integral

The classroom example is sensory bombardment. Brain is not filtering out the noise.

of course Master

I'm thinking of a higher purpose as at the ontological metaphysical level. If there is a higher purpose that isn't just to exist or to experience this life, then... It really puts a lot of pressure on you. lol

I think your trying to separate meaning and existence, but that doesn't make sense because existence is the most meaningful thing that could ever happen. Existence and meaning co-arise ontologically. But there is ontological meaning and relative everyday meaning making. And these are different. Live a life awake or asleep. I can see value in that and say, "Okay, that's valuable.". I'd rather live 50 years awake than sleep. But why is this a higher purpose?

Mmmm yes, that's true. I do feel a purpose, which is this right now. But it is true i can possibly discover a higher one. I doubt that any higher purpose would have anything to do with the way I live my life? Is this a bias? Maybe awakening is my purpose, and God is trying to awaken every part of itself. But this conflicts with oneness. So it's hard to... see why. If I awaken now or I awaken at death, what's the difference?

It's interesting that if you have power you're more likely to rape.

Nice, That's a good way to put it.

@Carl-Richard Reminiscing on heavy metal music, Such a carl thing to do. 😌 On the last point, A perspective has infinite depth, You could always learn more down one path, But when do you know to stop or its sufficient? A perspective is always incomplete, It'll be interesting if at the end of every perspective it all loops back onto each other.

I see that you're pointing out how consciousness works and you're going meta-bias. These are really good points and it is how bias tends to work. But Leo is already at the level of multi-perspectible so his biases are being covered by other partial perspectives all trying to fill each other's gap.

I think those are all separate bias categories that can affect his epistemology and we should point them out. Like, he enjoys mono-no-aware club style music. it's a preference, Does it distort his evaluation of beauty? Type: aesthetic bias It would be hard for someone with his music preference to see the beauty in heavy metal music. And to what degree does it effect him?

Yeah, I remember we had this conversation at some point with Leo, and he was very particular about definitions, and accused everyone of making words useless by generalizing them. Or extracting the pattern and applying it to domains that we shouldn't. The pattern of bias, its core, can be applied broadly the way you're doing. But we've created words for each of those specific applications. It was in the conformity thread.

From Bryan Johnson lmfao https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19bgEXYf85/ Use this to zoom in.

I had hyper sensory overload in the class room, couldn't understand what the teacher was saying because i was bombarded by sound, touch, smell, feelings and keeping track of every micro movement. I became an introvert isolating myself at home because i felt good there. Years later i discovered i was allergic to air -> spiking neural activity. A class room is 30 people all scented with 30 different Colognes, shampoos, perfumes, deodarents, detergents. A smell pit. This triggered ADHD and social anxiaty Air is a stimulant. It can also be a sedative/brain fog, depending on what the specific contaminant is. Stimulants: Detergent Form mattresses Car interior Paint (walls) Flame retardants (floor insolation) Some Forests (mossy) Sedative: Candles (unlit) Perfume Cologne Second hand smoke Third hand smoke Camp Fire I found that most building materials act as stimulants for homes and cars and lots of everyday objects. But things people use every day, consumables like cologne act as sedatives. Perfume specifically strongly Cause a drop in brain cohesion. Your brain isn't communicating properly with every other region and there's a huge drop in IQ.

If a doctor said you only have 3 months to live, that means the cancer spreads all your organs. You could try fasting in a dangerous way, hoping your body metabolizes all the cancer. Its possible. Use AI to do research, to find people who cured terminal cancer and mimic their routine strictly. The healthcare industry is a death sentence in this case. This is why I'm pointing to things that are not standard treatments. The doctor is telling you that the only tools they have available end in your death, So don't focus on them anymore. You can try one last gamble to cure yourself. Like a strict juice fast or vegetable fast for over 2 months, exercise and high quality sleep, even alot of sun exposure (counter-intuitively). What ever your routine has been up to this point, do radially anything else.

Strong dislike of rich people shenanigans, Sweeping generalization bais, "all billionaires" The problem is Brian Johnson is healthy orange and overal not enough credit is given to the guy based on his stage. He actually has empathy for people and sees core issues in society, this is not the same as musk or bill who literally cant point out a societal problem because they are so disconnected from it

Recent post " I now live my life expecting to thrive for hundreds of years, if not more. " - bryan johnson

I don't ever feel anything. But I respond by giving them the love that best fits there individual needs. But if someone is crying all the time, it's their responsibility to work on it, and not dump all their problems onto me, and so I start setting boundaries.

Only get a dog if you're working from home and you can be with it all day. Do not get a dog if you're gonna leave it at home for 10 hours a day in isolation As you go to work. They are not built to be alone, they all have separation anxiety.

1) Do work to improve the audio quality. 2) Use AI to animate what you're saying. So you could start with one of the images, but then have AI just design the animation after you record the audio and everything like that. You can also work with the AI to fix the audio.

@trenton As Lord Natasha has said we should not derail but this is an amazing topic. Let's discuss what people's epistemic rating is in a different thread.

Right that's like a self restraint tactic. When you know you can't help having a bias or an emotional skew on something, then you can adjust the "i dont know" nob a few notches higher for that topic. Feel into the unknown more. Instead of that feeling of conviction on a stronger built connection. Knowing tends to boil down to a feeling you have where it feels strongly that it is true. Chess will punish that feeling over and over and over again Until you only feel it When your intuition is aligned with truth.

While I'm not claiming his board is truth, only that practicing against his epistemic chessboard is a good board to practice on. It also depends on your level. If you're at a 1000 rating, then Leo's chessboard is as good as truth, But at the higher levels, 2000, 2500, 3000 rating, that's when his chessboard won't be as beneficial for your training. And you need to rely on yourself a lot more. Ideally, your own self-audit is epistemically perfect. But that's never going to happen because people are at a certain level of epistemic development. It tends to be very low and it's easy to deceive yourself because you're high.

I dont think thats the case, its just that perspective is a open system so its very difficult to navigate epistemicly. In chess it takes years of training to be epistemicly accurate. That training only works because the chess board is a feed back loop of trail and error until the epistemology for chess is mastered. Bais = loss in chess, so its grinded out of you. In the real world there is no chess board to give feed back, a thought has no board to bounce off of, instead you have to audit yourself. That self audit is were all error happends. Or find people more conscious then you to train off of. Leo is one of the best epistemic chess boards you can train off of. This makes identifying his bais very hard because you have to be in range of his epistemic rating.

Looks like this thread is people revealing their own biases and projecting it onto Leo.

A bias that most people's problems are mental and not physical. Your ratio: 99% of peoples problems are a lack of growth and development. A self-development bias The real ratio: Most people are physically ill, not mentally ill, Making them neurotic, stressed and dysfunctional. People that look perfectly healthy are not, they have a shit base level high.