Reciprocality

@Javfly33 Aren't you wittingly or not trying to fix the world already by the principle of not doing so, by wishing to affect those who thinks differently?

@Javfly33 What comes to mind when you consider something undisturbed, something you don't compare to or something your intensions could only negatively impact?

Preferring the world as it is without your own involvement, to not disrupt or alter it in any way, how often and when last did you have a day like this? Is it enlightened? In which way do you on your better days prefer the world as it is instead of the way you want it or the way in which it comes together?

The superficial differences are real, the rest are just practical

Is it a first person perspective you want to have in a young state of mind or is it your particular character you want to have in a young state of mind? It appears to me that the latter is correct, your self is your particular way to love, your particular conscience and fixation, but why is it important that it must be experienced from a first person perspective (an integral whole)? Is there a difference between this insistence on the first person perspective and rejection of others? Isn't youth always myopic, idealised, stylised, simplistic, unaware and inefficient, could you live as a young person without being all those things many times over?

The bum on the street is you and me everyone can focus their mind, some tries to focus others mind as well, this is enlightenment and manipulation hand in hand and we all do it continuously

If the function it serves to identify as a "me" is to switch conscious focus at will so to not become drawn from object to object then how do we navigate the world without this "self"? When I lose the sense of "me" this consciousness becomes filled with something else, this is wobbly or unstable and is therefore prone to induce chaos and distress. How do you minimise your awareness on certain things without the aid of the illwill the self has against these things?

Aren't you lying just by going to the store? When you observe people at the mall, aren't they all lying by presenting in a given way, do you think they are the way they present? Observe others, are they serious? Do they have a seriousness about them? What is seriousness? Schopenhauer would answer that seriousness is the firm belief that reality is in itself what one thinks it is, the belief that reality corresponds perfectly to ones judgement. People do not necessarily intend to present as they do simultaneously as they do it, nobody intends to be serious, it simply happens by itself as a consequence of a certainty that ultimately is false.

@Golem If we never lied to ourself? How does one act without lying? How do you intend anything at all without there being a separation between the intent and the real causes that brings it about? How do you even focus on a thing without deception? Aren't you lying away the rest of the world every time you focus anywhere? How widely do you have to focus to not "lie" away parts of reality and are there no deceptions involved in focusing on everything at once?

You are treating variables as though they add to one another, are conjoined, but they are mutually defined, connected and are dualities of one distributed entity. A sum of added parts / coinciding parts were one of the worst tragedies that happened to our intellectual circuits, they are effectively enforced accidents (inessentials) where any one part forcefully exists independently of the others. The modern language we use comes with the accident of every one combination of words that expresses meaning, the syntax of the sentence, and I believe this has forced us to think more syntactically about memories, the hypothesis from this is that tribes that only think by hieroglyphs or single words think wholes and are able to "see" the whole through the parts, that they think holistically because the accidental relations between things have not been forced on them through the way in which syntax of language efficiently allows one to think utterly differentiated things, partially from ones will and woe, at various points of the day or week which when generalised into entailments would be tremendously inconsistent with each other. When we employ immense amounts of conceptual thinking the inherent connections between parts can reemerge, where their distinction is falsified through investigation into the ground for abstractions (phenomenology, axiomatics and memories), such that nothingness derive from logical negation, negation derive from spontaneous distinction, ones sense of self is the same as others, limits unified with conditions, body identical with mind, the future identical with the past, space the same as time, algebra the same as geometry, energy as the same as space-time, logic as the same as identity etc.

To be clear, the thesis is that burnout is an effect of subject-relative higher cognitive efficiency because for every thought it processes more efficiently inherent constraints are approached more closely without that limiting the growth-vector/ synthesis of concepts, the unchangeable nature thus universal applicability of concepts could also be predicted simply from that. Thus the idea that you could think more efficiently x and y without that leading to z decouples the inherent relations without which the mind would not think in the first place. The condition-limit equivalence is also an argument for a macro-level (non-continuous) determinism which is translatable to an inherent psychological balance-mechanism which dictates that any action or non-action follows by an equal and opposite action or reaction in some or other way. To disagree with the equivalence will then imply disagreement with the balance mechanism, so if you think that the mind has a shadow, a conscience or values then what can be induced from them (inherent psychological balance) is negated by that disagreement. Edit: note on the point of the universality of concepts: if they weren't unchangeable why would humans intuitively read their children and younger people like a book? Are judgements sudden novelties or are they remnants from past experiences? Is the belief in the novelty of my present judgement a decoupling between the present and the past?

Where does the concepts of boredom and stimuli come from? Why are you stimulated by a conversation about neurology, principles, improvement, intelligence etc., instead of a conversation about the politics concerning the ownership of land in the sandbox at the closest kindergarten? My answer to that question is largely that you have grown to think of ownership, self, self-bias etc. in far more efficient and interconnected ways than you once did, but that this efficiency would be impossible without first having been the self-proclaimed owner of the sandbox, and that whatever comes afterwards are more and more complex bifurcations of that proclamation and its negation, that the significance of such proclamation is the substance of the system that overtakes it. The new branches on a tree grows out of what the tree already is, and these new branches render a higher toil on the tree in proportion to what they contribute than the previous generation, since the substance that allows it to operate is the same limit all throughout every generation, if this were not so then trees would die far later. You don't accept my proposition because you don't connect the inherent relation between the condition for the possibility of x with the limit of x. Once you distinctly identify how all systems are limited by their conditions you see how it entails that if all else were equal then a more efficient variant of a brain or mind will use more energy than a less efficient one, not in relation to a given task, for which the converse is true, but in relation to the set of all relatively-present tasks. It is possible that other variables minimises the effect, and that part of what life on this planet has done is to succeed at this, that would be a very interesting hypothesis and we should investigate it, but confusing that for the absence of condition-to-limit equivalency would be like confusing biology for physics. If conditions are equal to limits then just as the conditions will continue to be the walls you are bumping into so too will they be the growth that allows you to tear through them, if the growth-vector were to minimise the more one grew then the continuous limits that the growth vector up until then constituted would need to minimise too. Which would be absurd unless the system were initially unequal in condition and limits, which also would be absurd. The more easily you think concept x the more easily y is conceived alongside it, since concepts have their whole significance and origination in the perception and set of judgements both of which correspond with the growth-vector and its inherent limits all throughout your development. What I am saying may be clearer if you consider concepts as the aperture of the mind and the experiences it can and will imagine.

@zurew 1. The muscles are tools that gets employed from the motivation that lies in the mind, motivation is conceptual or semantic past a certain stage of infancy which means that there is not only a difference between the two but such a fundamental difference that one (mind/brain) is the foundation or threshold of the use of the other (muscles), 2. the muscles on the upper arms does not get more used when (if and only if) the muscles on the forearms have grown more efficient, just as the muscles on the legs does not work over-time when (again: if and only if) the abs have become more efficient at crunches, this implies a non-causal and non-inherent relation between growth of muscle groups, although the correlation would be significant since more efficient muscle group A would correlate with more overall exercise thus correlate with the need for muscle group B to grow as well. The mind is a whole other order of business, since the relation between concepts are directly causal and share inherent similarities, overlaps, associations etc., my argument took this for granted and could do so since it holds true against scrutiny. Now recognise that if my arguments against the relevant difference between muscles and the brain falls short this would not in and of itself imply that the burnout rate is not higher for cognitively efficient agents, but could just as much imply that the burnout rate is higher for both physically and cognitively efficient agents, remember also that the burnout section of the argument must have two components, one being correlational and the other causal, this is important to recognise since it is actually possible that there is less correlation between higher cognitive function and burnout at the same time as higher cognitive function is a direct cause for burnout, this is especially possible if the causal relation is an outlier in the statistics. Since I provide no scientific findings this should be taken as causal inference, thus my methods must be rather conceptual and comprise conditionals that build on simple and universal principles.

@Carl-Richard Imagine that your mind consumes more energy the more efficiently it processes a thought because this efficiency allows it to also process related or connected thoughts. Additionally, any surplus energy saved through increased efficiency is not stored but instead redirected to handling these additional tasks, leading to a higher overall energy expenditure per second than in the initial, less efficient system. The duality here would be accumulation or retention vs offset or redistribution But my response took into account the cognitive improvements themselves on the mind, which you appear to theorise as being substantial, not just their cause (the n-back exercise) which your comment responded to. On the one hand you look very optimistic on the positive effects the dual-n-back training have on the efficiency of the mind in relation to cognitive tasks but on the other hand you are very pessimistic that the consequences of this efficiency can be similar to what I believe to be the consequence of those who already possess a very efficient cognitive apparatus, that being mental burnout. But let us say that many of my assumptions are incorrect, the principle that more efficient systems produce a surplus of energy per task is tautological, and that this surplus energy is either offset or accumulated exhausts all non-magical possibilities, if your refined assumption that higher cognitive efficiency does not correlate with burnout is correct then this raises a few questions, 1. why the surplus energy is merely accumulated into some general energy bank, 2. how surplus energy can be offset to other tasks associated with the original and result in more energy spent without it correlating with burnout, 3. why burnout is trivially correlated with mental activity and instead a matter of physical toil or 4. why the surplus concept does not apply in this issue at all. To be clear, I am only asking questions and doing some consistency checking, I have no scientific knowledge in this area nor am I invested in any given stance on the issue, I ask these questions to get answers since it could reveal nuanced principles I have not considered.

@Carl-Richard Is it not likely that the more you improve your cognitive performance from these n-back exercises the earlier in your life you get burnt out or experience similar after-effects? Assuming that your mind is allowed to burn more energy the more efficiently it thinks any given thing because it thinks an associated or connected thing in addition to that thing when it thinks it more efficiently.