Jannes

Okay, I just joined the forum. It doenst even have 1k followers but maybe I am lucky.

For night game I need a wing who can show me how to physically escalate with women. I dont have friends who can show me that so how can I find somebody who can teach me?

double micro dose of psylocibin. ??

World wide? I live in Germany. I dont Mysterie. Is he good?

Adding to this: Is every person deeply connected to this source in the same way? It doesn't seem like it because psychopaths for example seem to be happier in their doing then if a non psychopath did what they did. It could be that they are equally deeply connected but just get a lot more pleasure from their ego to counter balance that, or they are less deeply connected or both.

This is something very intriguing. We feel bad for doing "bad things", we feel bad for "lying", we feel good for doing "good things, for being "truthful". At least on a deep level. On an ego level we might feel the opposite way. But on this deep way, why do we feel that way? What does it mean that we feel that way? Does this feeling connect us to the truth? If we can directly deeply feel good or bad about certain things and feeling good about certain things means being connected to truth we have a compass to goodness, love and truth on our side at all times! Thats actually mind-blowing. It also begs the question that if we deeply feel good or bad about good and bad doings on a deep level how are we connected to that feeling? It doesn't seem intuitive that we can feel that way about things that dont regard us. How could I feel good or bad about something I am totally disconnected from? Which source am I connected to to feel good or bad on a deep level??

Can you separate sex from gender? Some people say that sex and gender are completely different things that are only connected because of societal conditioning but dont have any reason to be connected otherwise. I dont think that is true. It is of course true that through culture we got role models of what a male and female are supposed to be which reaches deep into our psyche and bones and this is certainly something worth questioning. But there is some natural behavior which comes with a male or a female body. If I as a male would be put in a female body with my "male psyche" I would instantly act differently because I would have a more fragile body and I would need to adapt my behavior to stay safe. I couldn't be as macho, ballsy, frankly, confident because I couldn't defend myself as well if I would piss somebody off. Even just knowing that I couldn't defend myself when worse comes to worse would make me less relaxed. I would also have less testosterone which would change my behavior a lot. And I believe in the opposite case that a "female psyche" would be placed into a male body like that there would also be a big behavior change in the opposite direction. Our behavior is intelligent. Our behavior is a survival strategy. So our social behavior of course must include our body because our body is a survival tool. What brave means for example depends on the context. Is a clone trooper less brave when he is more scared to fight Darth Vader than Darth Sidious being afraid of fighting Darth Vader? No! The clone trooper just knows that he will get rekt while Palpi knows that he will probably rek Darth Vader. So the Clone Trooper is naturally more afraid. You could even make a case for a formula to calculate which level of braveness on either side would equate which level of braveness on the other side. So for example if the emperor is really really brave then that would equate moderate afraidness for the clone trooper. If the clone trooper is scared to death that would equate mild afraidness for the emperor. So what it means to be brave and strong is highly different for each gender. If a girl says "I identify as male now" and then acts as ballsy as a male that's just stupid because she way overshoots her potential and might put herself in danger. With that being said I still believe that we should strongly question old role models and integrate behavior of the opposite sex but by doing that dont become to idealistic. Role models aren't completely stupid. The reason why you are alive is because these role models functioned well enough as a survival strategy that you were born.

What are Cardio Routines that people actually make a habit and maintain for years? I heard that many people can stick to an exercise bike at home well. I personally dont need it but I ask for people I know. I really like this solution for people who have big hunger. But it needs cardio routines that are enjoyable enough to do long term. I want to hear your experiences!

I directly look at a great romance, I feel it in my fingers and in all of my being but I can't figure it out directly. I am stopped from getting more then a toe into it.

Ethics Problem: To put a value on an animal we need to rank its sentience but we can't put a number on sentience because sentience is a mysterious thing. If we want to compare the sentience of a fish with a pig by including their weight in meat we need to give sentience some kind of number. Let's say the fish is 5kg and the pig is 100kg. Is the sentience of the pig 20 times more valuable than the sentience of the fish. And how could we argue for that. Is 20 times the sentience worth of "1" the same as one sentience worth "20"? I think you can only crunch the numbers like that in mathematics. "20" is a unique sentience and 20 times "1" is 20 times a unique sentience. You can't multiply them because you dont get the same quality "20". You have "20x 1" but not "20".

Infinite Intelligence: Thomas Nagel describes in his book What it is like to be a bat a quality of consciousness perfectly which is that you can only experience a state of consciousness if you are a certain kind of being. If you are a human you will only experience how its like to be a human, if you are a bat you will only experience how its like to be a bat. Because if the human for example tries to figure out what it's like to be a bat by imagining how its like to be a bat he will imagine how its like to be a bat which is not the same as a bat imagining how its like to be a bat. Because there are certain things only a bat can experience. For example eco locating, flying, ... As a human we can try to imagine what that is like by making analogies with other sense organs but that doesn't really work. Just like a blind person can't really know what red is through touch, smell, ... Lets take this to the absolute though. My ordinary experience as a human goes through highs and lows all the time. If I am currently happy can I know how it will be like if I am sad in the future. Or when we talk about this absolutely how could I even know how it would feel like to be 5% more happy? Because current happy and 5% more happy than current happy are very unique states of consciousness. (related issue in next post) If no moment is exactly the same how can I think about anything other than my exact moment at the time whatsoever? Here I take a comment from Leo that I catched. "Reality is connected through Infinite Intelligence" .. something of that sort. What if Intelligence isnt something that sufficiently developed beings have but rather the net of reality which beings are imbedded in to varying degrees? We think of Intelligence as something certain things have and we dont think of Intelligence as something non personal because we think our actions and doings are personal/ disconnected things from the outside. We sometimes refer to Intelligence by "connecting the dots". If dots are parts of reality then to become Infinitely Intelligence would be to be all of Reality.

Sneaky-Subtle-Short Direct Observation During a Nap: The flow of the mind always looks to distract itself. With sufficient awareness this flow can be stopped. My intuition tells me that if that happened something terrifying but also great would happen.

I think every person has a unique charisma under the right circumstances. Just like every person can be uniquely funny when in a good mood. I think Andrew Tates charisma is activated which makes him more charismatic than other people yet it is a pretty cheap charisma imo. Great charisma comes with development.

Why would that be a problem. Dont you have a complete view of everything?

And AI will evolve so much in this time as well. I want to take a picture of a hot girl that I like, let AI track her behavior and then put her in VR world so I can practice on her. I will realize how much of a creep I am then rather talk and fail to attract her in RL than in VR. What a brilliant strategy.

The chips, the resolution, the cost of innovation. I am no tech nerd but that thing will be expensive as hell. Might be worthed though.

I have problems separating these terms. Is spirituality a subset of philosophy as philosophy also entails practical things like state philosophy, ethics, science theory .. ?

The human: A rope stretched between the animal and the overhuman: I haven't read Nietzsche to any significant degree but this saying of him really struck me. We want to be good (god) but we are limited by our limited form/ fears. An egoistic person can't live with themself (with few exceptions) because they are disconnected from a higher love, while a selfless person that can't stand up for themself will easily get exploited. For me the first video really captures our urge to survive/ our animalistic side as we want spongebob to stand up for himself. I remembered that video from back in the day and then it really freaked me out haha. The second video is about capturing the overhuman/ god. As I get a "I just wanna do good" vibe from it.

Hypothetically free will exists. Yet out of all the potential options to choose it's clear that I will only make one choice. For example I would never choose something that I dont think is the best. I would never consciously make a bad decision. I would never consciously choose suffering over love unless I think that a deeper love is gained through suffering which means I still choose love. So in that way there is order. Not because reality is deterministic but because everybody loves to play the game.

Spirituality = Actuality/ First order truth/ Direct experience Philosophy = Conceptualization of Direct experience/ Meta Second order truth?

Spirituality = Actuality/ First order truth/ Direct experience Philosophy = Conceptualization (but the closest to the source/Spirituality?)

Isnt that the same?

Okay so philosophy needs spirituality.

I am speaking of technological advancements which can make us live for 500 years let's say. Do you think spirituality would reach another level or do you think we are genetically/ karma wise limited and what we can achieve in one lifetime?

Maybe it increases because then it would theoretically be possible to never die or at least not for millions of years so people wouldn't risk anything anymore. That would actually be hellish when I think about it.