High-valance

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    35

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by High-valance

  1. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    Some of the most common debate tactics i see are attempts at distortion and evasion tactics, so misrepresenting the other side and dodging their points / questions / arguments, also known as straw man and red herring fallacies. Begging the question is also very common. I can go on and on about common dirty / misleading debate tactics. However i suspect much if not even most of the time it's done unconsciously. Theyre not aware theyre doing it. 

  2. Posted

    On 2023-07-16 at 10:13 PM, Blackhawk said:

    I would make all harmful beliefs and ideas illegal. (For example the whole Trump thing, being on Putins side, being against Nato membership, burning Qurans, etc.)

    I would take money from the rich and give to those who are more poor.

    I would give a order to annihilate all Russian military forces in Ukraine.

    Make ideas and beliefs illegal. Is this a joke? 

  3. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    On 2023-07-13 at 6:46 PM, Girzo said:

    https://www.amazon.com/Integral-Relationships-Manual-Martin-Ucik/dp/0984570306

    That’s all the advice men here really need. Just get the book and stop listening to immature bald guys. Listen to mature bald guys instead.

    All the books in the world are free in Z-Library.

    I dont wanna listen to mature bald guy! I wanna listen to the immature bald guy! The mature bald guy is boring. I wanna listen to the immature bald guy and integrate the good things he says and say fuck the immature toxic stuff he says. 

     

    (i do want to listen to the mature bold guy but it sounds better if i said like I did above) 

  5. Posted

    I've experienced similar. I went on a pick up bootcamp once and every night after i went to bed I was tortured by really bad stomach pain. 

    I guess even though the mind is chill there's actually fear that you're not being aware of, or not being fully aware of, but which is perhaps being suppressed and then manifests bodily in the ways you describe. I don't know if I'm saying something insightful or obvious here. 

    and I've experienced the restlessness too, even though I have felt mostly fine mentally. like fine enough to where I first didn't think the restlessness had anything to do with the mild anxiety felt during the interaction with the girl. but now I think it might have been my body reacting to anxiety I didn't in the moment become fully aware of but which was perhaps suppressed. but I don't know though so I hope someone else will reply to your post.

     

  6. Posted · Edited by High-valance
    needed to add something

    On 2020-03-29 at 10:21 PM, IJB063 said:

    @The Don Hey Buddy,

    I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 15, I think there is a lot of studies showing that diagnosing for ADHD is wrong

    It seems to me that ADHD is in many ways is just the medicationalisation of boredom - just look at the definition given by the American Psychological Association - ADHD is 

    "The constant search for stimulation, restlessness, sensation seeking behaviour, fidgeting, difficulty maintaining attention and the inability to concentrate on anything that requires sustained effort"

    Its generally just an excuse to drug misbehaving boys in school with stimulants like zoo animals - to make it easier for teachers and the schools

    Here is an interesting video on the topic - Push through the gag and the start, it just goes on for about a minute

    My first post on this forum is similar to your post actually

    I think the cure for boredom is something that actually interests you and dopamine detox's 

    Just a dopamine detox a few trys

    Note -Look into Simon Baron Cohen's work (Sasha Baron Cohens cousin or brother I think)

    ADHD is NOT just a medicalisation of boredom in a similar way that autism is not just a medicalisation of quirky and socially awkward kids. I worry that you're trivializing the serious problems many people with adhd have if we talk about it as just boredom. talking about it like that makes it seem like it's something trivial and not a real and serious problem for which treatment can be helpful. but it is very much a real and serious problem. 

    we can see that the brain of people with adhd looks meaningfully different compared to people who don't have adhd. and to mention some of the problems, people with adhd tend to struggle a lot with friendships and relationships, on average they are undereducated because they struggle with academics, they are overrepresented in car accidents, drug and alcohol abuse, and perhaps the main thing they struggle with is sustaining their effort towards reaching their goals, which is a huge problem because trying to reach our goals is basically the game we're playing here in life, and people with adhd tend to suck at it. 

    the experts say medication helps a lot in most cases. and treatment that doesn't involve medication is largely ineffective. when we say things that contradict what i'm saying here we risk making it harder for people with adhd to get the treatment that actually significantly helps those who really struggle in life with all the difficulties that adhd entails.

    or maybe it is meaningfully treatable without adhd meds, but not known among those we’d consider experts. like maybe it’s treatable with like heavy metal cleansing or whatever, but unless there is something like that, then please don’t go around acting like adhd is not real and that meds aren’t an essential and important thing for those who really struggle with adhd. that can be harmful.

  9. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    15 hours ago, Jessi123 said:

    hi all,
    I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

    I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
     
    What do you think about this perspective?

    Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
     

    That’s a good question, but I think there are some other relevant questions in doing a sort of philosophical inquiry into the framework you’ve presented. Are the words ‘nature’ and ‘everything’ just synonyms? Is that how people use these words? To some, nature may just be synonymous to the physical universe. But some believe that the physical universe is not everything. So, what is everything? Not all people agree on what everything constitutes. That is there are different ideas about what does and doesn’t exist. In regard to the question you asked, it seems to me to be more interesting to ask whether the physical world or everything in the physical world is conscious rather than  whether everything in general is conscious. If everything means all things, and things such as the emotions or the phenomenological experience behind your closed eyes are regarded as things in some relevant sense, then the question by implication includes the question of whether an emotion is conscious, and whether the darkness behind your closed eyes is conscious. It is certainly part of a conscious experience, but are they themselves conscious? It isn’t obvious to me to what extent we’d want to entertain such questions. However, it is more obvious that we want to entertain the question of whether the physical world is conscious or whether everything in the physical world is conscious. If we look a bit more closely at this question, we can see that it seems to mean different things. Are all the fundamental building blocks of which the physical world is made conscious? At what scale are each of the building blocks of the physical world conscious? Are protons, neutrons, and electrons conscious? Are individual objects such as rocks, tables and chairs conscious? Where do we draw the line? Perhaps they are not conscious, but perhaps the physical world as a whole is conscious? The former questions are related to views such as microexperientialism and panexperientialism. The latter is the question of cosmopsychism. I am not deep into the literature on these views, but the key motivation for microexperientialist and panexperientialist views seem to be motivated to explain why we have consciousness as philosophical progression from the inability of mainstream physicalism (commonly thought of as 'materialism') to account for consciousness in physicalist terms (the hard problem of consciousness). However, both microexperientialism and panexperientialism run into a problem of their own. Namely the subject combination problem, which is the problem of explaining how the combination of multiple micro level subjects result in macro level subjects such as ourselves with a unitary experience of their own. Cosmopsychists propose that it is not the fundamental building blocks of the physical world such as fundamental subatomic particles that are conscious, but that it is the physical world as a whole that is conscious, and thereby we get rid of the subject combination problem. In its place, however, a new problem arises. Namely, the decombination problem or also called the decomposition problem which is about how the higher level subject of the physical world decomposes or decombines into multiple lower level subjects such as ourselves. A proposed solution to this problem is that the higher level cosmic subject undergoes a form of dissociation by virtue of which the decombination into multiple lower level subjects is accomplished. Personally, I think this is a sufficient solution. So, I take a cosmophychist view. And I also agree with Leo that nature (if by nature we here mean the physical world) is grounded within consciousness. So, I take a form of idealist cosmopsychist view à la philosopher Bernardo Kastrup according to which the physical world as a whole not only is conscious, but also is grounded within consciousness so that it effectively is being dreamed up by consciousness. This view is not only supported by forms of mystical insights and experiences and a type of awareness but is also on rational grounds, in my view, the view that, in terms of reasons to believe which view is true, is superior.

    With regard to the question of theism a relevant question seems to me to be whether the cosmic consciousness within which the physical world is situated is synonymous with God or not. I guess it technically comes down to how God is defined. We need to come up with a reasonable definition of god and be able to show that the definition entails that cosmic consciousness is god. But I also guess that if enough people just start calling cosmic consciousness god, then it just becomes one of the ways that god can be defined. Maybe we are at that point already.

  10. Posted

    6 hours ago, Aaron p said:

    Lol, yeah because if the psychedelic is just imagination then why do I have to dose correctly. If everything is imagination, why have to use psychedelics at all? Why not just choose to become enlightened. 

    What confuses me (at the stage I'm at, before I consume a fuck-load of 5meo lol) are the certain ramifications of there being no difference between mind and matter. Why can't Leo just choose to manifest something if all is imagination anyway. Or why couldn't he heal himself with his thoughts. Those are questions that have me scratching my head. 

    However I still know because if my intuition being SOOOOOO strong, that leo is right. But these questions intrigue me...confuse me.....

    The general concern seems to be why we can't control the world at will. In other words why the dynamics of the world unfolds independently of the volition of the ego if everything is imaginary/mental.

    There's at least one model of a mind-only view of reality which explains this. According to it the observable universe is being generated by the part of universal consciousness to which we generally have no introspective access. You can sort of think of it like a dream that's being generated by a so called 'subconscious' or obfuscated part of consciousness that determines the dynamics according to which the dream or the dreamt up/imagined/mentally created universe/world unfolds through a chain of cognitive associations between the obfuscated part of consciousness and the experience of the imagined dream world. Like a thought can trigger an emotion which can trigger a memory which can trigger an other emotion which can trigger an other thought and so on through a chain of cognitive associations. The obfuscated part of consciousness can through this kind of cognitive associations generate a world. And we are dissociated from this obfuscated part of consciousness which generates and determined the unfolding dynamics of the world and thus we can't generally control it at will through egoic volition. 

    If you want answers to these sort of questions I suggest to check out writer Bernardo Kastrup. His consciousness/mind-only model of reality can make sense of many of these concerns we have if everything is just imagenary/mental. 

  11. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    1 hour ago, remember said:

    already did.

    if there are more and you’d want to ask me, we‘ll see.

    Well the question I wanted an answer for was 'what do you mean by causalities in this context?' I don't see how you've answered that question. You said 'there is no whole without the sum total of its substance'. I don't see how that's an answer to the question. You don't have to answer. You do whatever you want of course, but insofar as you are willing to answer then it doesn't seem to me like you have answered the question.

  13. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    30 minutes ago, remember said:

    @High-valance would be interesting to get an answer from you about what causes you to think the way you think. after all there are no causalities. so how would you respond to that? would you even give it a try?

    aren‘t you thinking too linear? there is no tree! 

    I think the way that I think beacuse it's obvious that nothing can exist outside consciousness. But then in order to make sense of things, we seemingly have to infer something 'outside'our 'individually consciousness'. But to infer a whole universe outside consciousness seems inflationary, unessesary and like a unimaginable abstraction. So the inferance is one of phenomenal or mental 'stuff' instead, that realize the phenomenal appearance of the cosmos and to which the appearance of the universe as a whole corresponds. 

    This can in a basic way explain that we seem to share the same context (the key world there being 'seem to'), and that world unfolds independently of egoic volition, and that there are strong correlations between brain states and subjective states. 

    In case you want a more rigorous explanation I can do that to. 

    But some of my assumptions is that we can explain the metaphysics and ontology of reality in a basic logical way to some non-trivial degree which at least partially reveals truth. 

    And I'm also assuming that we need to infer soemthing beyond our 'individual consciousnesses' to make sense of and explain things. 

    But I don't understand what you mean by causalities in this context. Can you please clarify? And then I'll happily answer. 

    And I don't exactly know what you mean by 'linearly'. You mean like to logic-oriented or something? 

    And sure there's no tree. But the appearances that constitute that which I'm calling a tree seems hard to deny. 

  14. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    It's a false and dangerous to assume we all share the same reality. We do not.

    Well if that was in response to me then I'm not sure you understood it the way that I meant it. I'm not quite saying that literally, beacuse even to say that we share the same reality is a materialist way of putting it. And I don't think the tree we both can see literally is the same tree. I'm saying that the phenomenal appearance of the tree you experience and I experience if we were seeing the so called 'same tree' is realized by the same underlying phenomenal or mental process. That's what I mean when I suggest that we are sharing the same reality. 'But the 'world' of phenomenal appearances that constitute our respective lives aren't the same. There is a non-trivial way in which we are then not sharing the same reality. 

  15. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    On 2020-07-26 at 2:52 PM, FrankTheTank said:

    My question would then be in what sense is the word "imaginary" the right term, as "to imagine" indicates to me that the world is not objective but hallucinated and controled in the mind of an entitiy.
    If we (in our ego state) have no way (even through altered states of consciousness) to change the apperance of things.
    And if God cannot change things "about himself" (does that mean God can/does not change the objects/apperances (my broken leg) in the world?).
    Who/what can make a change to the things/apperances in the world? On whos "mind?" is the world supervenient?

    If materialism is horseshit - who/what and by what mechanism does make the creation of the universe and the change in it happen?
    How comes "all" people do agree (more or less) on the objects and their characteristic, that are out there - like the tree and its color in front of my window?
    What entities/how many are there in the universe in your opinion?
    Does our Mind/Psyche run/supervenes on our Brain function? Why is my ego only aware of my conscious states?
    Do you take the view of rupert spira that all of the world including all the people/protagonists and their lives are just a dream in on Gods mind?

    Mario can not go through the wall by himself but God/the programmer/the hacker could give Mario the abilty to go through walls or teleport Mario on the other side of the wall and if we all are God then why is there no way that we can access the ability to do it?

    While you might be unhappy with one way or the other I put my argument in words I think you understand what I try to get at.
    I think to make progress on our metaphysical views and to communicate them its important to have a kind of position paper on our basic metaphysical assumptions and state clearly and briefly what we think about the basic metaphysical entities/questions.

    With regards to your question of why we agree about the nature of objects such as trees 'out there', or more generally put, why we seemingly share the same reality about which our experience to a significant extent converges such that it is consistent among observers, I would suggest the following considering, although with the caveat that the map is not the territory, language is limited so don't take this to literally, and also that I'm not someone who's had many deep awakenings so what I'm about to say isn't deeply grounded in direct experience. But what I'd suggest is that the shared context in which we are all embedded is more or less analogous to a shared dream, the contents of which such as trees are being self-generated in all the various dreams by the same collective psyche or mind generating the shared dream or imagined 'reality'. 

    We might also think of this as kind of similar to the way we currently view the so called 'external world' but only that it is not a world outside and independent of consciousness made of non-conscious physical stuff, but rather a domain of consciousness, a stream of experiences or mental goings on which we might call the collective psyche self-generating our experience of a shared world with qualities and properties whose nature we all seem to basically agree on. 

    So in some sense, what's out there is not the external physical world of objects, but a mental or phenomenal world of mentation by virtue of which we recognise a shared environment. Although 'out there' is a non-literal way of putting it, and that sort of phrasing is sort of materialistic terminology and a materialistic way of putting things. 

    This might also help to understand why we can't change the world at will, because it is this trans-personal collective mind or consciousness that constitutes our world and thus also the manner in which it unfolds. If the trans-personal collective consciousness unfolds according to certain patterns and regularities and self-generates our seemingly collective world it isn't then a surprise that our seemingly collective world also unfolds according to certain patterns and regularities that we have come to call the laws of nature, which we also btw, might metaphorically view as the code or programming determining the rules and thus the way its metaphorically simulated world, self-generated by the trans-personal collective mind as the metaphorical programmer, unfolds independently of volition. Therefore we can't just walk through walls or turn blue whenever we want (at least for the most part). 

    Further, mind or consciousness does not supervene on matter or the physical, meaning consciousness or mind does not come from matter or biology/the body-brain system. There is an undeniable relationship between consciousness/mind and body but not a causal relationship of the type that gives primacy to the physical and according to which the brain or biology generates consciousness. Biology and brains are images or appearances in consciousness which tend to correlate very strongly to subjective states. But correlation does not necessarily imply causation so to say. Rather biology is an image of a process of localisation of consciousness in a stream of consciousness, like a whirlpool is an image of a process of localisation of water in a stream of water. Does a whirlpool generate water? No! As such, for the same reason that a whirlpool doesn't generate water the body-brain system doesn't generate consciousness. 

    Remember, these are just words, and words aren't the truth. Don't believe any of this stuff but with that said if you're interested in understanding a consciousness or mind-only view of reality better I'd recommend to check out Bernardo Kastrup, either on YouTube, or his blog 'Metaphysical speculations' or his books in which he deconstructs the mainstream materialist paradigm in which many of us are so deeply entrenched. 

  16. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    This is not a thread about empathy for rape victims.

    The context of this thread is: "female celebrities getting away with sexual misconduct"

    The reason this happens is because the standards for female sexual misconduct are very different -- and SHOULD be very different -- than the standards for male sexual misconduct. Because the male can be much more forceful about it.

    It baffles me that you guys are having a hard time understanding this. It would help if you set your woke-scolding aside for a moment and try to understand why I communicated what I did.

    It wasn't originally, and I agree that the standards are and should be different, but then you talked about famale on male rape victims enjoying rape most likely, and also about victim blaming male rape victims, and then it did partly become about empathy for rape victims. That became a salient topic for obvious reasons. It baffles me that you are having a hard time undersatnding this. It would help if you set your minimisation and exuses aside and try to understand why we communicated what we did also. 

  17. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Most men get raped by other men.

    I was not minimizing male on male rape. I was minimizing females raping males. Which is such a silly and rare thing that it isn't worth talking about in the context of males raping females.

    I'm not saying it cannot ever happen. I'm saying it's absurd to act as though men face anywhere near the same threat from females as females face from males. This is a difference by a factor of at least 100x if not 1000x.

    So spare me your SJW woke scolding and outrage.

    The average male faces zero threat ever of getting physically restrained and raped by a female.

    I have never in my life worried that a woman would rape me. Like zero chance of that. I worry more about getting hit by lightning. Yet if I was a woman I would have those worries frequently throughout my life. Which is why women hitting on men is not such a big deal.

    I don't think anybody thought you did minimise male on male rape. But I don't think how much or little female on male rape happens is relevant to minimising the experience of those it does happen to regardless of the number. The ones it does happen to and has suffered beacuse of it deserve compassion, not minimisation. 

    Reactions to minismising it seem to be to be an appropriate response of human decency. Call it SJW woke scolding and outrage if you want but to me it seems like human decency... but of course that is also a relative notion. 

  18. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    18 minutes ago, Maxman said:

    This kinda reminds me of what Leo said in one his videos. "Today's conservatives were yesterday's liberals. Today's liberals will be tomorrow's conservatives. A few decades from now you're gonna be a conservative old fart infront of all the new open-minded young generation." That's what Leo is - a conservative old fart (atleast in some aspects). It's the best he could do coming from a patriarchal generation. 

    So true! Conservativism and progressiveivism are relative notions. Liberals and progressives from today will most likely look very Conservative from the perspective of future generations. And it's a fun thing to contemplate how future generations will look back at our generations. What will they see as conservative, wicked and crazy? Not just politically and socially, but metaphysically, philosophically, ethically and across the board. 

    35 minutes ago, commie said:

    The surprisingly bad take (even for this admin) might have been hurtful to someone but was not doxxing, incitement or some such... kind of like the comment about Jews you found so fascinating the other day.

    Such comments help us learn how people perceive these issues and come to hold harmful views. They also help us gauge how common such views are. Why delete such comments or block the poster? Harmful views will not disappear from the world just because they're removed from a forum.

    Agreed! 

  19. Posted

    15 minutes ago, commie said:

    The surprisingly bad take (even for this admin) might have been hurtful to someone but was not doxxing, incitement or some such... kind of like the comment about Jews you found so fascinating the other day.

    Such comments help us learn how people perceive these issues and come to hold harmful views. They also help us gauge how common such views are. Why delete such comments or block the poster? Harmful views will not disappear from the world just because they're removed from a forum.

    Agreed! 

  20. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    I'm a little shocked by Leo's perspective on this. Lost a lot of respect for him there. Presumebly it's on avarage not as bad for men to get raped by women as it is the other way around but that does not warrent minimising it or making a joke out of it like that. This is disgraceful! What happened to love, compassion and perspective taking? 

    Is this really the take of a highly conscious person? 

    Minimising rape?!! Really?! Fucking really?! Come on!! 

  22. Posted

    Thanks for your reply.

    I see what you mean, but, as I see it, there are dangers with everything. There are traps in everything into which we can slip upon the slippery surface of the Earth. Ignoring what I feel is my calling/purpose, it seems to me would be one of those traps. I think we should all follow our hearts, and I think to many, although maybe not to all, their hearts reside in their passion and art. 

  23. Posted · Edited by High-valance

    20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    Again it depends on the perspective.  The perceiver and the perceived are one and not one from different perspectives. However the two perspectives are not equally true (yes believe it or not). From conventional first hand experience they are totally separate and you have to intellectuallize really deeply or to go into some meditative trance to dissolve this duality and still its gonna be temporary and you will be back to duality. That's just the nature of anything.  For anything to exist it must be dualistic. If there is no light there won't be darkness!. 

    Well I think perceiver and perceived are seen as seperate as a result of intellectualisation. It's a conceptual abstraction. seen through in some deep meditative state, yes sure, but if aware of the false distiction it can become apparent as soon as one just is mindful of paying attention to it, and voila, the distinction is seen through.

    "If there is no light there won't be darkness!."

    Yes, indeed. Amen to that! The dialectical polar monism represented partially in the yin yang symbol for example.

     

  24. Posted

    33 minutes ago, Member said:

    Thanks for sharing that video, it was interesting but I need time to reflect on the concepts - not that they are foreign to me but some of them didn't make sense. But I will watch it again in case I missed something. As for the matter outside mind, this is not my interpretation. It appears to be outside or separate but body and mind are basically the same to me. The chemical processes in the brain ARE thoughts or dreams or whatever, so I see no distinction between matter and subjective experience, though we obviously perceive matter in a finite space-time. My point is that we can't experience infinity as it cannot be perceived by the finite mind/being. So in order to exist, the infinity is split into these finite manifestations/forms of matter.

    Quantum mechanics is a little bit weird but it doesn't imply that there is no matter, only that matter (let's call it Schrodinger's cat) exists in a superposition. If you're interested to hear a scientific explanation on the "many worlds" theory, please watch the video from my previous post as it could answer to the "tree" dilemma (obviously, it's just a theory that I subscribe to and nothing more).

    Glad you liked it.

    i'd like to ask you, how do you mean when you say that it appears to be outside or separate?

    And I'll take a look, altough QF is for the most part kind of outside my domain of understanding as of yet. But it is on the list of things to learn on that Life long Learning thing.

  25. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    I think it's over right there. There's a duality between the represented and the thing that is being represented. For there to be perception there must be  a thing that's being perceived independently from the perceiver. Now this perception process is not perfect and it only gives edited representations of the external world but that's irrelevant to the fact that there exist that external world independent from the perception and the perceiver 

    Well sure, there are all kinds of dualities, but they are self-dual and collapse in in an absolute perspective. The percieved and the perciever are one.  I'm suggesting that what is being percieved is not a mind-external environment, but rather a mental environment, numerically identical to the perciever of it.