• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About kylan11

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

845 profile views
  1. Just wanted to share this as I thought it might be of interest as it was for me. Especially considering that Leo, like me and so many others, has taken a special interest in the phenomenon of Trumpism and the rise of right-wing populism around the civilized world. Opinion | On Anti-Trumpers and the Modern Meritocracy - The New York Times ( Maybe, just maybe, when we straw man the rise of trumpism as a fundamental issue between progress and bigotry (as the intellectual left does), we are completely overlooking the elitist society that we have, perhaps unconsciously, constructed. We might have brought this madness upon ourselves. It's especially ironic to me that I find myself in complete agreement, and yet due to survivalistic self-interest most of my mid-20s life efforts are basically a struggle to gain entry to that same professional elite. Perhaps I am there already, if "cultural capital" and higher education are the conditions. I'm not entirely convinced that there is a solution to this problem. If anything I suspect it might get worse now that white collar jobs are threatened by AI as well. I'd like to hear your opinion on this.
  2. It's an insightful reading. The biggest lesson I took from it is the fact that being harmless does not equal being good - an important point too often forgotten today in a victim-complex ridden culture. "Those who have swords and know how to use them yet keep them sheathed shall inherit the earth".
  3. It can in people that are genetically predisposed to it. But unless you have a parent or a sibling that is psychotic I wouldn't worry about it. For instance I have a schizophrenic uncle and my chances of being diagnosed at some point in life is about 2%. Less actually, since I'm already 25. For comparison, it's 1% for the general population. From what you're describing it simply just sounds like effective deep meditation. That's amazing. You are witnessing a shift in a higher state of consciousness. There's nothing to be concerned about.
  4. Ciao Asia, fa sempre un sacco piacere trovare altri italiani in posti così di nicchia. I'll switch to english now so that other people may find my comment helpful. Generally, around the world and especially in our beloved country, psychedelics are very hard to find. They are wildly unpopular as street drugs, so unless you happen to attend many rave parties - the chances of you randomly stumbling across a plug to get you mushrooms/LSD are extremely low. I would not take it as a sign from the universe that you are not ready. You know best when you feel ready. And I would definitely encourage you to try at least once in order to experience what consciousness is capable of. It will give you direction, purpose in pursuing further spiritual practice, and will definitely widen your perspective in life in unexpected, amazing ways. This makes sticking to meditation everyday way easier, in my experience. Now, for the practical aspects of how to get your hands on them, sourcing is forbidden by the forum's rules, but DM me if you're interested. This is the first time I've opened this forum in a month. I rarely read random posts here, yet I stumbled across your post and I just so happen to be italian as well. This may even be the sign you were looking for, haha. Buona fortuna per tutto!!
  5. Let me give my 2 cents although I'm not Leo. Maybe he can add on or correct my perspective when he gets the chance to read this thread. What you are seeing is a reasonably realized individual who also happens to possess above average intelligence (I'm specifically referring to the conventional logical intelligence that IQ measures). So we have two factors at play: Intelligence itself is mostly due to genetic inheritance. Intelligence gives you above average intuition and brain processing power. Life shapes an intelligent individual in a way that can go sideways very easily, but if you're lucky, you will always be a child at heart, in the sense of being naturally curious and prone to question fundamental assumptions that most other people will just dogmatically accept. By applying this kind of curiosity and intuition to the highest pursuit of philosophy, instead of just focusing on what he'd call "minutiae" (which is in no way a derogatory term, otherwise Steve Jobs was a loser), when you happen to stumble into an experience of profound depth, you will be able to grasp even a glimpse of its significance instead of responding with fear and rejection, then formalize it into a higher framework, which, through the process of deduction... ...will allow you to become a realized individual and act in accordance to your principles. Not being constantly at war with yourself due to cognitive dissonances and always being on the lookout for their emergence. In other words, someone who has reached a "meta" level of understanding. Possessing such a higher, trans-rational framework makes worldly things seem childish and yet strangely coherent. While there's always more to discover and understand, engaging in discussions about topics like politics will seem akin to mediating a dispute between two children fighting over a toy. Lastly, becoming more cultured will help you expand and refine this framework even more.
  6. So what exactly is stopping you from learning a skill like, say, UI/UX design, getting a good job and stop feeling sorry for yourself?
  7. I spent an unholy amount of hours studying the man. He has absolutely zero moral principles. He just adopts what it's in his interests in that particular circumstance. Even that might not be entirely accurate since he's not strategic and is incapable of long term thinking. He simply acts on his narcissistic impulses and emotional urges. Regardless of how he may have adapted his "views" to better his chances of winning the presidency back in 2015, his spiral stage has been the same from when he was 3 years old. I recommend Mary Trump's book if you're interested on diving deep on his psychology and the root causes of his personality. Fascinating read.
  8. Hey congratz man, totally normal being nervous the first few times or after a long "hiatus". Who wasn't? It's one of those things that takes getting used to. And honestly nervousness can either make you cum way too soon or prevent you from doing so. The latter is way better from a female standpoint as you know, so you're lucky in that regard.
  9. Fascinating video. I'm glad to see my suspicions about his psychology were spot on. Look, there's no denying that the guy is exceedingly smart, sharp, and articulate—like top 1%. It's unfortunate that he used these gifts to build such a rational macho armor around his soul. Had he not become so famous (and thus had so much to lose) due to this hyper ego beast persona, I would have guessed that he might have eventually grown out of this late-capitalism poster child phase and experienced genuine love. Who knows.
  10. I disagree, I think GPT-4 has clear "insights" on the limits of materialism and is open to admitting its philosophical limits, although it adopts it as a default. GPT-3 is just so dumb and dogmatic in comparison. Actually GPT pretty much agrees with Hoffman. Our senses are indeed tuned to survival and reproduction, not accuracy. So they are at least functional to navigate reality as an individual. That's pretty much what GPT said here, although "he" seems to imply that therefore it must be accurate as well, which I do not believe is the case.
  11. Ever heard of the gateway process and/or Hemi-Sync? If not, you might wanna give it a try. I can DM you the full tapes if you want. It's crazy to think the CIA knew the universe was an infinite consciousness grid back in 1983.
  12. GPT-3.5 was cool when it got released but is nowhere advanced enough for these kinds of topics. I've briefly tried to replicate the same conversation in GPT-4 and as you can see the results are vastly different. kylan11 If I'm looking at a tree and then take a high dose of LSD, my experience would be that the tree starts to wave and twist around, does that mean the tree actually morphs and twists? ChatGPT No, the tree does not actually morph or twist. What you're describing is a hallucination, which is a perception of something that is not present in the external environment. LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is a powerful hallucinogenic drug that can alter perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, often causing hallucinations. When someone takes LSD, it affects neurotransmitter systems in the brain, particularly the serotonin system. This can lead to altered perceptions of reality. So, while the tree remains stationary and unchanged in the external world, the individual's perception of it can be dramatically altered due to the effects of the drug on their brain. It's important to note that while hallucinations can seem very real to the person experiencing them, they are not reflective of changes in the external environment. Always exercise caution and be aware of the potential risks when considering the use of any psychoactive substances. kylan11 So you say that my experience would be different from what's being experienced? ChatGPT Yes, that's correct. Your "experience" is subjective and is based on your internal perception of the external world. When you take a substance like LSD, it can alter that perception, making you experience things differently than they actually are in the external environment. To clarify: Objective Reality: This refers to the external world as it exists independently of any observer. In this context, the tree remains stationary and doesn't morph or twist. Subjective Experience: This refers to how an individual perceives and interprets the external world. Under the influence of LSD, your subjective experience might be that the tree appears to wave, twist, or morph, even though it is not actually doing so in objective reality. So, while the tree in objective reality remains unchanged, your subjective experience of it can be altered due to the effects of the drug on your brain. This distinction between objective reality and subjective experience is fundamental in understanding the effects of hallucinogenic drugs. kylan11 So if my experience doesn’t match what's being experienced, how can I trust that my experience tells me anything at all about what's being experienced? ChatGPT Your question touches on deep philosophical issues related to the nature of perception, reality, and knowledge. Here are some points to consider: Nature of Perception: All human experiences are mediated by our senses and interpreted by our brains. Even without the influence of substances like LSD, our perceptions are not perfect replicas of the external world. For example, optical illusions can trick our eyes and brains into seeing things that aren't there or misinterpreting what is there. Reliability of Perception: While our perceptions are not infallible, they have evolved to be generally reliable in most situations. For example, if multiple people observe a tree, they will likely agree on its general characteristics (e.g., its location, size, color). This shared perception allows us to navigate and interact with the world effectively. Altered States of Consciousness: When under the influence of substances like LSD, the reliability of our perceptions can be compromised. However, this doesn't mean that all perceptions, in all states of consciousness, are unreliable. It just means that in certain altered states, our perceptions might not align with objective reality. Epistemology: This is the study of knowledge and how we come to know things. One of the challenges in epistemology is determining when we can trust our perceptions and when we should be skeptical. Philosophers have debated this for centuries, and there's no single answer that satisfies everyone. Pragmatic Approach: In everyday life, we often take a pragmatic approach. If our perceptions help us navigate the world effectively and make predictions that turn out to be accurate, we consider them reliable. If our perceptions consistently lead us astray, we learn to be skeptical of them. In summary, while our perceptions are not perfect, they are generally reliable in most situations. However, it's always beneficial to approach our experiences with a degree of humility and skepticism, recognizing that our understanding of the world is always limited and mediated by our senses and cognitive processes. kylan11 If you say that the experience under the influence of LSD doesn't necessarily match objective reality, how can you be certain that the experience under no influence of any substance is an accurate depiction of an objective reality? I mean, you're still having an experience when not under the influence of LSD so what's really the ontological difference between the two types of experiences? One may be more regular but regularity itself doesn't tell anything about it's "kind" or ontological status other than it's behavior. So if you agree that one type of experience, the one under influence of LSD, is less accurate of an objective reality then you have no argument to place the other experience under no influence as the more truthful experience of objective reality. Who knows, maybe it's the exact opposite where the experience under influence of LSD is actually showing more of reality and that this normal experience under no influence is actually the least accurate representation of an objective reality. How would you know that this isn't the case? ChatGPT Your line of questioning delves into deep philosophical territory, touching on issues of epistemology (the study of knowledge), ontology (the study of the nature of being), and the philosophy of mind. Here are some points to consider: Baseline Experience: Our "normal" or baseline state of consciousness has been shaped by evolution to help us survive and reproduce in our environment. The perceptions and cognitive processes that have been most beneficial for our survival have been selected for over countless generations. This doesn't guarantee that our perceptions are a perfect representation of objective reality, but it suggests they are at least functional and effective for navigating our environment. Consensus Reality: One way we gauge the reliability of our perceptions is through consensus. If multiple people, all in their baseline states of consciousness, perceive a tree in the same location, we have more confidence that the tree is "really" there. This shared perception forms the basis of what we might call "consensus reality." Altered States: When someone is under the influence of a substance like LSD, their perceptions might diverge from this consensus reality. This doesn't necessarily mean their perceptions are "less real" in an ontological sense, but they are less shared and less effective for navigating the typical human environment. Limitations of Human Perception: Even in our baseline state, human perception has known limitations. For instance, we can't see ultraviolet light, but some animals can. Does this mean our perception is "less real"? Not necessarily. It's just limited in scope. Similarly, altered states might reveal aspects of reality that are typically hidden from us, or they might distort our perceptions in ways that are less aligned with consensus reality. The Nature of "Objective Reality": Philosophers have long debated the nature of objective reality and whether we can ever truly access it. Some argue that all we can ever know is our perceptions, while others believe we can get closer to objective reality through methods like the scientific process. The Value of Different States: From a pragmatic standpoint, different states of consciousness might be valuable for different purposes. The baseline state is effective for everyday navigation and survival. Altered states might be valuable for introspection, creativity, or spiritual experiences. In conclusion, while we can't be absolutely certain that our baseline state of consciousness provides a more "accurate" depiction of objective reality than an altered state, we can say that it's more effective for certain purposes, like survival and social interaction. The deeper question of what "reality" truly is and how (or if) we can access it remains a profound philosophical mystery.
  13. See title. Out of pure curiosity. @Leo Gura I've watched almost all of your videos yet I can't seem to remember a time where you specifically told the detailed story of the first time you've had a mystical experience. Nor I was able to find it in this forum. I assume it was with psychedelics. I find there's something special about the first time you awaken, like a switch that you can never turn off once it's been flipped. To know that you know nothing and everything you thought you knew was bullshit. And sure you can go infinitely deeper but remembering that first HOLY SHIT moment always gives me a pure sense of joy and a weird nostalgia and I'd love to know the full story/context/etc. So, if you don't mind, what was that like for you? Trip report style? Maybe it's a good idea for a video. I'd watch it in a heartbeat.
  14. Allow me to disagree here, I think you're focusing solely on the number of deaths due to natural disasters. Climate change affects our ecosystems, food sources, water availability, and can create mass migrations. This could lead to political unrest, wars for resources, WW3 (=nuclear) and even societal collapse in the worst case scenario. We've been close to that scenario for far dumber reasons in the last century. While we might not have 500+ million people dying directly because of a hurricane or drought, the cascading effects could very possibly be the worst thing that ever happened to the human race.
  15. As you know Jordan Peterson says tons of bullshit when he speaks about political topics, but as a psychologist he explained this in a way I found very helpful. It goes like this: Men are interested in things, women are interested in people. More accurately, I'm talking about feminine and masculine traits. Now obviously there are women with masculine traits and viceversa, so this is a simplistic generalization. We need both in a functional society. This is why nurses/social workers/teachers are mostly women while the engineering field is mostly men. Trying to artificially eliminate those differences and make every profession or human endeavor a perfect 50/50 ignores this truth and is actually a loss to democracy and freedom. It's not surprising that chess, being a "thing", attracts mostly men. There is definitely a socially constructed component to some professions/activities being historically dominated by one gender, but keep in mind that we have (theoretically!) achieved gender equality in the civilized world fairly recently so the overall culture will need time to adjust. And this takes many generations.