zurew

I can't tell if you are trolling or not, do you think those two things are comparable? There is no reason to correlate the releasing of odors with the communication of fear, on the other hand we know that if you have a functioning central nervous system (which most animals have), then you can feel pain. When it comes to moral questions like this, its mostly about the causing of suffering.

If you care about brain damage, then doing MMA is considered to be safer compared to doing only boxing on a high level.

I don't know about people who are teaching it, but i have an idea that might be able to help you with understanding the negative polarity or service to self more. http://www.lawofonesociety.com/index.php/other-materials/historical-figures/genghis-khan-rasputin-taras-bulba <-------- if you click on that link,then you can find historical people who were allegedly harvested into the 4th negative Density. I think learning about their characters and lifes could give you a picture how a highly negatively polarised entity thinks and lives. these characters namely: Genghis Khan Rasputin Taras Bulba

Sorry then i misunderstood your point, we actually agree on the core points. Yeah agreed, and i can also see why people question this kind of stuff, namely because the current set of definitions and paradigm is not sufficient enough or usable anymore, we have to address it , and we can't ignore it anymore. People have to understand that they are not defined by only one definition or one set of definitions, they can't be fully defined with any finite number of labels or definitions. But people also have to understand that just because they can't be fully defined, that doesn't mean that creating labels and new categories is not important anymore. I also understand that definitions and labels are super important, because in society you are being treated based on those categories and labels. I think the creation of new categories and labels is the best way to try to solve this problem. We can create uniting categories and labels (that can unite us all in one category, so people don't feel exculded or totally different) and we can also create reductive categories (where we try to define ourselves based on a very specific set of values and traits). Being treated everywhere only based on your genitalia is just dumb and way too reductive, but being treated based your genitalia and looks when it comes to sex can be important. So,Imo, if we have multiple labels and categories we can solve this overall problem.

I totally agree with that one. Or we can create more definitions like nonbinary, transman, transwoman etc, without the need to change the already established definitions. we can go from general to specific and as the topic gets more nuanced the specific automatically becomes more general and then we can create even more specific categories. I think thats the way to go, not by trying to destroy/widen already established definitions (because that way we lose the ability to have any reductive lense) . There are things that are easily observable, but there are other things that we like to have a knowledge about, without having the need to ask you about. I think creating more definitions is the way to go here as well. Lets say there is a person, who wants to know what genitalia you have before you go on a date with him/her. If we don't have specific labels that are directly connected to our private parts, then this poor individual won't be able to know what you are working with, without asking you about it (which can be considered disrespectful in some cases, depending on the person how he/she reacts to it). The other way how he/she can recognise what genitalia his dating partner has, is by the time when they get into the bedroom , but by that time its too late and it can become embarassing for both person (assuming the genitalia part is important, which is important for most people nowadays) But I assume, we can agree at least on this point: Depending on the usage and the context, there are times where being reductive about it is important, and there are other times, when being reductive is not just that its not important, but its missing the point and the big picture. So my overall point here is that having the ability to describe you reductively can sometimes be important, and that doesn't mean that i will look at you through only that lense. I will look at you through that reductive lense, if there is a specific need for it or context to it. But i won't have the ability to look at you reductively, if we don't have the specific labels and definitions for it.

Yes this is true, but there is a difference between saying that an oak tree is a tree compared to saying an oak tree is a birch tree. We can recognise that they are both in the tree family, but we can also recognise that they are different kind of trees on their own. Now, conflating an oak tree to a birch tree is a mistake, or not being able to differentiate between an oak tree and a birch tree can also be problematic. We can recognise here, that the definition of a "tree" is not changing and it is kind of rigid, but we are still able to differentiate between different kind of trees, because we created more definitions. The definition of an oak tree have to be rigid, because if its not, than chances are really high, that we will conflate it with a birch tree. The difference recognition is not always important, so in those cases, we can use the word tree, but when it is useful to differentiate between those two, then we can use their own specific definitions. So in the real world when can it become handy, to be able to differentiate between a trans and not trans individual? When it comes to special hospital treatment (for instance they have to know your original sex type ) When it comes to finding a sexual partner (because for some people its important to know, what kind of genitalia the other person has)

What definition do they use? I'm sure they don't use the definition of self-identification either.

Then sure you won't have a hard time to debate/enlighten us.

If it doesn't negate the man part, then why is it important to use the label of "man" rather than the label of "trans-man"? In other words, whats being taken away by using the label: trans-man rather than the label: man?

@Raptorsin7 Good luck! Hopefully you will get useful information for your money.

Sadghuru is a very conscious and great leader, but lets give huge credit to his team too, because they are the ones who are collectively doing the heavylifting for him.I don't want to take any credit away from sadhguru either, because he is amazing, but i rarely see people give credit to his team.

@Stovo How can you go from "science is biased and not good on this matter" to "i can confidently say, red meat is good for you, according to my bro science" ?

If we frame the Occam's razor this way: "Use the least amount of assumptions to explain things", then its easier to see that it can be used to cut through a lot of bullshit. That doesn't mean that it is always true, that only means that thats the most reliable tool you can use to try to make sense of things. More reliable in this case means, making it less probable to be wrong. There is no reason to use more assumptions than whats needed. In other words: why would you make it more probable to be wrong, if its not necessary? If we have 2 explanations and: Explanation 1) has 4 assumptions in it. Explanation 2) has 1 assumption in it. Then its much more probable that Explanation 2) will be correct, because there is a much lower room for error.

I think there is a meta question here: Why would anyone not trust the institutions? There could be multiple answers given, but i don't think that the main answer is that "because they think, that the epistemic process is flawed" and here is why: Those people who don't trust institutions , they either have to trust other sources of media or other alternative sources , or they are the ones who only trust themselves, so they think that they are knowledgeable enough to decide complex stuff on their own. People who consume alternative media without any critical thinking, are the majority, and those are the ones who use a very similar epistemic process like us (because we have to have a blind faith in institutions, if are not educated enough, and if we don't have enough time to research and learn about the subject). Of course, the difference is that we don't have to trust only one source, but it is still a kind of similar epistemic process. So my point would be that the majority of people from that "sceptic" group isn't sceptic, because what kind of epistemic process is being used, but because of other reasons, so the solution need to be found elsewhere (imo). On the other hand, some people from the "I don't trust any single outer source, i can know things by myself better" group could be educated on certain subjects by experts, because some of them are open to learn how things work. Depending on how well educated im on a particular subject and how much time i have to learn and research, im sometimes in the "I will find out myself own my own" group (which in practice means that i will try to learn the subject from experts), and in other times, becuase i don't have time to research everything, i will have to blindly trust the institutions and sometimes there is the middle line, where i know some stuff, but i also have to have some faith.

The idea would be to make a system where the independent participants are holding each other accountable. This can only be done if they are incentivised to do so, and this is sort of built in the current system already. Example: Different institutions are making different vaccines to cure covid19. All independent institutions have an incentive to point out the flaws in other vaccines because that way they can dominate the market with their vaccines and they can make more money. Whats your alternative system/solution though? Both of your points have so much worse alternatives compared to science and the scientific process, and thats the problem. Funding in and of itself is not a bad thing. Without funding, research cannot happen. Why would anyone do science if their return on invesment is negative? Why would anyone do any science for free, if they need to invenst in millions and millions of dollars to do research? Of course, the funding aspect could sometimes make the whole process more flawed, but other institutions are incentivised to point out the flaws in those studies (especially, if the market is competitive). Also, this is why the peer review process exist, this is why institutions with biased, shit studies can't pass through the peer review grinder without notice (but even if they could, the chances are really really low).

I don't disagree with this, i just don't think that pointing out other people's self bias is a practical way to approach this problem. I think this could be framed in a more friendlier way, so that people won't get triggered or hostile by sentences like "you are not conscious enough" or "you are too self biased". The first thing you need to do is to frame the problem well. Most of these people don't even recognise, and don't agree that there is a problem here. That is the first step you need to do (This would be the "why should you care about this" part). ---> at this stage you need to ask first, in what world they want to live in and why, and then you need to show them, that your approach is better to achieve those goals. The second step would be to point out, how the problem could be solved, and what are the potential consequences if the problem won't be solved. That being said, i still think that the incentivisation method is more effective, compared to the "making the less conscious more conscious" method (especially, because we are talking about a relatively short time period). This doesn't mean, that we shouldn't even try, but change can't be achieved, if the method is not effective enough. We can do both method at the same time, but we have to decide, where to spend most of our resources, time, attention and money. That is the meta lesson here.

Okay, understood. Yeah i understand. But imo, the responsibility is on the conscious people to change these stuff, especially because people who are not conscious of their self bias, and their selfishness, won't change on their own, unless we elevate their level of consciousness radically (and that is not realistic if we are talking about a short period of time). So practically speaking, people who are conscious, intelligent and smart enough and have enough resources should do the heavywork, because others won't do shit and we shouldn't even expect from them to do anything (unless we can make a systemic solution where we can incentivise them to do more conscious things). I think its not even worth talking about "these people are so biased" or that "these people are not conscious enough" because that won't really change the situtation, but i understand that this thread wasn't about speaking about the solutions , but pointing out how radical self bias works.

The philosophical side of the conversation: Where do you draw your line, when it comes to your morality? I assume this is your foundation --> Anything that could be considered sovereign is ought to be respected. So the questions is this: What do you consider sovereign ? Practical side of the conversation: They were not incentivised to do so. When your livelihood is depended on farming, they can't just easily transition especially, if they live from day to day.

Its not likely, but even if they could , Leo would still have this website. If they can't show any evidence how Leo violates youtube's TOS, then they won't have much of a chance to silence him.

Joey Diaz is the best

This is a good idea, this way he could make his videos more relatable and they would be even more informative. The only thing i would add, is that don't only focus on the objections, but he could collect normal questions too. Asking questions before a video about a particular topic is released is a win-win. Its a win for us, because we get most of our questions answered, and its a win for Leo, because he can get his message and thoughts more well across. This way he doesn't have to come up with objections and questions on his own.

If i understand it correctly, if there is a video you like, you want to know in which playlists you could find that particular video. If thats what you are looking for, then here is what you can do: Copy and paste this string into google: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:" " ---> here the only thing you need to do, is to write that particular videos exact title between the quotation marks So for example, if you wanted to see in what playlist you could find the video titled: What Is Death? - How Immortality Works then your google string should look like this: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" <---- This search result will show all the video playlists (not just playlists that was made by Leo) that contain the video titled: "What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" . If you only want to focus on actualized.org and you don't care about other creator playlists, then you could add this to your string: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" intext:"channel name" so in practice it would look like this: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" intext:"actualized.org" <----- this search result will mostly show actualized.org playlists (playlists created by Leo) that contain the video titled "What Is Death? - How Immortality Works"

Yeah, i can resonate with this 100%. I think its almost always harder to motivate yourself to go back to the roots, rather than trying to go forward on the foundation you already have.

True. The same knowledge could be taught and talked about in a different light, based on who is doing the teaching/talking. Also, you can arrive at the same conclusion starting from a different position than others, so because of that, there will be some people who can resonate with you more, because they can relate to your story and life experiences more. And not just that they can relate to your story more, but they can see what steps you had to take in order to reach the goal you wanted to reach. So there could be a thousand different paths that can lead to the same conclusion, and different paths can give different lessons and guidances to different people. I also agree with @Carl-Richard that we have to integrate our shadows. On this forum, most of us haven't really integrated the healthy aspects of stage red and stage orange enough, especially the younger audience (including me). I think some questions could be asked to test how much we have integrated the healthy aspects of stage red and orange: Do you have financial problems? Do you know what you are good at ? Do you know how you could provide massive value? Do you consider yourself successful (whatever success means to you) Do you have the capability to stand up for yourself and for your values? Do you have a job/business that you are passionate about / that you like Do you have a hard time expressing yourself authentically? Do you have the capability to take a leading role if its necessary / if its needed? Do you have a strong charisma? Do you have a healthy self esteem? Do you have your relationship goals met? Do you have a good sex life? How much can you sacrifice to reach your desires/goals? Can you consciously motivate yourself? Can you set tangible goals? Do you have a plan where your life is going or you are just living aimlessly in life? Do you have the capability to be highly rational if its needed / if its necessary?