integral

That's why I'm starting a sports betting platform, we need conscious people to occupy the spaces of every business niche, to then funnel that welt to better things.

@Lucasxp64 and this is the worse its going to get.

Prompters watch the prompty suffer existentially while blinded to their own property origin

Law of Ego Repulsion “Two massive egos cannot coexist within a 20-meter radius without generating a destabilizing field of interpersonal conflict.”

@Aaron p don't worry I plan to remake the sequels with AI the moment the technology is ready lol Well call it "The Matrix Absolute Consciousness".

He's aging very fast. Twice as fast as a normal person.

@mariabudanova only Leo can change usernames @Leo Gura We can only ban your account we cannot delete it but you can hide your Journal if you want to.

Only fans

We Trust Google, Openai, and Elon Musk that they will all do the right thing when their companies Own 100% of the job market with AI robots.

So what you're thinking is there would be evidence that people taking B12 would get sick -> so because there's no evidence showing people getting sick -> there is no diversity trend. This is the problem with that logic: 1) Most nutrition RCTs are: • Small (<300 subjects) • Short (<2 y) • Focused on correcting deficiency, not on long-term health span outcomes (fractures, cognition, IBS, etc.). Hence slow-burn problems could be missed (Which is how every vegan reports getting sick). If a side-effect appears in 15 % of people after year 5, these studies are literally incapable of detecting it. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. 2) Single-marker tunnel vision Elevating serum B-12 is treated as “mission accomplished,” yet the body is an ecosystem: methyl-folate balance, homocysteine, iron status, gut microbiome shifts, and hundreds of downstream reactions are left unmeasured. Assuming that one corrected datapoint equals full health span is the same reductionism that plagues drug trials where an LDL drop is taken as proof of overall benefit. There are strong parallels between the logic that you're using and Pro-Pharmaceutical companies who have deceived and corrupted the epistemology of science. All of these companies are using the exact epistemic tricks to push their drugs into the general population. Masking long-term harm with "lack of evidence against it" and "single marker tunnel vision (LDL lower = good = 1 marker)".

I'm sure you feel this way about Leo in certain areas? What part of Leos body of work actually fits in your models?

@zurew lmAOOOOO it must be tough being a living calculator. That video had some good moments 😆

@zurew I think there's plenty of room for the level of rigor you want to bring here, and I agree with it for the most part when it's appropriate, but I think it can be used wildly, leaving no room for anything really that isn't academic perfect writing. There is a certain extent to take it and then there's taking it too far. I do agree that most spiritual type people are hiding behind lofty language. I like that there's academically-minded people on the forum because we need diversity in perspectives.

@Emerald in my opinion the goal post has changed unintendedly because of miscommunication. Initially you made a strong Association that your beliefs are backed by science which is what I was addressing. Then I responded by showing what the science was saying. When you say my beliefs are backed by science and then in the same sentence you say that you believe veganism is the healthiest diet. It's very easy to mistake this for you claiming -> science has proven veganism is the healthiest diet. You've now clarified that veganism isn't proven or disproven by science Just that a reduction in red meat and a increased in plant Foods is the healthy scientific trend for meta-analysis studies. So you then have a personal belief that veganism is the healthiest diet based on this data. If this is the case then we never would have had a discussion to begin with. It's been a miscommunication. I agree with all of this and respect your position, it's completely your right to extrapolate the trend to its ends. Because there's no evidence against it or supporting it. It's essentially the epistemic hole that data can't account for as of now. That epistemic hole also allows for my belief which is that taking the data trends to the extreme is wrong and causes problems. because of: Extrapolation jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best.” Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best + supplements” 2x Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “improves CVD + all cause mortality, therefore no health problems with no meat + supplements.” (ignores non-fatal health problems, adds supplements to the equation for no reason) Because of this hole in the data I personally believe there's much more diversity and variation there. So my position is backed by science in the exact same way your position is backed by science.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FDVR_Dream/comments/1kst5mp/once_this_real_time_fdvr_will_be_right_around_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button This is exactly like the ego backlash of God realization 😅 blaming God for everything. Trying to escape reality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1kte90l/giving_people_existential_crises_with_veo_3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Imagine the same person being forced into different perspectives and realities just jammed in and then they're for 5 seconds have to experience that entire world having an extensional crisis And then 5 seconds later they're a new person new reality over and over again.

Key Concepts and Arguments within the Video (Summarized): Shape-shifting: Women adapt their personalities and interests to match the men they are attracted to (1:35). Outspoken "Trad" Girls: The video claims that women who are openly traditional online are often disingenuous and exploiting male fantasies (4:00). Gaslighting: Women gaslight each other to raise their comparative value (5:58). Collective Brainwashing: Women collectively promote narratives (e.g., what they want in a man) that can manipulate men (7:38). Shaming Tactics: Women use shaming to discourage men from adopting certain ideologies (e.g., "red pill") (9:55). "I'm Sorry You Feel That Way": a manipulation tactic that is used in place of an apology (11:29) Lying About Their Nature: Women misrepresent what they truly desire in a partner (12:06). Acting Friendly: Women fake friendships with other women, even when they dislike them (13:04). Leading You On: Women intentionally give mixed signals to keep men interested (14:08). Projecting: Women accuse others of behaviors they themselves are guilty of (15:14). Cosmetics: Makeup artificially inflates women's value and perceived self-worth, disrupting the dating market (15:39). Sabotaging Friends' Relationships: Single women undermine the relationships of their friends (16:58). "Your Mileage May Vary": Women categorize men and treat them differently based on the category (18:19). Playing the Victim: Women portray themselves as victims to gain sympathy (19:16). IV. Tone and Perspective: The video adopts a cynical and critical perspective on female behavior. It uses terms like "manipulation," "tactics," and "game" to frame interactions between men and women. There is a strong emphasis on the idea that women are deceptive and that men need to be aware of their "true" nature. The tone is often sarcastic and dismissive. --AI

Do I want to have sex with other girls outside of my relationship? yes, do I think other women outside my relationship i could have a great experience in life with? yes. But I'm not scared of missing out. In your case its the fear of missing out. it's the same fear when people don't want to miss the next Bitcoin opportunity. I don't know the solution other than to go make a bunch of mistakes and you'll stop feeling this way.

If direct experience is not a considered a valid form of epistemology then you could always doubt everything in philosophy till the end of time. doubtdoubtdoubtdoubtdoubt forever. Its always possible to criticize one perspective from another perspective. Endlessly. Relativity hell. So what you got to do is see the landscape of the different perspectives each one with a different epistemology and create a meta epistemology that pieces everything together into one larger perspective that incorporates every other perspective Intelligently. At some point you recognize the truth of a larger more inclusive paradigm. --- Why was the descartes wrong? Who employed "Radical" doubt. He's trying to find certainty for his own existence by finding something undoubtable. Whose existence? What kind of existence? Am I part of that existence, or just an illusion within it? Could this all be a dream or simulation? When existence is self-evident. A tautology. Existence exists. It is knowable as true when you recognize it right in front of you. The problem was he was Paradigm locked and cannot see or accept direct experience as useful epistemology for anything. Because you could simply doubt it from another perspective I think therefore I am, was his conclusion. This is the epitome of Relativity hell. He could not see beyond thinking. So thinking is the ground of all of reality from his point of view. The Paradigm that you think you're way too all solutions and answers. --- How do you figure out that existence something self-evident is infinite? With more self-evidence! That's where all the absolutes are. Thinking is still very useful, and all your insights will come from it, But most of the time you're just unraveling all of your own baggage that stops you from seeing the truth. Right now you could think infinite number of numbers, You can just keep inventing numbers forever, that is the self-evidence clue that imagination is infinite. its also a uncorrupting of a previously held frame. The purification of your current frame. You go about Gathering all of these epistemic Clues until you see the whole elephant.

Can you see the Extrapolation jump and Endpoint jump? What the science: shows red meat causes issues, not white meat and fish which have shown good results paired with high plant intake. What the science shows: supplementation is not part of the meta-analysis studies that show a trend of reduction in red meat improves CVD + all cause mortality. What the science shows: non fatal health problems are not tracked in meta-analysis studies that show a trend of reduction in red meat improves CVD + all cause mortality. Extrapolation jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best.” Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best + supplements” 2x Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “improves CVD + all cause mortality, therefore no health problems with no meat + supplements.” (ignores non-fatal health problems, adds supplements to the equation for no reason) They do not prove or disprove vegan + supplements work for most people. @Emerald I am doing this and I'm not bending over backwards twisting all of reality to fit my agenda in bad fate like a pigeon shitting on a chessboard. (Paraphrasing) I think we concluded the conversation. What's happening is I'm actually looking at the science and asking you to engage with it and your repeating "this is what the WHO says".

How I use anecdotes, Science and other forms of knowing is to see them as data points that are then connected to point to various possibilities and to form some kind of picture. But the truth is not certain it is an open-ended thing with shifting parts. If a vegan bodybuilder has been doing it for 20 years, I do consider that a partial data point. If a million people reports health problems doing anything I consider all of that partial data points. If Warren Buffett gives business advice, I consider that a partial data point. If someone quits the keto diet after various issues, I consider that a partial data point (not that this person is right or wrong about any of this). Not that these people aren't conflating things or that I'm not conflating things, their data points have partial true. And so the strategy is to bridge everything together in a fuzzy map. Out of curiosity Leo just posted anecdotes for remote viewing. It's definitely a claim even more scientifically unsubstantiated then this topic suggesting diversity. What is your opinion on it? I do not say this to claim anecdotes are valid about this debate, I'm Shifting the conversation out of curiosity of what of anecdote means to you. The meaning of an anecdote for you. Also this is image of a Emerald whipping StrawMen, I happen to generate it yesterday inspired by one of your comments,

Now you can make a movie! Actualized cinema

If you eat eggs and you don't feel good, then There's Something Wrong. Don't discount personal experience, you have to use personal experience as part of your guidance. You have to mix what the science says intelligently with personally experiences. Think like someone who's experimenting on their body and trying to maximize health

Meta‑research (Metascience) and Epidemiologic methods critiques of science are common in these forums?

I could go through each point you made and debunk it because you didn’t represent her position at all correctly. You were wrong about every part of her position except for one or two. 1/10 Especially everything you said about morality I don’t get it. What when did she ever say that? And she also didn’t reject carnivore diet for people with special cases. Ai: True / mostly supported: 1 Mixed / partly right: 4 Largely unsupported: 3 People have areas of strengths and weaknesses. Sadhguru has terrible politics and that has nothing to do with his field of expertise, which he’s exceptional in. Most of this debate was people speaking past each other. Carefully frame your comments better in the future please. Because you’re doing personal attacks that are unnecessary.