IAmReallyImportant

You don’t know what love is ?

Shortage thinking. You are basically promoting poverty. That’s why it exists. Billionaires do increase wealth in many Ways.

I would question the power people give to wealth and and ask the US government first to pay back their trillions of US dollars in debt, which they have (mostly to China, which is even worse). And not to engage in scams like Ponzi schemes, before you blame people for the money they have earned themselves as a citizen - most of the time without scamming other people or even nations. Most of the time people are just jealous and feel unworthy, that is why they blame billionaires. Billionaires often have a strong sense of self-esteem and are powerful creators, which triggers many people. In the same way, one could criticize the power of political offices, which are exploited anyways. Monopolys do emerge naturally and cannot be avoided in reality. You can look up the consequences of Neo-Marxismus if you just take a look into your history books - if you have one If you give too much power to politicians, the risk is that they are not competent enough to make correct decisions - which is often the case. And they can exploit their position for economic offices etc. - which often happens as well. Most of them never led a company and now they have to lead a whole nation. If you give too much power to non-politicians, it can be exploited in the same way. But they often don't depend on so much external factors as politicians do and have a better operational ability. So the best thing currently to do is 60-70% plutocracy and 30-40% democracy. Or to integrate popular vote more and make it 40% plutocracy and 60% democracy or something like that. Since most people on average do not have a holistic understanding and in most cases are not competent enough to make important political or economic decisions. The only permissible thing you can question is the power of banks. They have too much of it and this is dangerous.

reupload +1 It sounds to much like a small marketing move - people will hate you for that and say you are not truthful and care about what other people think : P

Yes, you can do what you want. It doesn't matter to me. These can be nice holidays, for sure. I'm flying to the Maldives this year and then later I'm renting a beach house at the Cote d'Azur. The wine there can also make you enlightened. Let's see how long this lasts^^ Besides the fact that the spiritual knowledge is easy accessable via the internet - engaging in fantasies sounds also more romantic to me and inspiration is always good.

If you feel like you have to go somewhere, you are on the wrong path.

I don't think there is anything you can do rather than doing as nothing as you can. Because, the panic attacks are about your mind taking control of and working "against" you. Personally, in this situation I think even certain breathing or relaxation techniques are too much. However, it may depends on the strength of the event.

There was a time when I had that in the most extreme way. It was more like a PTSD attack. My heart-beat was over 10-years on average on about 100 bpm. But mostly more and I had the heaviest panic-attacks one can imagine (or rather not) every day about 3 times. Like it was what people think hell is and what you don't want your worst enemy to experience. Like a psychedlic horror-trip, which lasts over 10 years - this is the most accurate description I can come accross with. Before I graduated from high school, I was prescribed Lorazepam. That's usually given to people who are in the final stages of a terminal illness, because it's highly addictive. I intuitively came to just sit and "bleed it out". Allow all thoughts and just sit and not move until it goes away. While doing this, shutting down all processes that somehow take energy or just the slightest effort, like trying to do anything or changing facial expressions. At some point that was gone.

Sry, when i look down i only get that i am a god, not the god. So i need less humility to get to this Stage.

Nobody feels what other people feel. What you call "empathy" is often a subtle form of attachment or co-coherence. Real empathy is the feeling of wanting other people to feel good, without guessing how they would feel or mimicking emotions by interpretation of behaviour - just another form of dishonest survival strategy. "Being Understanding" is a feminine trait that does not correlate with success. Moreover, people can deal with situations differently. So even if I put on woman shoes, I could walk different ways. The devil wears Prada. And the shoes don't fit me either and if you grow yourself a pussy you get fucked. Sensitivity equals poverty.

Yes, in general nobody does profit from crazy people. I don't think it's beneficial for everyone to be over-sensitive right now and to be extra careful not to hurt even the slightest emotion and to worry about every possible emotional impact. Because with women you never know, they often do not react comprehensibly and irrationally, so it is often not possible to take everything into account. We don't need a society that acts out of weakness. And with women it is often the case and they tend to put themselves in the victim role and blame others for their emotions. This is annoying and they often don't stop, so disciplinary measures have to be taken. That would end up in caring what others think and trying to please everyone.

That's right. However, success is basically survival. And that's not about flattening everyone's pillow. That will never be the case, because people are selfish and want to achieve their goals. And of course there are conflicts of interest etc. . Even if you make it right for everyone, similar patterns will always emerge in the end, which occur naturally. This should be understood. Because I have nothing against optimizing circumstances. But this often results in false perceptions that have negative consequences if the facts are disregarded.

Most of the feminist women I know are for the most part selfish, blame others for their feelings, not exceptionally intelligent, and emotionally unstable. Moreover, women on average tend to anxiety disorders and other neurotic disorders which are negatively correlated to success much more than men, they are more agreeable as well etc. . All this negatively correlates to success and leadership. There are of course exceptions and these people tend to be successful anyways. This is often swept under the carpet and only one side is illuminated. I find that counterproductive and misleading. If you do that, you have to look at all sides equally or at least address them.

Maybe there are some disadvantages for women in certain kinds of companies or industries. But they are free to choose their profession for the most part. I think even then, it is no good idea to blame other people for your own failures. That puts you in a victim role and doesn't help anyone. And on the other hand there are disadvantages for men in certain kinds of professions, or for afro-americans etc. . The world is not perfect and not everyone can ever have the best environmental conditions for success.

And men are disproportionately affected by other things. The reason is that women are less able to negotiate on average.

No woman is forced to have children. Just as no one is forced to do other things that could hinder one's career. And if they are involuntary, then you can take responsibility for them. Because in most cases, it can be prevented.

There is a lot of evidence that women are less successful in their careers on average, even if you put the "child problem" or "societal injustice" aside. And there are a number of reasons for this. Of course, there are two sides to every coin, so women also do better on average in areas that are not directly related to career success. Personally, I generally think that people are individual and everyone should decide for themselves rather than relying on statistics per se.

Makes sense, except for the fact that women are on average less successful in business and politics due to evolutionary and not generally societal reasons.

You have to know what conciousness is first. You need a stable first order hypothesis. Without it you just guessing around like playing roulette in a casino. Your ideas are the most common beliefs today. I am not ignorant about neuroscience, maybe ignorant about the esoteric and non-scientific belief-system behind it.

Honestly, this is a naive assumption. It doesn't take long to contemplate to get to the insight, that you have written above doesn't make sense. I also believe that one could create a brain/nervous-system etc. simulation.

I had a conversation with a professor, who has deep understanding and experience in the industry regarding AI and statistics. He said it would take infinite computational capacities to map all processes down to the quantum scale. It is a paradoxon and could be equalized to simulate the whole universe as interconnections between entities have to be be considered as well etc. . Moreover you cannot verify the result, even if you would have achieved it.

yes

If concioussness would be the world itself then it couldnt be assigned to a subject. And no i don't.

And Maybe concioussness is not a property assigned to an individual etc.. How could one ever conceptualize that. It would take infinite Computational time. Synthetic biological lifeforms would come the closest butbyou don't know either if they have concioussness.

The problem is you have to be the ai to verify it has Consciousness.