CosmicExplorer

ARC-AGI-3 benchmark is made to test AI in something like that, and currently it's doing horrible in it compared to humans.

Timestamped:

Well, that's exacly what those studies are showing. Brain on psychedelics vs anesthetised brain is like the polar opposite. I'm talking about brain-death. Perhaps the body have more metabolism on psychedelics, I don't know about that.

@Vynce I used the word sleep colloquially, the brain is less active on psychedelics than in sleep. Furthermore, metabolically, the brain under anesthesia is further away from a state in which the dead brain is than in a normal sober waking state, and the brain in a normal sober waking state is further away from the dead brain than the brain on psychedelics. The point is that psychedelics are the best death simulator we have. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1119598109 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15179026/ (in rats) "Human EEG studies with serotonergic psychedelics consistently report a broadband spectral power decrease (delta to gamma) most pronounced within the alpha band (8–12 Hz) and a decrease in functional connectivity and integrity of networks [21,22,23,24,25,26]. On the other hand, increases in higher frequencies (gamma oscillations, 30 Hz and above) have been also described [27,28,29]; however, the effects are hard to interpret due to typical contamination related to increased tension of the facial muscles. MEG, in contrast to EEG, is devoid of this contamination [30], and on the contrary shows a decrease in oscillations within the gamma range [31]." https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1518377113 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15179026/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51974-4 Anesthesia: https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(24)00446-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS089662732400446X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Psychedelics only reduce brain activity/metabolism. The remaining activity is more connected, yes. But your brain is essentially going to sleep while you're on them.

If you hit Tonny Robbins in the head with an axe and after that he loses all his energy, does that mean his energy was 100% environmental thing? In that discussion I assume at least somewhat normal life, not doing extreme and rare, harmful stuff, like for example having a diet of literally only potato chips or only sugar or being severe alcoholic or lying in bed 24/7 I'm interested in how much is possible to move a needle when you already have at least somewhat normal life, like 95+% of people have.

They would have extended lifespan on average as a group vs the group with a worse environment, but the individual variance within that optimized group would still be enormous (due to genetics and randomness). How much is there beyond genetics and random chance? There's almost nothing left. I would guess 3% maybe? Exactly. I'm effectively fully protected from obesity, environment doesn't matter. There was a period in my life when I exclusively ate Mcdonalds without putting ANY self-restriction on how much I eat, I gained ZERO weight, nothing. I can have the most ultra-processed, "addicting" food lying in front of me on my table for months and I have zero desire to eat it, zero cravings. I always had visible abs, basically my whole life. In addition to that I personally know people who are significantly leaner than me (they don't have much muscle but they're shredded like 8% bf) who give 0 fucks about their diet, which consists of pure junk food and beer. If someone who struggles with obesity their whole life were to ask me or them how we're doing it, if I'm not bullshiting, I have to admit that I have no idea, it's just as mysterious to me as it is to them, why our food drive is so low. To be obese, you have to have genetics for it (even tho most people have genetics that allow to become obese). Similar thing with PTSD. The possibility of, and how vulnerable one is to PTSD is implanted fully by genetics. Without the right genetics, there's no possibility of PTSD. Can an ant experience PTSD? No. What differentiates a person with PTSD from an ant - genetics It's genetics that install that possibility/vulnerability of PTSD, then the environment can trigger it or not, depending on how bad it is, and how strong that vulnerability is. Are there people who experienced the worst things like concentration camps/torture/r*ape/catastrophes etc. and came out of it without PTSD? Yes.

Genetics determining 99% is exaggerated, but even if it's only like 65% the rest is not just environment or something you can change. It turns out that luck/randomness on a molecular level plays a huge role. Aging for example, has a very significant random component. Experiments consistently show that even when you take genetically identical worms, raise them in the exact same controlled environment (same temperature, same petri dish, same food source), their lifespans can vary dramatically. Some worms will live a short life, while others will live two to three times as long.

Phenotype. It's extremely important and underrated. On the extremes of normal distribution, wild stuff is happening. Characteristics of the hyperthymic temperament include: increased energy and productivity short sleep patterns self-assurance, self-confidence talkativeness risk-taking/sensation seeking love of attention cheerfulness and joviality expansiveness tirelessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymic_temperament Imagine that this is your chronic baseline in life

@something_else "no side effects" just like glp-1 agonists... 3x the risk for major depression "The most striking result is the suicidal ideations or attempts of the Ozempic group, which showed an approximately 2.4-fold increase in risk" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75965-2

This guy is like the peak stage orange capitalism. Just listening to him every second word is "growth" "value" "progress" "solve" "produce" "results" "maximize" I like him and generally agree with his views but his metaphysics is as you can predict, really bad. Just listen to his "Semi-Truck thought experiment"

What is insane to me is that alcohol is not criminalised while less harmful drugs are. Either criminalise alcohol or decriminalise less harmful drugs like: amphetamine, psyhedelics, weed, oxy, codeine, benzos, ketamine, MDMA... Alcohol is very addictive and harmful drug. If you would fully comprehend how much suffering, addiction, homelessness, violence was and is caused by alcohol in the world, your head would explode. It just doesn't make sense that it's legal while drugs I mentioned aren't, where is rationality in that?

@Leo Gura The key, which is not much talked about about mindfullness or Satipatthana is that it is not a continuous thing, you're not supossed to try to continiously focus on an object, it's always a punctuated event. Continuous half-assed effort is not the same as punctuated, commited effort. Each punctuated event of contacting an object at extreame level of detail and clarity may only last 200 to 1000 ms. It's more like doing reps in the gym. I highly recommend you listen to deconstructing yourself podcast, eposide "Am I mindful right now" with Michael Taft and Kenneth Folk in which they discuss exactly this misunderstanding of what mindfullness is.

Hardcore definition of enlightenment: someone who eliminated all suffering and/or Duhkha* * Definition of suffering - "Suffering, or pain in a broad sense, may be an experience of unpleasantness or aversion, possibly associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual" What Duḥkha means according to Wiki: "Duḥkha is a term found in the Upanishads and Buddhist texts, meaning anything that is "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing pain or sadness" That person can endure professional torture for an indefinite time with no suffering, aversion. He/she can easily sit for 16 or more hours meditating without back support, dullness, or distraction. Whether there's anybody like that in the world or has ever been is questionable, whether one can stay alive for a prolonged period in that state is also questionable. Soft definition of enlightenment: like you said "A person who's ordinary experience is without the separateness of I and external world." so someone who doesn't have the felt "center to the experience" that is the self, typically felt in the head

Strong and long enough pain, mental or physical, for which there's no remedy to, and you start to prefer not being alive.