zurew

That guy is a fraud.

Give this pool more options (like making it a spectrum), because then people can express their opinion more accurately (and probably more people will engage with your pool).

What kind of and how much value and knowledge have you gathered so far, from researching conspiracy theories? Do you think the time-value ratio is better than to research and learn from any mainstream source?

Based on what metric(s)?

Yes, i assume that 99,9999% of people can't embody high levels of consciousness in a short period of time, most of them won't be able to do it in even in their lifetime, because we have a loong long way to mature, evolve , grow, and develop.

So according to you, its reasonable to assume, that any person can go from the embodyment of intuition level 1 to level 100 instantly or in a short period of time? (Notice, that we are not talking about experiencing a short 10-15 mintues DMT high, we are talking about maintaining and embodying a high level of consciousness)

Yeah, but notice, that paradoxically we need to be biased towards survival first, in order to care about a certain outcome (which is to try to avoid civilisation collapse) and just after that we will be able to buy time to get developed enough to be able to follow your idea/advice fully.

Its not baseless assumptions, its personal experience. Now notice, that i haven't said that all people who are into conspiracy theories are necessarily have to be that way. I am open minded to certain conspiracy theories, but i don't automatically believe in them just because they are able to give me an alternative explanation to an event. What metric do I use? Open mindedness (if that particular person isn't capable to explore alternative or in this case the mainstream narratives, then that person is way too biased and he/she doesn't care about truth, but caring more about being right) Being able to use critical thinking objectively and not selectively (using the same standards for both sides) Being able to represent and steelman the opposite side in a good faith, well intentioned, well informed way. Being able to use the least amount of assumptions to explain an event or to create a theory. Not automatically assuming the worst stuff about the opposite side One of the most important one: Being always open to the possibility of being wrong It seems to me that you have certain beliefs and a certain ideology and you found a person, who is exactly compatible with your beliefs and with your ideology and you automatically put on him the "he must be the most developed and the most wise person ever" label and anyone who disagrees with you, you automatically assume, that he/she must be underdeveloped or bad faith. Leo was always gravitating towards some level of censorship,but on the otherhand, it seems that Tj Reeves was/is really against censorship, but at the same time he is/was using hardcore censorship as well. So how does that make any sense to you?

So you basically you reduced the "wanting a certain outcome" to fear(ego) and "not wanting/caring about any certain outcome" to joy(intuition). Using your system, how do you differentiate between "I don't care/want" person who is being operated by his ego, and "I don't care/want" person, who is following his/her intuition. It seems to me that the "he is missing the boat" criticism boils down to one not following his/her intuition 100% of the time. The problem with that, is that this criticism could be given to 99,99999% of people on this planet, because almost no one is operating by his/her intuition 100% of the time, so honestly this kind of criticism isn't that valuable/usable because the chance that the person who hears this criticism will suddenly be able to follow his/her intuition 100%time is basically close to 0. This whole "he is missing the boat" could be summarised like this: "brother, just stop being biased towards survival".

@DevinSo how do you know that Daniel isn't making his decisions based on his intuition? What if his intuition tells and informs him to prefer certain outcomes?

Your "he is missing the boat" point essentially comes down to the fact that he is biased towards survival, and that bias implies, that he is wanting a certain outcome. You had your main problem with the "wanting a certain outcome" point. So the question is this: Why is having no want for an outcome better, than having a want for a certain outcome? This question still remains: How can one make a decision, if he/she has no want for any specific outcome?

But regardless, our main disagreement was this: most of us here think that being biased towards survival is okay, but you tried to argue that being biased towards survival is not okay/good, because of the fear factor. But at the end of the day it seems that your bias still involves fear in it, so i don't see your main point here.

Yeah but fear isn't coming from nowhere, because fear essentially comes from the need to survive or in other words, to not die.

if fear is a relevant factor ,then we basically coming back to the main point, which is being biased towards survival, which bring us back to the "valueing utopia over dystopia" point.

Can anything have an effect on your level of enjoyment?

Based on the info you gave so far, it seems that your main value/purpose isn't really fun/enjoyment, but the state of mind that can provide you with the feeling of fun/joy. So coming back to the "decision making" point, whatever can help you with optimizing your mind towards experiencing more joy/fun will point towards your main bias(es).

I see it this way: we have some level of free will/agency, but we lose that agency if our survival is greatly threatened. The time when we can start talking about decision-making is the time when we have already taken care of our survival. After taking care of the basic survival part, we can start talking about morality, and we can start to build and analyze our decision making process/processes. So generally speaking every bias is built upon the bias of survival. Even if we say that your intuition is whats in complete charge when it comes to your decision making, you could still analyze what decisions you made in the past. Based on your past actions and based on very serious self reflection, you can figure out what core biases you have.

Okay so the "fun" part isn't relevant to this discussion because it doesn't have any weight on what activtiy you will end up doing according to you. So the question is this: How do you decide what you want to do? Is it random, or something impacts your decision making? I didn't consciously contemplate it, but i ended up doing things that were fun to do. Whether I did that consciously or unconsciously doesn't really matter, because i was still somewhat biased towards fun, although i would definitely say, that my bias towards survival is greater/upper on the hierarchy spectrum.

@Devin Whats your thoughts on this?

Jesus wasn't biased towards fun. Jesus was biased towards Love.

Okay, so whats relevant here is avoidable death. This question will decide if you really value fun over survival: Lets say activity X gives you the most enjoyment so because you are biased towards fun, you are doing that activity. However, there is a twist, because you know that if you do that activity you will end up being dead. So the question is this: Would you choose to do that activity, even if you would know beforehand, that if you do it you will end up being dead? Also notice this: being biased towards fun still contains the bias of wanting a certain outcome. Why? Becuase, you will end up doing things that will give you the most enjoyment (which is still a certain outcome). If we want to look at it from a different perspective, you will try to avoid anything that gives you little or no enjoyment at all.

Whats your definition of fun? An activity, that makes you joyful? Btw, you can't escape the bias of survival, because If you wouldn't be biased towards survival, you would have been dead a long time ago. Your ability to have fun is resting upon your survival, unless you have a belief that after your physical death, you can still have some fun.

@Devin So if you are biased towards survival, you by definition have to value utopia over dystopia, so at the end of the day you are at the same page as all of us.

Sure, but if your are being biased towards fun, and you still end up doing everything just to survive, then basically we can say that the bias of survival is contained within your definition of fun.

You are still biased towards a certain outcome, you are just putting it behind a different bias in a sneaky way (this time you use the bias of fun in order to rationalise why you want a certain outcome)