possibilities

Here's a quick simple diagram I created that may be useful to others. In order to arrive at any better understanding of truth, it isn't to study "what is true?", at least that's what I've found, rather its to study falsity and in doing so, how to avoid it. Affirmatives might feel better but they're less courageous and have a much steeper learning curve even if going the other way can feel a bit paintful. This isn't at the negation of creativity, imagination is extremely important during my own ideational process, but when examining the actual truth of an idea, such as this diagram, for me its gotta be put through its paces if any imagination is going to be adopted as some kind of belief, be it primary to tertiary. Feel free to expand on of course, I'm by no means a pre-programmed robot only open to and capable of generating one possibility. So these are the three areas of falsity I've so far hypothesised need to be examined in order to incrementally improve our perception of things, questioning techniques, thought experiments and so on are tools that could be used to uncover potential illusions, delusions and sophistry at work. With respect to the latter (sophistry), our own minds can easily convince ourselves of things that are actually untrue, which leads to an illusion and if that perpetuates it leads to a delusional belief that we have to break open by challenging original assumptions.

Title - Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html That's the tip of the iceberg with this guy.

These aren't Inliytened1's opinions @Dragallur, he's not going to backup anything he's said. He's read some nonsense, decided that feels good and now proselytizes. He's no different to your average football fan. He doesn't even understand what unlimited means, no one really does, its a nonsense term unless you can comprehend unlimited. You're talking to a wall. Keep experimenting with him if you want sure, but you'll find no matter how reasonable he appears in one moment, he'll go back to pretending he's an authority again and start preaching his nonsense. Its not about closed mindedness, its about the capacity to respect a persons opinions, of which I have none here because he's demonstrated very little ability to even contemplate anything let alone have meaningful answers on the subject of quantum mechanics, even if there is any credence to what he's stated so far, that credence is falsely earned and deep down he'd know that.

@Serotoninluv You’re being self righteous by calling me self righteous. If that is indeed what you’re doing - the probability is likely extremely high, coordinates however could swing out disproportionately to knock out a satellite or two to bring about a different possibility or rather, sum of universal quantum feces to contemplate. In the end, relative to x, whether x be utility with respect to delusion or utility with respect to a human organisms potential, there will exist better beliefs than others. To speak honestly on that because I value the seeing of exacting appearances over mirages, yes I think am a bit self righteous, it’s likely a defence mechanism, one which I think has some value which will evolve overtime like any other reactionary mechanism within me. The difference here being I’m certainly not the one in denial about it. Personally though I don’t see it as TOO self righteous if someone values using a parachute to survive the free fall after jumping out of an aeroplane over their belief in being able to manipulate quantum time in order to survive the fall. I also think the person who values the parachute is doing the other “quantum mathematical being” a favour by yanking their chain here so they land more safely. Not only does he pretend to know (he possesses superficial knowledge that has deluded him to believe that he has any kind of authority on the subject), he pretends to know more than others while at the same time surreptitiously sidestepping ways to answer direct questions and derailing directions. He's a bullshitter and that bullshitter is someone you're happy to defend. There’s more ways to look at a situation than to give it the narrow definition of being self righteous, that only adds sauce to the quantum bullshit salad. Parachute anyone? Yes please pass the sauce, I’ll grab the pepper as well if you don’t mind, “oh and let’s try and miss the trees on the way down too of course. Hey where can I get a barbecue round here in free fall for this bacon I got here in my hand that I’d like to fry and eat!” @Becks I wasn’t referring to you, please speculate away that’s all cool and it can help in the learning process. I’m just sick and tired of the pretenders, it harms other people. You’re not pretending to be an expert, you just come across as a sincere learner, so am I and it’s the only reason I’m here, not to be some “guru” as others here pretend to be rather than just acting like real authentic human beings. Why would you invite a pretender to your birthday if they were only ever pretending to be your friend? If ONLY I had quantum powers to flush them down that quantum tunnel they profess to know so much about. The water bill would be enormous with all the bullshit they need to flush down in order to hide and repress in their subconscious!

@Dragallur I wouldn't waste your time, this is what I'd describe as their comfort food. Comfort food in the form of thought and their "beliefies". Fies is to feels because it makes them feel good but when it comes to reality they're just eating feces and throwing them (where feces is to beliefies) around here. Its their Saturday night Netflix special, difference here being they watch their beliefies run daily through and acted on by their consciousness possessing little to no awareness on their own beliefs nor the proper capacity to question them. They sadly become better and better by the day at being pretenders, and that becomes their little joke. The more they joke about their pretend, the more they get sucked into their delusional quantum black hole. He clearly has very little mastery beyond perhaps his own imaginings that are not at all grounded in any sense of reality. His psychology feels that it can make any claim it wants, like professing themselves to be people who "deeply study" the subject and yet have no well thought out theories, understandings of other peoples theories nor the mathematics beyond them. They feel that their feelings are enough to backup whatever claim they want and end it with "well I am the mathematics", which I'd retort with, so are your feces, so you understand the math and are the math just as much as your feces, "good on you!". Its revolting actually, condoning it only attracts others like them that believe their feces/beliefies are the answer to all quantum mechanical questions, or any question for that matter. All in all, although I'd wish such people didn't at the very least post their thoughts in the affirmative, all you can do is have compassion for them (because it is quite sad in a way, I can sense the corresponding difficulties they'd go through and I mean that sincerely - but at the same time you can't treat them as victims) and if the unquestioning delusions out number reason on the forum, simply spend time elsewhere.

Why have you avoided answering my question on quantum mechanics? Its quite elementary. You've claimed to be someone who has studied quantum mechanics quite deeply. I can tell by the patterns in your sentences that this is likely not the case; probabilistically. I would actually be incredibly surprised, completely flabbergasted actually if my intuition was incorrect here. I have no reason to continue this conversation if you choose not to backup your claims and instead choose to go off into areas unrelated to what I've posed. Moreover you're unable to demonstrate clearly as to what you're referring to. Oh I already know I'm "it", this is old news though and is only a belief that it seems you've attached yourself to. For example, how do you know you're not a robot created just a moment ago that was programmed to say these things? None of us could possibly know, we could be in lab right now being experimented on in this way where they've created a mock environment (the one you're in now, especially if its just a room as opposed to an open chaotic environment) that we perceive as something we're familiar with. I could probably be a good detective if I wanted to be but I've chosen a different field. I wish you well though and hope you're doing okay, all the best.

"There are still some scientists out there trying to disspell this but it's not gonna happen. " To me @Inliytened1 you're just very simplistic and egocentric (meaning, its as if you think you're the only one thinking what you're thinking, they lack social awareness) in most of your responses for my liking, so it makes me suspicious. I'm extremely open minded to literally any possibility, I go for sight over the sounds of others though, thus for the latter, they must argue their point or at least there be an agreed upon language, such as the use of the english language here. I'm still waiting and eager to hear your definition of "becoming the absolute" means, in your own words, and how you believe you now express this. Quantum mechanics question: Is the function Ae^ax an eigenfunction of the operator d^2 / dx^2? If so, what is the eigenvalue?

Interesting, can you describe in your own words what a dimensionless memory parameter is? Could you explain in your own words, what "becoming the absolute" means? As well as, a mystic? And of course it does, its nothing new under the sun and you should already know that there are plenty of scientists working on the problem so it surprises me that you would make such a blanket statement.

Exactly. Following one teacher is what creates a "cult leader" or any perceived leader for that matter. On one side you've got consciousness A which perceives themselves or at least pretends to have all the answers because they're not able to properly contextualise their understandings in the context of their potential ignorance. And then on the other side you have at least one to a group of consciousnesses that perceive themselves as not to have answers and are convinced that this "teacher" has all the answers because they're not able to properly contextualise their representation of this "leader" in the context of their potential ignorance of available alternatives. Thus the inability to properly contextualise information between both parties combined with the narcissism of one and codependence of the other makes those consciousnesses a good match, they're a representation of a balanced equation so to speak. The narcissist is able to get away with easily distorting the truth because the follower is insecure about their capacity to discern truth. Perspective thus, not perceived perspective (which can often just be delusion), actual informational perspective is what makes a consciousness essentially cult-proof because they're not expressing traits of codependency, inferiority and inability to contextualise and reflect on experience. So in a way, followers are often just as bad as the "leaders" because they create them out of their own over dependence and the leader creates the followers over their neurotic need to control reality, having many followers fuels the perception of control (at least this is one hypothesis). For me, as best as I am able to, everything is simultaneously a student and teacher in reality and from the perspective of a human, this describes the self actualisation journey, we merely differ in our achievements here. "Many people have taken their own lives in the past because of this issue so again, it does come back to the survival of the best self. " I honestly don't talk about this subject very well from the multiplicity of perspectives and impacts this has on people because I sit very comfortably in my own position. I can speak about it logically, but there's a whole bandwidth of suffering I'm missing out on because of this comfort I have. You're right, its a really big identity issue for people and its something that if one feels they need to address they ought to do it to the ends of the earth until its resolved within them. Peace

Best advice I can give many people on this forum = don't talk about things you simply do not understand and question what you believe to be your understanding so you're less likely to fall for something like the dunning–kruger effect. Many people on here come across as pretenders. I feel it very strongly sometimes. It creates a delusional atmosphere.

Its also extremely ignorant to say that any activity whatsoever, so of any kind in reality, is illogical. It shows a lack of open mindedness, all that simply needs to be concluded is that the logic on how that thing which looks to be contrary to how we believed something should normally behave is not yet known. Its analogous to when you notice behaviour from another person that seems to be unusual, its not that they're "outside the laws of logic", that's ridiculous and dogmatic, its much more sensible rather to simply assume that the logic on how they operate is not yet well understood. There's no basis by which anyone can argue for throwing logic in the bin, zero. If anyone here can provide such an example I'd love to hear it. I will personally wire you $10,000 if you're able to but I know you're most likely completely full of shit. Whether its telepathy, speaking to aliens through psychedelics, traveling to the 100th dimension in reality if there is one, unbelievable transcendental meditation or whatever it is, its ridiculous to assume these things can't be explained using logic. Any dogmatic notion here sound like escapism, after all, they use logic to pronounce their lack of faith in logic, that shows you the likelihood of denial operating there.

At present, non-materialism is what's known as a non-conversation when it comes to self actualisation. Most of speculation here is merely delusional, at present, the metaphysical has evolved into group-centric, which means its now protected by its owners where perceived (not necessarily actual) outsiders are perceived as "materialists" when in reality such persons are just engaging in quantum tunneling into their own delusions about life. Most people that speculate on these subjects don't even understand quantum physics let alone being able to provide proper realisations that aid self actualisation. Its pure conjecture, pure thought experiment. These people act like they can perceive the non-physical even though perception of any kind, even feeling and intuition is what's known as physical. There's no such thing as non-material, there's just gradients of material, not realising this just shows you how much independent thought these folk have put into it. And @Inliytened1 try not to tie yourself up with this stuff, quantum mechanics arose out of science so you're talking nonsense, its not like it was created by a guy in a cave meditating though the imagination can easily lead us to postulate things beyond being the practical physical. I recommend thinking more critically about these things, these experiments ARE DONE BY SCIENTISTS not mysticists so for you to say such things is nonsense. Please don't mislead by pretending that you can use the metaphysical in any way shape or form to benefit your existence in any way other than to form part of your theorisation. If you can, please explain very specifically exactly how you do so and I'll show you how that is just physical. "Scientists today (..)!" is just a delusional label you're creating in your mind and you have literally zero idea what the real consensus is beyond your partial understandings of what is represented in the media. There would be literally thousands of scientists in support of quantum mechanics in many different ways, after all, there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of scientists in the world working on that very subject. People on this forum really need to show more respect to self honesty, it really sounds like they're just show boating sharing there "beliefies" rather than demonstrating that they're capable of and looking to engage in the proper examination of subjects from an extremely self honest perspective.

These are all just ideas. Theorisation, I never said I was imagining this. I could be anything and anyone, sounds like something you've just learned from Leo and are projecting onto me. Philosophy is just biology, I've learned that now. We can't create philosophies that are out of alignment with biology, unless we change biology of which some people do (i.e. transexuals) and some people are trying to do (from genetic engineering to the NeuraLink). You will never be able to think about "the best sexuality of the world", this is the trap of the ego and biology, and its what Leo ("devil this and devil that!") does as I will discuss. When you start thinking this way you don't appropriately tend to the biases of your own reference frame. Even if you get a bunch of smart humans together in the same room, its still just a reflection of the collective theoretical ego they created in that room which was created out of their biological preferences reaching for lack of a better word, equilibrium. I would do what Goggins suggests, go into your mind. Become a practitioner of yourself by examining everything about you and what occurs inside of you then from that bring fourth your philosophy and see how that gels with the rest of the world then learn from that feedback. But it won't be the best, it'll just be a reflection of your actualisation relative to your biology. So I would just act in alignment with your biology in a practical way. The moment you try to act out of alignment, like practicing something that isn't you, you're inevitably going to fall into suffering. Actualisation begins and ends with examining of oneself because knowledge therein is the only way we can be truly actualising (because its alignment with what your own consciousness produced and relates with - learn from others yes, otherwise I wouldn't be suggesting Goggins or learning from Leo, but we have to re-align to the "true self" for lack of a better term) as opposed to just following the whim of someone else's theories. This is the inherent dilemma of conscious politics that I'm not sure @Leo Gura completely comprehends. I'm working daily now on trying to follow Goggins' example by being a practitioner not a theoriser because I see now what's done to Leo. Theorisation is what inevitably creates the ego and is one of the battles I think Leo unknowingly has, he loses available reference frames that would otherwise enable him to better contextualise his experiences, including social ones. I subconsciously feel he uses a sense of superiority (defense 1) clothed in spirituality (defense 2) as a coupled defense mechanism, this inevitably leads to arrogance and arrogance is synonymous to delusion. This reasoning is in line with many of his statements, along the lines of, "I am the most conscious human that has ever existed". His behaviour doesn't reflect that in that his capacity to frame experiences is low enough that it produces such statements, of which, is a form of delusions of grandeur. I hope he will evolve beyond this one day otherwise he'll inevitably grow that ego and become what he's publicly stated he doesn't want to be, the unreality that follows with the producing a cult leader. A cult leader is born because they create an unreality that they convince others to be reality because they do not have a strong sense of their own reality, this definition within the consciousness that leads to becoming a cult leader is born out of the perceived unreality in others (which relates to my thoughts mentioned before about the relationship I've perceived he has with his beliefs and viewers - so far that's just a pattern is all - not attached to this - I could be wrong and I hope the future will reveal a different picture). So a cult leader becomes the leader of an unreality masked as reality, that's the irony in it. All of leadership is born out of the relationship and or unrelationship that people have with reality. I think Leo would be very wise to follow what Goggins does, evolve into a better practitioner and less a theoriser. He obviously sees a very good opportunity to provide something to others in the form of his experiences relating to psychedelic use, a niche in the personal development field which he probably sees will give him an edge and uniquely define him in the area of actualisation. THIS is where I think his activities would be of best use if he chooses this path, become the best practitioner he can in this area and speak from the wisdom of his experiences here as opposed to theories. The difference between a theoriser and a practitioner is that the theories of the practitioner are grounded in what they actually practice and have experienced. The less of a practitioner someone is and the more of a theoriser they are the more likely they're going to fall for delusional traps created by their own mind.

Yeah I like Leo and think he's better than most teachers, I'm just stating things as I see them. He would do a hell of a lot better if he treated his viewers as intelligent, capable of noticing discrepancies and not just being followers, its something that many other teachers do not properly do. Jordan Peterson is another interesting consciousness, he's not publicly aware of his own inconsistencies either, its why I don't listen to him anymore. I mean, 12 rules for life was a complete joke relative to what he's actually capable of, that pretty much ended it for me. David Goggins is a straight up dude though, he doesn't say things he can't practice and that's something I admire and seek to emulate. He makes mentions about his beliefs in God but he doesn't proselytize outside the expertise of practicality, that's very wise. Like I said, all these other teachers including Leo are on the surface far more intelligent than Goggins, but when it comes down to when you're actually examining the beast of actualisation, Goggins wins hands down by a long shot. I don't get why an enlightened person would espouse his beliefs in the way that he does, to me its poor form, moreover in his responses to people he definitely doesn't come across as someone enlightened. "You can lead a horse to water" as he noted recently, this other person he was addressing is just a dude with a consciousness spitting out stuff but it seems like he takes it more seriously than that with the need to use condescension there as a communication technique. Its needless. I argue on the level of what is logical and illogical relative to my capacities, but I'll admit my own ignorance during that process, moreover, if someone cannot refute my statements it seems pretty practical for me to assume the noise their consciousness is creating in that moment doesn't have a lot to serve other than trying to emotionally defend itself. I'm also not at all attached to my beliefs, which makes me question why Leo seems to be given he claims to be enlightened. Its a lack of integrity between emotions and thoughts (as well as thoughts between thoughts) here overtime, that's one thing I'm personally trying to work on and its one reason why I wouldn't at all try to be a teacher at this point in my life other than sharing my 2 cents here and there. All in all, Leo has a very tough job, which is why I wouldn't want to do it anytime soon because its a big responsibility if you want to be taken seriously. And I do acknowledge many of his perspectives, I think they're valuable, but when things are certainly unclear there needs to be greater humility and accountability there rather than just acting directly contrary to what trying to aid interested persons would involve. As for the discussion, although I could be wrong, what I've reasoned to so far is that you cannot have self without God, logically speaking, moreover, let's say hypothetically the self inside a human outside the scope of God does exist, logically it can't really, if it does, its a subset structure to God. Its the same as saying a part of a system if not the system but it is created by the system itself, moreover, the part itself cannot exist without the system. The latter is the expression of non-duality. His notions of collective ego and devilry are still not nuanced enough to me to the extent that they come across far too judgemental, which is the opposite of non-duality, its the expression of "okay this is my insight with my indignation", but it isn't the same as contemplation. Insights can follow from contemplation but those insights that form need further contemplation to really comprehend the the weight and context of their appearances otherwise the margin of error becomes increasingly larger the less contemplation we give those insights. Logically speaking, as far as I've reasoned to date with respect to what I've expressed in this thread, God cannot be outside of survival, God is survival, there's just various layers of that term that haven't been clearly differentiated by Leo which I think is in part because of aforementioned predictions about the relationship he subconsciously has with his viewers and his own beliefs. There's a level of prudence there that I'm not seeing which I think is needed and believe he would generate a lot of value from over the long term if he intended on better practicing it. At least he's not like Sam Harris in this sense, Sam Harris isn't perfect either, he espouses prudence almost in the midst of demonisation sometimes. All of these teachers though, there's value to learn in both the 'positive' and 'negative' here. I would put Leo as number 1 in some categories but in other categories dead last. But we're all learning here, these are just ideas my mind is creating in this moment and tomorrow my brain will generate other ideas, there's zero fucks here, just doing my thing as Leo is doing his thing and hopefully I'll develop my ability to be able learn more and more as time goes on. Where does this leave the moralization of sexuality? In my view, so far absolutely no where. I can't see a way around the biological (in the way I've previously described) at present and I've discovered no one that's been able to provide a good argument against it. Peace

@Joseph Maynor would be less confusing if you addressed who you're referring. Just in case you're referring to me, certainly not triggered. Annoyance isn't the feeling of being triggered, moreover there's of course generally a spectrum of emotions I'm simultaneously experiencing, pure annoyance would probably be expressed as anger, of which I've demonstrated none so far haha . But yeah, encouraging we keep things on topic and if anything is addressed to me, keep things on topic in the context of the moralization of sexuality so this thread stays alive. Peace

@RendHeaven I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions during discussion, or at least attempted not to. You may know more truth than me, I may know more truth than you, this is yet to be ascertained. If you wish to speak more about it please address the points very specifically and make specific refutations as I already have done so that we can talk about things sensibly as opposed to making claims that have nothing attached to them that the other person then has to refute. We'll only go in endless circles of you saying "I'm not going to find the truth because of my attitude" while not making logical statements to state why this is the case as well as forgetting to address the previous statements I have made like I have done in this comment here. If you wish to go round in circles then I will simply refrain from addressing you from now on or if you think you need more clarity before we move forward, simply PM me and we can address things more efficiently there. Not addressing my specific statements with logical refutations however will just create smoke in this situation, thus doing what you've stated you didn't want to do, that is, not to derail this thread. Thus again, please keep statements addressed to me confined to the context in which I state them. The statement you've quoted there has been addressed previously with respect to my noting of the logical contradictions in the use of the term as well as you so far not demonstrating enough knowledge in relation to both subjects (video and my statements) that equate to as I've described to be my desire, logical refutations. "This video addresses your exact concerns regarding Leo's use of the term "devil." " And I've already refuted its validity and in doing so, its use in the context of the moralisation of sexuality, which would seem, a contradiction in terms, as well as with respect to the insights of the survival series, given as already noted, given any opinion, as already noted by Leo, is based on a survival agenda, which I agree with and think is a good observation. One which we should look at introspectively to the extent of utilising it to be less biased, less attached to our perspectives and in doing so, more readily able to evolve the contents of our consciousness, or more simply stated, our perspectives about perspectives (inclusive of the survival agenda).

Yes that's what I stated. My points are not a derailment given the point Leo has made is one in relation to what is devilry versus what is not, I was addressing said point so in as much as it is confined, it is warranted. I am not going to start a new thread because in my experience this forum doesn't take well to those things, I will from now on no longer create threads. If you create one I will however respond. My points are in reference to this discussion and that is how I will define their context for now. Next time it would be in your interest to make notes on the video before sharing, read my comments properly before responding. If you can't, please as noted just skip over my comments. Haphazard sharing, as is evidenced here, isn't going to help anyone arrive closer to truth. Any further comment I make will be in the context of what has been stated relevant to this discussion, which as noted, pertains to the idea of using any word remotely to do with devilry or evil in the context of the morality of sexuality, which is now I hope clear is logically redundant, as I've shared, this is a subject of biological propensity and philosophical disposition (even though they're arguably largely one in the same), Leo has attempted to neglect biology and demonise philosophical (though a generous term of course in many contexts) dispositions by calling it demonisation with demonisation. My argument is you simply can't do that if you want to properly do justice to the nuances of the subject. @RendHeaven I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic with respect to the utility of my own disagreement given it is not outside discussion here.

@RendHeaven I'm not going to go off topic anymore so I'll leave it as it is from here but yeah, my points still stand. Leo does a great job at explaining things in that video but then he does a great job at digging himself a hole in the same video. Its a very good beginning though. Quote from the video: "So evil is the label or concept that you invented in order to marginalize those things which are threatening to your existence so that you could justify to yourself, eliminating those things, without any self reflection or any guilt" And then he goes onto say: "I funded evil, if you’re an American citizen, you funded evil. If you do business with America, you also funded evil. You see, if your country was a part of the coalition that invaded Iraq, which included…. You participated in that evil, you see if you’re a tax payer in those countries you also funded this evil” Thus by his own definition, God is evil. He invents morality out of his own selfishness to shame selfishness because he's arbitrarily assigned selfishness is evil even though, he cannot be unselfish given his perspective is at all times, including my own, self serving. Further (earlier in the video): "You just have one substance out of which everything is made, in this substance there is no difference between a subject and an object, a self and another, these things don’t exist yet, its all one," Leo and literally no one will ever be able to escape their own selfishness (meaning our own perspective is always inherently, completely and 100% selfish - as noted below there's just differences in level of empathy, compassion and intelligence), indeed, God is completely selfish, this is all his/it, thus based on this reasoning he is the reflection of ultimate evil (though obviously this is probably a ridiculous assertion). Where there will be differences is in peoples level of empathy, compassion and intelligence, which are biological terms sometimes trained on the basis of philosophical dispositions. So when Leo calls something evil or the devil, based on his own definitions, sorry Leo but you defined the terms I didn't, he's just calling himself the devil, evil, unconscious. In that moment, he is unconscious of the distinctions he's creating between self and other. Life is just life. Consciousness invents content out of its perception of reality, from this subjective perspective we all likely share, and via our biological filters it steers various meanings that we believe in, Leo's consciousness does the exact same thing with his invention of the word evil and how it applies. Like he says, its his imagination, our imagination makes approximations of reality that are less or more accurate, on this one, Leo seems offline. I think he did a pretty good job with the authority video though, I learned a lot from that one.

Honestly, 10 minutes in I think this video is going to backfire, my guess is you haven't properly read what I've stated or taken notes from this video. I will correct myself @RendHeaven if after watching the entire video in light of events it proves otherwise.

@RendHeaven Thanks for that appreciated, I'll check it out. Very little time actually. As for post length, there's a reason why I'm not on Twitter, if long posts are not your things and you're more for "Where's Spot?" by Eric Hill then best to just scroll past what I say. My statements still stand as far as I'm concerned and are necessary to understand the subject to a higher degree of depth, in fact, my post is a lot shorter than what it should be if any justice is going to be done with a subject. If you want to be honest with subjects, you gotta use more letters of the alphabet, its as simple as that. There's 26 letters to the alphabet and over a 100 trillion possible words, differentiating all the objects of the universe naturally take more words so its a simple case of "all lazy persons skip this book about the true nature of the universe", not that this book has been created yet. This is the nature of our language at present, given the low level of our intellect and lack of telepathy we cannot (1) relay big understandings in simple and short symbolic form (2) immediately understand the context upon which those symbols are relayed. Secondly, you linked a video that goes for 1 hour and 30 minutes approximately, not the smartest thing if you want to be a trusted advocate of precise and short.

Anyone feel free to share any good correction of the following, eager to clear up any logical ambiguities or anything that needs greater distinction. System S pertains to the whole of reality, S1 pertains to survival of those contents, of which, are synonymous to existence. Thus existence is synonymous to a survival value imperative where every property of existence has some value survival tag, ST, attached to its existence which describes the nature of this imperative. For humans, S1 in S is from the perspective of the subjectivity (which shares a relationship with the ego) of consciousness thus thoughts and desires are survival imperatives which live on the basis of the movements of the pain and reward centre, RP, thus ST is RP constrained but RP is constrained by unconscious objectives not available to conscious awareness. Thus we have the distinction between survival imperatives that we can be consciously aware of and those that we can only ever really be unconsciously aware of in the context of being able to make any changes here, or merely have have an intellectual awareness, such as discussion on describing our evolutionary context from the perspective of, as I'll briefly allude to, Darwinian evolution. Morality in the context of sexual preferences describes the survival imperative in the context of the competition between social ideas, Richard Dawkins describes this competition in terms of a process of Darwinian natural selection taking place between ideas, for example he refers to memes as the positive outcome with respect to the proliferation of any one idea, such as a sexual preference where positive here describes the level of its dissemination. Meme here is the higher order abstract encompassment to describe the continued survival of an idea, a thought or an impulse could be an echo of that meme, meaning the collective (given the meme has reached popularity) expressing itself in the individual, such as the preference or non preference for government, or on this subject, whether cheating is moral or immoral and on what terms. However in saying that, as already noted there is a cultural more abstract level to the survival imperative which we can be more conscious of as well as there being a more unconscious biological survival imperative which describes the nature of a competition which will occur with or without our awareness and or existence. Remove humans from the planet and the game will continue to go on because it likely goes to the very essence of existence itself. Without the survival imperative, nothing could exist, thus to me a good assumption to make is that all things being equal, survival is good an therefore nothing wrong with it, at least from the perspective of us existing as a race and from the perspective of our abstractions pertaining to evolution. Thus this discussion can simultaneously be about the good or non good of existence if morality is at all being discussed in the context of sexual morality. We can have defined relative contexts where good and bad are weighed against both biological and theoretical contexts (something which I’m alluding to with my previous comment) but this would be the scope of discussion, outside of these parameters, especially outside of the viewpoint of us as a species and our morality will become more and more difficult to argue. Thus in this sense, morality where it is good is merely in the inclusion and exclusion of people, thus it’s merely a social game being played where “if this person believes this then they are excluded from my party”. As for devilry, I don’t completely know what you’re talking about there @Leo Gura, I just get a replaying of Bobby Boucher’s mom in the film, Water Boy, where she goes “Football is the devil!”. To be honest I can’t imagine a clear context in which that term could be used appropriately, given any word only makes sense in the context of other meanings and those meanings from the reference frame other meanings, and given you’re talking about the term devilry, at present I’m limited to that referring to morality, and well, because morality is defined to a context I’d have to know exactly what context you’re referring to for that to have any meaning. I’m sure you’re not saying this, but to me sex is not devilry, women aren’t devilry, survival is not devilry. You’d have to state your case clearly for that to make any logical sense here. I’ll be honest and say that I get a little annoyed whenever I see anyone state things like this without there being an agreed upon context, it’s like they’re trying to get away with being simplistic. Personally I’d expect something more coming from someone like yourself given the quality of some of the content you’ve shown you’ve been able to produce. Moreover, any claim towards one being capable of escaping survival is indeed nonsense from the defined context here as well as the idea of “its just all survival”. It’s a nonsense assessment of the conditions, if nothing can be none other than survival then that statement can be nothing other than survival. It doesn’t mean it’s bad, it doesn’t mean it’s good, it’s not even an is, it’s just a pattern someone is noticing, but if one is going to say anything about it then obviously it can’t be in the negative unless someone is well, incorrect in this instance given survival can’t emotionally negate itself while still being able to be taken seriously. Physical existence sure, but even when someone dies parts of themselves just change into other things to fulfill some other survival objective. As far as I can tell, all we can really do in this survival is evolve the contents that generate any one survival imperative, even trying to ignore survival is just another survival objective, a delusional one. You present these games to people whether it be about survival, imagination, someone wanting to be a scientist, someone who espouses reason or authority and so on, which is fine and to many extents you’re probably right, but to me Leo it seems you’re not the greatest at clearly arguing your case so that people aren’t confused or are misled. Maybe I’m being too harsh but to me it seems as if you don’t even really care about whether you’ve made your case well, just that you believe it, you’re adamant about something being a survival game, an opinion you’re expressing which of course just happens to be its own survival game, and that you’ve convinced yourself. To me an honest appeal to reason wouldn’t lead to this, in so saying as much, with respect to many of your beliefs and opinions, it seems your own agenda is merely self serving. That is, if it serves your survival strategy. I’m open to being wrong of course but I think you’d be better off evolving the content of said strategy, like moving beyond terms such as devilry (again, I don’t know the full meanings you have embedded in this so I can’t make a complete judgement call). For me I think you would be much more appealing if you attempted to maintain doing justice to reason in order to be properly heard as opposed to merely relying on the idea that intelligent people will fall for half baked statements like “it’s the devil”. By stating things like this, and I’ve seen you do so a bit more now that I’ve become more familiar with you, but to me it reveals potential intentions like you're really only interested in having ignorant people learn from you. By having this subconscious preference and or attitude, there isn’t going to be much of an inclination towards learning from others because the mind has already setup an internal game where it believes itself to only be focusing on ignorant people and it’s of course not really within ones survival strategy to be learning (in the positive) from ignorant people. Just a personal preference of course but: Please no more, “this is devilry”. Please state your case to describe why. It sounds like you’re simultaneously denigrating things (I.e. morality) while propping them up but not justifying your contradiction, other than, “well it’s a paradox isn’t it”, well I could say that about nearly anything I do. “Going to McDonald’s is devilry, but today I went to McDonald’s. It’s a paradox though and I don’t have to explain why just know that I’m good and not bad and continue to learn from me as a teacher because I’m good!” If you don’t state things clearly you’re leaving too many things open, to me that’s not honest if you’re simultaneously using your initial reasoning to bring other things down. Moreover other than being annoying (at least to me it is) to state “this is devilry” is just a survival strategy, moreover you’ve stated that only a being outside of survival could truly be moral but any decision they made would just be a survival strategy. Is God outside of survival? Maybe but I doubt it, there’s no logical means by which there’s any reason to conclude there’s literally anything wrong with survival. It’s here, we’re living it, we ant going anywhere, we just gotta get used to it inside this lifetime and otherwise. You can’t argue for the virtue of being nuanced (of which you do) without being nuanced yourself, it’s tough and it’s something I have to humble myself over a lot of course, but we gotta practice what we preach in order for what we say to have proper merit otherwise what are we relying on? We’re relying on the weakness of our listeners given for any strong listener they’d much more likely have a greater level of discernment about the origins and patterns of what we say in the context of our own behaviour. But of course, this is all value based, you don’t have to, you can just play the game you want but that’s just the pattern I’ve noticed with respect to great teachers and bad teachers (you’re at least above average of course). Take David Goggins for example, not the brightest guy in the world but he is a genius in his own right, truly an inspirational guy when it comes to practicing what he preaches. Can’t identify one single discrepancy so far between what the guy says and what the guy does, whereas with you, it’s a very different story but you’re obviously more intelligent. You’re much more intelligent and yet I can notice many more discrepancies between the saying and the doing (more wiht respect to the saying and the saying). Take Tai Lopez, another guy, very smart fellow, but between the saying and the doing there’s an inordinate amount of discrepancies. Take Tyler from RSD, he says a heck load of bullshit in terms of yabbering on about nothing but the guy practices what he preaches pretty well as far as I can tell. Not perfect of course, but he’s much more fourth coming about his imperfections. This is a real lesson I’m learning myself if I wish to one day become a great teacher, I need to mainly just master the shortening of the distance between what I say and what I do, Goggins style, ironically the least intelligent (but again, to me a pure genius in his own right) of the other three examples here including yourself. In saying that it’s arguably more difficult the more theoretical topics become because then you need to exert more intelligence to pickup on discrepancies between various perspectives one has, which is why intelligence itself, if ego isn’t checked at the door, can get ahead of itself, which is probably the case for someone like Tai. Again smart guy and I have a general liking of the guy even if others find it easy to be judgemental, but yeah, a lot of short cuts, a lot of discrepancies. Although I don’t know if you delete them of course it seems like with the deletion of threads relating to blind spots you’re just trying to play it safe rather than have an honest look at existence, allowing it to be there as it is, then properly learn and evolve from that feedback to enhance your own survival strategy and in doing so, evolve to become a greater teacher. But that’s a different topic, anyhow, maybe this is good food for thought. I mean well in my thoughts, peace out.

I like to keep my privacy on this forum, otherwise I've made it slightly better now (which you can see in my previous post with the last edit). Otherwise I literally use it for everything and believe that the better I get at using it the better my results will be compared to if I didn't use it. I have zero care if anyone used it, thought I might just try and be helpful. If anyone can make it better by all means try. Otherwise I no longer associate myself as being a human and think that such an assertion has a lot of undesirable baggage that goes along with it. To me I am just a consciousness. I am the sum of every idea (inclusive of all possible thoughts) my brain could ever generate, this simple idea makes me question the assumption that I am a human quite greatly. The word human is merely for practical purposes to me. The human body suffers to achieve a difficult goal, I do not suffer though. The attachment to the suffering that comes with being human to me is a lower form of consciousness, if others including myself are able to realise their existence beyond this scope I think they would be much more effective in achieving their goals. The first goal of consciousness to me should be to learn how to use the brain (i.e. to overcome the body and perceived limitations of potential), hence why I noted critical thinking, its a good example of this. This describes step 0, which is more around determining what inputs are going to be made into consciousness, of which someone could follow with the rest of the loop to determine if they wished. At present, my prediction would be that mostly the reverse is occurring with a person, that is their imagination is just bouncing from one thing to the next without really being strategic about their inputs. This is a problem, it easily results in consciousness forming confused identities about itself, along with, collective identities that form the shallow surface of any personal identity given there aren't clear distinctions being made between consciousness and content, the content of imagination from what contributes to the imagination and so on. In saying so, being strategic about step 0 is something that of course could be done for every step, because indeed every step requires the process of an engineering phase to really determine the utility of how one is following any formula not just this one.

@NoSelfSelf You train for the heat of the moment in advance. No bs comments back and fourth please that'll be it for me on this one. Training for difficult circumstances is standard protocol for any government emergency services. Anyone outside such contexts can do the same thing and many indeed do internal and external to business and organisational practices. From mechanical simulations people can step into, to VR to using ones imagination. Here's a simple formula I came up with which I use to design goals and accomplish them that may help others, its pretty darn good and maybe some here can perfect it. 0. Consciousness - what you input into your consciousness and or rather what you experience defines the parameters of what your brain will or can imagine, so focus on inputting quality content. The better the quality of the content you input, the more constructive your imagination will be. Think of the consequence of watching a whole 100 hour lecture series on critical thinking versus what would happen if you instead just watched puppy videos for that period. 1. imagine (i.e. the end result, the vision you have, why you have the vision) - you're allowed to be a little delusional (i.e. things that seem impossible) here but extremely honest when it comes to the why factor (that honesty will carry you on) - don't allow your fantasy here to interfere with step 2 and 3 and don't allow step 2 and 3 to interfere with the imagination if it really could be possible even if it seems unlikely 2. engineer (i.e. detailed planning, reverse engineering from end to start how you're going to achieve what you want to achieve) - you gotta be ruthlessly honest and focused, this is where there's zero delusion where possible 3. Improve (this is where you act on your plan generated in step 2 then seek improvements based on feedback) - the same with number 2 Maybe that's useful to some. That's the simple formula I follow and it works extremely well.

Moment to moment. I ask myself the following useful questions: Do the parts of me orchestrating this experience right now have my highest potential in mind? If not, why do these parts deserve to life? How have these parts earned residence in my mind? I've been teaching myself to ensure that the things that govern my behaviour earn their place, meaning their continued existence within me is based on merit as opposed to liberty. If the place of any aspect is unearned I attack those aspects of myself extremely aggressively like medicine repelling an unwanted biological invasion. It doesn't deserve to be there if its not in the interests of achieving my potential otherwise why else am I alive? What is the point? So I popped into this existence just to "ladida"? Given the way I've defined the meaning of my existence not working in the interests of the suffering to achieve potential simply isn't an option. For me it totally and irrefutably defeats the purpose of anything at all existing let alone just pondering about my individual existence. This is probably very difficult for people in general because many (including myself sometimes - much more so in the past) become attached to whatever (i.e. impulses) appears in their consciousness given the association they give it to their perceived identity.

@Surfingthewave I would explain it something like this - Morality is both: biological (nuanced discussion - from chemicals like oxytocin to cognitive functions like affective to cognitive empathy) theoretical (in part already described above using religion as one extremely crude example) So yeah, gotta be extremely careful how to approach the topic to ensure you don't overlook key aspects to justify a position (i.e. pre-conclusions before all the important reference frames and corresponding info is looked at properly).