Natasha Tori Maru

ROFL I mean, yeah. 100% Fully taking a dump on the sports guys, made me laugh

@ryoko So you are indifferent to the concept of your death?

Anyway to answer OP - if I am within physical presence to someone I can alter their feelings. Remove bad feelings and alter them into something useable.

@ryoko Good answer - so it is others death you are primarily indifferent to?

@ryoko Do you think you are indifferent to your own death? I would argue that - you haven't experienced it. So being 'indifferent' may be a conceptualization and not reflective of our real response to the experience. It could merely be a cerebral thought that 'I will be dead, so I will not know the experience, nor care' Are you indifferent to dying? I would consider that different to death itself.

Fucken sick soundtrack

As far as I am aware personality type in MBTI is reflective of the cognitive functions behind the 4 letter type: Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi Each 4 letter type code has a different order and set of preferential functions - your type remains the same, but as you grown and develop you tend to develop each of the functions in stages. So for example, I type as INTJ - Ni, Te, Fi, Se. Ni comes natural to me as a default: I know no other way to be. Te, Fi, Se have later developed and I recall stages of broadening each, making them feel more dominant at different times. I view MBTI as a frame - I use it to understand certain ways people (and myself) take in information and make decisions. That is all it is - a way of describing how we perceive and make decisions. It is important not to let it limit you as all frames can. I find it useful as it means I can find a way to better communicate to someone IE some people prefer lots of details prior to understanding the overall picture (don't like to assume or read between the lines) - some prefer the general idea before they can nail down details (comfortable with extrapolating on incomplete data). By scientific standards MBTI is pseudoscience. There is no solid empirical backing, it isn't as strong as a predictor as say, big 5. And it is based on Carl Jung's work which is more philosophical introspection than scientific experiment. That said, I find it useful. Many others do not. I would operate from cognitive functions and not type codes: the j vs p (judging, perceiving) Myers-Briggs uses isn't needed, and causes a lot of confusion IMO.

I think the rise of the online dating marketplace, social media and covid causing face-to-face isolation has created some of the fixation on external attributes as the only green flags for attraction. It is difficult to quantify charm, ease, playfulness and an unburdened demeanour without being with a woman in the flesh. And text? It lets you craft a nice version of yourself you can control, serving to soothe ones own anxiety around perception, but doing nothing to convey who you truly ARE. Robbing yourself of real connection. This online bubble causes half the black pill issues: my looks are out of my control, genetics luck social hierarchy, this is out of my control. I have no power to change this so why try? People develop a belief of 'I am hopeless' and black pill serves to enhance that cognitive bias. The only way out is action in the real world to build up evidence that shit other than looks matters. But this doesn't always help does it? Because if you have the black pill cognitive bias you will actively disregard all evidence to the contrary and use intellect to cement the belief further. Looks/status can certainly serve to attract, but women will always look for the emotional connection as the lasting one. If you can create emotional connection, hold space, and encourage your prospect to engage in her own healthy expression of emotions, this will be enough to get results. Women thrive on emotions, just as men thrive on sex. In general. I just feel so much compassion for men on apps. I think the apps can fuck off.

YUP. Only half the story.

To explore experience without judgement

@UnbornTao Yeah I loved that Dune scene! Not strictly a movie (Battlestar Galactica series remake) - but great oldschool space battle:

Calling @Joshe for some advices

Not sure if pet ownership was on Leo's list - big one Guilty

@Ramasta9 Any of what you proposed could be it, that is for certain. The essence of the debate becomes what IS most likely with current knowledge. And I say this as an experiencer, so I always have an extreme open mind.

TBH I think most people are only invested in perceived 'truth' insofar as it either gives them some functional solution, or nice feeling.

Last time I checked in on him it was 1 hour of 'All bad dirt, your problems, bad dirt. Get better dirt' and 'Your problems are mind-diarrhea' I've also gone heavily into the LoO material and Bashar's channeling. But ultimately, it is all unverified hearsay and I just can't. Doesn't stop me really getting into it (and alternate history theories / theories in general). And plenty of it has a lot of cross-over. There is a possibility it is real - but for now there isn't enough there to justify any of it as alternate explanations for the pyramids / human origin. LoO is a lot denser, so I see people into that a lot less, as Bashar is quite accessible converting his stuff into actionable steps 'Follow your highest excitement' and the 5 laws. I just default back to not knowing. Or settling on 'most likely', but never conclusively.

@Nick_98 From all the evidence we have it does appear neural activity gives rise to the 'thinking' which would indicate it happens in the brain. But in terms of how we subjectively perceive 'thinking' and where it is located? I personally think it is because my sense faculties are located on my head. Another weird example - if I place my hand on a hot stove - the pain is registered and processed in my brain, but projected to my hand. It feels like it’s in my hand because the brain’s sensory map (the somatosensory cortex) is wired to treat signals from that area as belonging there. The pain itself isn't IN the hand. The hand just sends the data. So the experience, or the qualia of pain, happens entirely in the brain. I think to survive it has evolved that way - that we perceive it as 'out there' as a convincing sort of simulation. It is rather brilliant because this useful delusion lets us move and react instantly so no thinking is needed. Lighting reflexes for optimal survival. If we didn't have this illusory perception, we would not remove our hand to save it from burning. Instead we would feel it in the brain and then... well that wouldn't work to save the hand, would it? At least, the above is how I understand it

Because your eyes and sense organs are located there? I have thought on this - and that is the only reason I personally perceive it that way. It is just an assumption. I am sure if my eyes and ears were on my hips, I ate from my rib cage and smelled from my kneecaps I would perceive my thinking mind to be located somewhere between those sense faculties. I was literally thinking about this while on lunchbreak

DUDE I have listened to him... and as a ex-chronic I-skull-fucked-the-doob weed lover - he needs to put the joint down lol

On this one? Who or how the pyramids were built? Knowing how fucked up and difficult construction can be... and the limits of materials and integrity? I just do not know. I don't think the current explanation covers the full story. And anything I might dream up based on archaeological record is 100% hearsay, as fun as it might be

Nice little heated debate you guys have here Was listening to this earlier - the segment below beginning 33:41 (linked) applies. You guys might enjoy

I can see that also. For myself I try to understand why he is adding that frame? What is at stake? Is he using it to attempt to qualify? Because much of these statements he makes aren't actually required: the content speaks for itself. So generally I view it as sneaky ego. Just an honest critique as I enjoy Leo's content a lot, but as with us all, sometimes our ego sneaks in without us being fully conscious.