordinary experience; becomes a restless seeker of states. Greed for union — wants to merge with something greater. Greed to analyze things — wants to understand everything; produces a totalizing framework. Greed for spiritual responses — wants to be answered; signs and responses duly arrive. Greed for peace and quiet — pursues seclusion well past the point of usefulness. Greed to know past lives — claims knowledge of previous lives and dispenses it to others. Greed for spiritual powers — wants displays and transformations, and sometimes gets real ones. Greed for profound emptiness — wants extinction, and takes extinction for the goal. Greed for immortality — wants longevity or deathlessness. Two theories on the absence of cause — sees no beginning within his range of vision and concludes there was none. Four theories regarding pervasive permanence — mistakes mind, the elements, the consciousnesses, or the cessation of thought for something eternal. Four upside-down theories — splits permanence from impermanence: I am permanent and others aren't, or mind is and body isn't. Four theories regarding finiteness — speculates on limits — of time, of what he perceives, of self and others. Eight kinds of sophistry — evasion elevated to doctrine: only "no," only "yes," both, neither. The sixteen ways in which form can exist after death — projects the self forward as persisting with form. Eight ideas about the non-existence of form — projects the self forward as formless. Eight kinds of negation — neither existence nor non-existence after death. Seven theories on the cessation of existence — annihilation, at one level or another, taken as the truth. Five kinds of immediate Nirvana — declares the present state final, whether it's sense pleasure or one of the four dhyānas. Attachment to causes and that which is caused — takes the source of consciousness as the origin of all beings, making himself in effect their creator. Attachment to an ability that is not actually an ability — identifies with a pervading capacity he does not possess. Attachment to a wrong idea of permanence — takes what he has reached to be permanent. Attachment to an awareness that is not actually awareness — mistakes a residue for pure awareness. Attachment to birth that is not actually birth — mistakes an arising for genuine origination. Attachment to a refuge that is not actually a refuge — takes a resting place for the destination. Attachment to an unattainable craving — fixes on something that cannot be had and calls the fixation attainment. Attachment to truth that is not actually truth — takes a partial truth for the whole. Fixed-nature hearers — settles permanently at a real but lesser attainment. Fixed-nature pratyekas — settles at solitary realization and goes no further. 1–10 form skandha · 11–20 feeling · 21–30 thinking · 31–40 formations · 41–50 consciousness Headings are the text's own, from Yuan Ying's traditional outline. Descriptions are plain-language summaries. Full text free at cttbusa.org, Volume 8."

😂😂

Yes, thank you, I should have made that clear.

lol. We’re extracting nuggets here. It’s interesting that 5th century “masters” mapped out the most common failure modes of advanced enlightenment seekers. It’s clear these failure modes aren’t confined to Buddhism.

When some people answer the question "what is all this about?" they like to keep reminding themselves of the answer every day, and they like to show other people the shiny constructions they've built in their inner space, and they like to organize their life around it. This whole process allows them to build a "profound" identity. Do you know how easy it would be to take 100 people off the street and teach them the core tenants of these teachings, and to then tell them to practice solipsism until that felt experience dominates their reality? Like, this isn't difficult to do. It's how the mind works. It spins stories quite easily. People think that the more they exclude external reality, the closer to truth they're getting. That's how they measure their success - by how much they've altered their state while cycling through their spiritual conclusions. This is the same machinery psychosis runs on. Say it's all true. When does the excitement wear off? They need it to not die off. They need to keep talking about it and to keep reminding themselves about it. Isn't it interesting that they keep doing it day in and day out and it never occurs to them they're constructing the whole thing, no different than a psychotic constructs their reality. Something you actually know just sits there. Something you have to keep celebrating is something you're holding in place. Why does it need to be held in place?

I would pay very close attention to what the mind is doing here. If some black Americans had a thread titled “modern racism examples” and they just kept piling on thousands of examples, you have to ask yourself “what is the reason I’m doing this?” There is legitimate grievance but once the space is thoroughly fleshed out and understood, the next step is acceptance, not endless grievance. Actualized.org loves to hold the masses in contempt. Fools, rats, devils, etc. “Why am I doing this and what could I be getting from it?” Is a question that will eventually make you drop your grievance habit. Hopefully that makes sense.