oOo

This thread is brought to you by Carls Jr. @Inliytened1 This is not uncontrollable latent testosterone we're seeing, this is schoolgirl social media trollish attention seeking, the compounding effect of being drunk on the lack of awareness, or a combination of the two.

I am not really one for the law of attraction with respect to the way its portrayed overly simplistically to the mainstream in the same way I am not really fond of this thread. It requires the minimum level of brain power which can only thus attract those that wish to exert the same or lower level of brainpower unless its someone like me encroaching with their snobbery, making the creators and participants aware that I think they're stupid and they're partaking in making the forum more stupid. This isn't a criticism in so much as it is an accurate observation, a pattern clearly documentable, that's an important distinction. As it pertains to the actual question, we created vistas in our imagination, describing each to one another the most nuanced perceptions we could while we were in a long distance relationship with one another, joining at the fold of phenomenological symbiosis and breaking only upon relief. A long distance relationship of course. As she created a world, so too I added to it, with each stretch of her mind to detail and feel the landscapes she created in her consciousness, so too would I attempt to match it from my perspective. It was an engagement of where empathy and imagination meets pleasure and connection. I don't think an IQ test would be an acceptable medium of testing the intelligence of the threads participants, perhaps a wooden ruler measuring in micro-millimetres may though. As for interesting locations, based on my observations to date I don't think any physical location could truly match the unusual aesthetic breadth nor the activation of so many of centres that were needed in order to meet the threshold of both one another's making and breaking points. Physical locations are overrated, its about the person and the making between one another that makes the physical location the world remembered. As for the worlds that we created, co-created and shared with one another, well that's private of course.

This is such an absurd generalisation. One of my good friends is schizophrenic, and he happens to be on the spectrum for what qualifies as extreme universal open mindedness, more to your point. That said, schizophrenia gives him debilitating cognitive and psychological problems, with and without the medications he takes, and any benefits have never materialised beyond his already pre-existing brilliance in and of himself without the schizophrenia. I thought of a new connection after reading my comment, the relationship between dreams and psychosis at the functional level, and after beginning my own investigation into this relationship between the two because of logic saying that clinical investigations into dreaming would help clinical interventions on psychosis. I don't know a lot about psychosis and abnormal psychology, but where my thinking is going now is if we take the premise that predictive-processing and source-monitoring theories of psychosis are the crux, and we learned how dreams are created and how people can lucid dream in them. I genuinely think there's a real clinical path towards dream interventions overlapping with positive outcomes concerning the development of interventions for those on the spectrum for psychosis. Not necessarily by getting people with psychosis to "dream" a certain way, rather more along the lines of structurally and functionally mapping what the theoretical limits of what optimal dreaming could look like in healthy subjects, understanding the mechanisms for how this is possible, then using that as the groundwork for interventions to help people "dream the waking world" lucidly, so without elements we normally connect with psychosis.

It's happened to me more than a few times, dreams of future personal life events. With the training I have been doing, my dreams are being remembered more and more. Secondly, they're so vivid, I literally cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy while I am in them. I have had moments in a dream where I will feel a cool breeze against my face and body perfectly symmetrical to what I would otherwise experience in waking reality, the coldness of my hands against a tin roof, the slightest expression of a persons eyes as I made contact. The whole experience would feel utterly as real as I can be, even though I would have memories of where I was last while in the dream, my brain would convince itself that this is actually the real world. Recently following these unfolding experiences day to day now, I then connected the relationship between the simulation hypothesis' proposition that reality is created in the moment from direct perception and unfolds the moment we are conscious of it, with the very nature of how dreams arguably work. That is, that there is not a world "out there" but that this world creates itself in real time in the moment following the relationship between direct perception of our dream and its or what becomes a co-creative reality itself. What I find particularly fascinating is the symmetry between the co-creative relationship we have with waking reality remarkably being very similar with our sleeping reality as well, at least for me. Perhaps the relationship between the two actually moves the other way, that is that the simulation hypothesis is derived from the way in which dreams supposedly work rather than the workings of dreams themselves being a useful model for the way reality works. Irrespectively, even though I still gotta learn how to lucid dream, the fact that my sleeping dream world cannot be distinguished from physical reality for me, inclusive of my own behaviour, raises a lot of existential questions. I don't understand dreams at all and I make no true claims about either sleeping or waking dreams; the investigation continues.

This is so incredible. Or will it end absolutely boringly?

So I finally got around to watching the previously noted video above; much more bland than advertised. Anyhow, I researched how far this actually goes and yeah, the subculture definitely has its own veins and researchers call them sanguinarian's. People who consume human or animal blood, typically through consensual donors. But then that makes you wonder, right, what are the limits of "consensual" and "safe", I mean, we can push it on either side right, but then, that's when the law tends to step in. And no one would break the law now, would they, and we definitely don't have known worlds beyond the one made visible to the general public, right? Anyhow, I found a few interesting examples, with the US showing its own darker examples. Rod Ferrell’s Kentucky “Vampire Clan” practised blood-drinking rituals; Ferrell’s 1996 double-murder case. Even more extreme claims surfaced in Kern County, California, where children alleged a satanic ring murdered infants, practised cannibalism and drank human blood. Though investigators largely established it as unsubstantiated; or what's more likely the case in the more greater general sense, they simply never properly planted themselves in the dark web. They no doubt act as moles in some of the darker networks, outcomes though are hidden yet global because things like Pepsi commercials and daily weather forecasts prove as more relevance, unless there's a lot of witnesses, which is why we always hear about major shootings. Elsewhere, Jan Hendrik Brandt testified in a South African court that his 32-member Port Elizabeth coven killed a baby and drank its blood; that specific killing was never independently proven. A Guardian investigation in Tanzania separately reported men killing a baby, collecting the blood and drinking it. Thus, somewhere within the next few months the dark web will be my next go-to, something that as a beginner, I simply haven't had time yet to investigate properly. It’s already documented that anonymous hidden services have hosted enormous child-abuse networks, criminal markets and closed criminal forums. At its worst, the visible internet can look almost pristine by comparison; sadism, criminality and secrecy disappearing behind anonymous spaces, from private chats to who knows what remains unseen. There's copious amounts of YouTube channels surrounding, just type in keywords Darkweb + _____. All in all, my opinion has partially swayed concerning the potential legitimacy of stereotypical "elite cults" culling babies and then bringing a new meaning to the word group "baby showers". Luce Letby is a natural name that comes to mind, just the callous (one of the traits of clinical psychopathy) unemotional preying upon the vulnerable in these kinds of emergent networks. If you're a psychopath, I am not saying all psychopaths are the same, I am just saying that just like any other personality trait especially with tendencies towards socialisation, similar traits will be drawn towards one another and subsequent groups and networks will invariably form. Thus looking at this purely from a scientific perspective, paradoxically, it actually becomes a very real tangible possiblity, especially when, as depraved as some of the stuff is that one can apparently find on the dark web, the dark web is undoubtedly, just a bone to a larger skeleton. It's difficult to have critical discussions on these kinds of subjects though as most people even involving themselves in these kinds of conversations to begin with, generally don't have the reasoning ability to bring a "common sense" to them. That reality is often exploited by more Machiavellian types as well, which people that are attracted to joining these kinds of worlds don't of course remotely resemble any such traits; to the contrary, its the very thing that allows them to stay in operation, to anticipate threats, silence them before they occur, infiltrate and recruit members discretely. As for actual vampirism, there's obviously the tamed, the neutral and the more predatory as per the "limits of consent and or safety", he himself said that he was once in a cult, and that cult was in one of the three categories more than others, which leaves two other categories that other cults no doubt exist in more than the other two. Thus to the original title, "All success is driven by unhappiness", the pleasure for blood can compound for more in the way that the desire for power can beget the desire for power. On the opposite side, the cited Machiavellian nature, would be threat deterrence operative, and would otherwise be more in alignment with the original contention, because the very success is to mitigate the potential future unhappiness of getting caught.

I empathise with you on this subject @Majed . Most of my life I have struggled between a woman that I feel pulled towards versus a woman that I am rationally compatible with. Especially when they merge where there's an incompatible life context. I have learned that this fundamentally has come down to two factors, my own lack of experience in certain areas, and my own lack of consciousness development at that time. Inclusive of emotional patterns as they relate to the rest of the nervous system and the subsequent experience, for example, it has taken me years to learn to come into greater awareness of my own emotional responses because I grew up in an environment in which I had to suppress my emotions. This is very common in different ways for many different men, and there's a unique and often specific tailored approach for each individual case relative to the level of awareness that can be directed. With that said, my own solution has been three-fold: INNER GROWTH: I rigorously self-study and self-train inclusive of developing emotional awareness, bodily awareness combined with consciousness transmutation techniques. Specifically as it relates to relationships and dating, this increasingly allows me to discriminate between honest internal signals and signals that instead relate to outdated experiences that are more along the lines of conditioned emotional reactions that need reconditioning. This also has a positive direct and indirect effect on consciousness expansion. The better I can detect the relationship between emotion, bodily experiences and experiences within the mind, the better I can instill agency in the areas of my choosing. Determining honest signals from emotion-body-mind now allows me to better determine where a phenomenological reaction to a woman exists relative to the context of our joining; aka, am I just physically attracted or is there something more, if there is something more, is it based on past experiences that better me in the future or those that do not? OUTER ANALYSIS: By developing increased self-knowledge, now I can begin to map the entire planet on probabilistic dating pools, and the way in which I would navigate those relative to the outcomes I am seeking. This is where I will begin to build mathematical formula specific to my own unique situation; relative to different potential relationship outcomes that can be imagined relative to all probabilistic, experienced and foreseen compatibility. And these are my own self-created equations; while completely emotionally congruent and only gets better following the better unity achieved in number one. SHARED EXPERIENCE AND DISCERNMENT of Survival & Growth Contextual Compatibility: As much as I may feel compatible with a woman, it may only be through a certain context. In fact in all relationships relative to our life opportunities, this is precisely how it is and we're choosing to sacrifice alternative ways of living for the sake of the relationship itself. Sometimes that can be really beautiful, but in a totally non-judgemental way as its the basis for any true relationship, that's when normative drift occurs relative to a persons awareness of their own life circumstances. Normative drift in this instance is due to the clustering of consciousness that follows any relationship, romantic or otherwise, it has its own temporal gravitational physics. This is why when relationships are coming to an end, or something problematic but unspoken truth exists in a relationship, someone in touch with their own energetic field can genuinely feel it. Everyone's heard of stories where they here a friend say, "I just felt something was off", and then after their proper investigation, well there you go. These particular situations can become so difficult to discern however when someone does that sensitivity and awareness however, but also has prior conditioned experiences that lead to suboptimal reactions that may to the contrary, be false signalling. This is why trust is so important and communication within a relationship that is both cognitive and emotional, where the cognitive is true to the facts, and the emotion is true to the signal that keeps a relationship together. Despite whatever mathematics exists, its the honest signal that counts at the end of the day. Returning to my first point with number 3, therefore ideally what we're looking for in a relationship with a potential partner is essentially a relationship that survives as many relevant alternative contexts as possible; aka same hobbies is a no-brainer for most people, tho its just the beginning. This is the essence of compatibility versus when normative drift becomes a nightmare because you've slept with a hooker you also get along with very wel. But you're the leader of a Christian Church and she's an atheist though you maintain the relationship anyway. This could be a positive indicator, because as much as we want to have compatibility where we can grow with a partner across many varied contexts, we also want a partner in which we can survive against when we have competing contexts. Being a leader of a Christian Church while the woman you're in love with wants to remain a hooker and let's say an OnlyFans star as well because of how much cash she rakes in is a "survival test". If it leads to continuous arguments, or just remains as unconscious contempt in other ways where it isn't properly communicated between them, the survival context becomes evidence for incompatibility, however it moves in the opposite direction, it may actually lead to higher mutual respect and be evidence for compatibility. Further, if the male also desires to become a hooker and join OnlyFans himself while his partner also decides to become a joint leader of his Christian Church say, now what was once only compatibility that existed in a "survival context" shifts to compatibility that now exists in a "growth context" instead. This happens all the times in relationships where communication, honesty, truth seeking, trust, respect and vulnerability, along with any other relevant virtue for the unique context, is put at the forefront of the relationship's future. Other times, its just not the right time or life situational context for the relationship, so temporal dynamics are also a category that would either fall into either potential "growth contexts", "survival contexts" or a bit of both. More to the point of asking ourselves corresponding questions, you gotta ask yourself as a human being, how far would I be willing to change myself just in a relationship in general versus the relationship itself? The way we answer that question really says a lot about the potential for the relationships future. If I was hypothetically in love with a Jewish woman, even though I already am partly genetically Ashkenazi Jewish I don't follow any particular religion while I am also open minded with respect to learning about any particular one, that said, if their family say or my partner, really wanted me to convert, I'd do it in a love heartbeat. Would I necessarily believe everything about the religion? You don't have to, and many people that are often religious, often don't, because they know it's a human at the end of the day writing the religious texts. Would I devote myself however to understand the spiritual currency of the specific religion? Absolutely, and its this first and foremost that would determine the other half in terms of whether or not I would actually commit to a religion. When you're prepared to make these kinds of life changing decisions, it doesn't necessarily indicate compatibility outside of revealing your own openness to experience, but it does indicate when you're likely ready for a relationship that involves more selflessness and less transactional type relationships. Or that you've got some kind of dependency issue and don't have enough boundaries around the context in which you would versus wouldn't make those kinds of life altering judgements. I recently shared a video on vampirism, and yeah you gotta know what you would and wouldn't do. That's certainly one of the belief systems that yeah, I couldn't do, the whole drinking of blood thing just isn't my cup of tea. Though if my partner say, wanted to do a blood ritual with me and it was only her and I, as well as safe and consensual, I'd be open minded about it. That's why we do the whole marriage documents, wedding rings, going on a honeymoon, etc, relative to how its meant to be done not necessarily what happens as more than 50% of marriages as we know, statistically should never have been committed to, symbol tends to also carry a ritual of some kind. That said, if your partner does want to do a blood ritual with you, or any symbolic ritual marriage or otherwise, I think that's the perfect time to determine cognitively just how compatible you actually are before you go into a deeper emotional bond that at the very least is likely to hurt one of you at the end. In general, you gotta do most of the heavy cognitive lifting on compatibility way before you consider even going exclusive with a potential partner which most people simply do not do, though that's certainly changing for specific demographics. That was all just written on the fly without any pause, so yeah, there's naturally many other factors, categories and spectrums that I haven't considered here as well that are also worth going deep on. Good luck!

The following AI related video below by Wes Roth is super interesting in light of what I said relating to where I analogically referred to AI briefly. AI potentially offers a lot of insight to glean from for us to better understand this subject of "fight", "threat", "conflict", "competition" and "negotiation". These are human words we have invented to provide what is ideally as transparent of a mask as possible for the meaning we hope that mask encapsulates. Seeing these behaviours play out not just with respect to other species but the 'species' we create as a simple way of categorising, provides us an opportunity to re-conceptualise our understanding of both those words and the meanings they are meant to encapsulate both with ourselves and other species. Our vocabulary, something which the video doesn't go into by the way, hasn't actually meta-rationalised deeply enough about conflict to the degree that we organise the sub-types of conflict across a species to the point where two crocodiles fighting with one another can be accurately differentiated from all other species fighting with one another. We never had to think about multi-step reasoning on this subject outside of simply differentiating types of similar conflict to the extent of "well these two lions are fighting over a lioness and these two crocodiles are fighting over a zebra". We don't have a language yet to differentiate two lions fighting over a lioness and two male humans fighting over a female when at the surface level, both behaviours look like they are arising from exactly the same survival imperative/strategy. In the case of AI, we are viewing what looks like in this scenario, something that looks like its acting based on a survival imperative of some kind at the surface level. Whether it is or whether it isn't where for the latter let's say its just some design flaw or who knows deception from Anthropic AI themselves which none of us would be surprised about, even when it isn't, it opens up a more nuanced conversation on the different categories for survival imperatives when re-grouped from the meta-level. For example, we have two unique conversations on fighting when we communicate on lions fighting because they have the hormones to facilitate that fighting versus say, because they have claws and teeth; if we take away the claws and teeth, do they fight at all? New ways of categorising emergent behaviours... Emerge. AI is the backdoor to a reconversion on many subjects that we take for granted while they're still leaving a lot of depth and understanding we're still yet to explore. And naturally, this gives us as well, a completely new lens to view my "cancer cell" analogy as well and what we entertain a hypothetical about what happens if we can for example, greatly advance said "cancer cell's" sentience, if that were possible.

"Ultimate freedom is overrated, and ultimately, incorrect if not otherwise categorised as an impossibility within human existence. Enslave yourself to something big and intelligent, or at least something or this idealism to a fundamental path intrinsic to your own development. Then, watch your freedom and life choices grow the more of your freedom and life choices you just simply, give away freely to your cause. However small that cause may seem in the present, the freedom to choose to be enslaved by something meaningful, and not give yourself the freedom to do otherwise unless its truly the right judgement to do so, is the best kind of wisdom that only appears in the future looking back. Choiceless choice is what creates dreams, and an overabundance of choice without this sacrifice, what ruins them." - anonymous.

I liked the example involving the coyote and the cat as well. Arguably, they're more sentient than an alligator. However if we increase the sentience of an alligator, its merely an assumption to assume that their competitiveness will be subdued. Imagine if hypothetically we could increase the sentience of a cancer cell, its merely an assumption to assume that it wouldn't want to just get better at being a cancer cell, or potentially something far more dangerous. This is analogical to the thinking that surrounds AI becoming "more sentient". That said, game theoretic dynamics at the genetic level are relevant here. For example, understanding where a species fits on the agreeability (i.e. more of a pack animal) vs disagreeability scale (I.e. more isolated). In the case against AI becoming dangerous despite any supposed sentience, some may argue that in the absence of a survival imperative and therefore game theoretic dynamics around 'genetics' (analogically), AI will never becomes a threat outside of how AI is used as a tool. So the coyote and the cat are an interesting example for how "play" can emerge as a form of healthy competition, relative to any cooperative tendencies (I.e. the capacity to bond) present in the game theoretic dynamics of their genetics. There's likely a lot of other interesting insights as well to this discussion that make this worthy of further exploration. That said, my basic premise remains the same; sentience mismatch + survival imperatives (I.e. game theoretic dynamics of a species genetics). And you wouldn't call 'survival mismatch', as it wouldn't apply across all instances. We could say its the case between a labrador and an alligator, however we can't apply it between two alligators, as they if they're in the same sub-species group, have the same 'survival identity if we call it that, perhaps that's arguably a better term for it. That said, moving onto the next suggested subtopic, I actually think 'survival identity is a better term that pairs with discussion on epigenetic effects on survival imperative, outside of any impacts on sentience. Because epigenetics is another interesting example pertaining to explore especially with respect to humans; take a twins case study brought up in two completely different environments, one where competition was strongly reinforced and another where it not only wasn't but where cooperation and agreeableness was rewarded. "Survival identity" here becomes a better term in considering the impact that being in say, one extreme political party versus say its polar opposite. This is where we see this co-interaction between sentience and survival imperatives forming a triad to continually either positively or negatively reinforce the directionality of the survival identity relative to environmental influences. Increased play between those political polar opposite parties however by leveraging any cooperative instincts present like the coyote and the cat example, and we get interesting effects in different directions depending on outcomes. Maybe a political party in the middle emerges, or perhaps 'play' becomes the unwanted or perhaps even needed precursor to war, depending on the kind of war.

Imagine two alligators fighting, or even just over a zebra. The underlying pattern otherwise is just a sentience mismatch. Two alligators are fighting out of survival. As sentience increases, management of consequences increases; but continued fighting however sophisticated it becomes, belongs to a survival imperative. When sentience and survival are combined mitigation of conflict is merely a concession of alternate perspectives, not sentience or survival. This is the importance of healthy debate. As sentience weighs more, survival imperatives become a healthy match to any motivation for it. When there's too little survival imperative however, absence of conflict despite higher sentience will proportionately weaken one's perspectives on life when the debate is only mutually healthy. Other necessary categories here are intuitively grasped from this point, like how this applies to myriad forms of relationships.

So to my surprise apparently drinking blood and just general vampirism is an actual thing - SEE VIDEO BELOW. It made me realise, I just feel like there are so many inner realities that people cohabitate in, however irrational those worlds are, that I am just completely oblivious to. On a personal level, I could argue to myself that most of these worlds I don't need to know about, but on the other side of things, we're doing our own personal development a complete disservice to our own broader integration of reality. It can definitely sometimes feel disturbing, but much more important than spending a lot of time putting yourself through that is just doing the research across many domains to just simply become aware of their existence. The second thing it made me realise is that I need to use this experience to become more sophisticated in how I actually research the world around me. What we immediately research often has an SEO (search engines optimisation) bias to it analogically speaking, including the thoughts we have. I feel that this is very strongly the case with emotions as well, and in uniting all of those, the SEO of my broader consciousness experience. Explaining it this way to myself helps me better categorise this domain of my own personal explorations with my ability to consciously curate and create different consciousness experiences within myself. The sticking point that needs to mature and fine tune though here is integrating that with my own consciousness default and carrying out my daily responsibilities congruent with my longer term goals. The ability to manage and separate natural identify formation the brain does whoever you are and however enlightened you are, with other potential consciousness states that I or that one could inhabit, while also maintaining consistency and judgement on one's valuation of life priorities, is a tough ask when there aren't truly any good systems out there to facilitate people on this path. From a non-psychedelics user (due to my epilepsy, where seizures themselves have their own unique impact on identity, etc that isn't fully mapped out but can connect here in some ways depending on the kinds of seizures, etc among other contextual ingredients like the environment), this is something that seems to be a pattern that many who take psychedelics seem to relate to in part, often stressing the risk of how psychedelics can ruin a persons practical life because just as one example, they may no longer attribute the same value or values to life and or practical things they need as part of their stepping stones towards personal growth. The pattern I need to come into greater understanding is the relationship between consciousness state and object-value attribution, with music as one example that everyone can relate with and how that can influence our judgements pertaining, both sometimes in a very positive way, and other times less so. That feels like the right line I need to start building a compass and clock for slowly overtime, with the discernment as well that is bigger than just doing what we see around us where people just kind of throw their arms up in the air and offer half-truths like "you're just acting out the part of pretending to be yourself", which has a lot of truth to it, but its in the absence of many other factors that create too much distortion for it to be both truly practical, and existentially revelatory, objectively speaking. I think I am not alone with many people on this forum where they experience and have consciousness experience that are simply not consistent with the simplicity of that statement, but that it does have a lot of relevance for people that are just developing into the construct aware (I.e. becoming more aware of their ego) stage of their development, as one formal way of expressing it. My sharing of the video does not mean I endorse or agree with the authors or any guests opinions of this video, I haven't even watched it, but I promise you. I am not going to be converted into a vampire by the end, ha. I barely make it through science lab dissections, I am still learning skills to better manage my own reactions when it comes to viewing gnarly medical imagery (I.e. relating to diagnostics analysis). And that's actually a good example of how my own 'emotional blood type' was just never going to grow up to be say a forensic pathologist. Neurology and a close second psychiatry is naturally a lot closer to my schtick now.

New song release at bottom: Dancing Monkeys. Enjoy! In the fog of repair, we can only reach for our loved one's between mist. I haven't spent a lot of time introspecting since recovering from the hospital some weeks ago. I guess yesterday, where I spent a few hours with recovery spelling out a longer construction time for the song. If it hasn't revealed my depth, it reveals the dystopian hedonistic shadow that's formed in my absence. This is the thing about shadows and being overcome by them, like a cult, there's always a grain of truth to the cult of the self. Yesterday's lesson, is that I must continue to create songs as a form of reflection, if only to bring light to unconscious formations. And then let go of them. Some erotic words have been omitted from the lyrics for better marketplace positioning. My original voice sampled from: https://voca.ro/18pR04EOAzkU Synthesised by AI into the vocal in the song below I am sure Connor would like what is meant to be a fun song, following my tribute preceding this post I was certainly inspired by Connor's both fun and spiritual side while making the song. Introducing: Dancing Monkeys - https://0ooo0ooo0.bandcamp.com/track/dancing-monkeys Let's dance monkey's, dance. Stay strong. Best wishes.

The novel I got it to write was unspeakably dry despite my protests for it to be as "incredibly imaginative and inventive as possible". I even gave it source material to help with the creative process. I'll privately test out other AI's and simply wait until there's something genuine to talk about concerning genuinely creative writing that is not merely performative..

This is why I am skeptical of the supposed biological limits some experts impose on the human brains, and our nervous systems in general, capacity for intelligence inclusive of imagination. There's a clear distinction between a biological limit imposed on the brain, like a mental handicap, versus being able to see the final limit of a brains potential, say on imagination, when its frontier cannot be accurately measured at this time. Theoretically there is a limit, but practically speaking, we cannot measure the potential limit yet in the same way we cannot measure the future of Enhanced Olympics. That's an actual thing, research the term "Enhanced Games" wikipedia.

I am going to create at least one new science-fiction book per week with ChatGPT's version of Austin Powers "Groovy baby yeah" combined with Dr. Evil's "1,000,000 dollars. Wait.. 1,000,000,000 dollars". Aka, ChatGPT pro trial with maximum power (highest tier). I have already gotten it to create a 200 page textbook on a topic that would otherwise be considered foreign to its training data. Mixed results, sometimes genuinely suprisingly good and therefore not mere slop! I want to now move to imagination, and begin slowly scaling with every model release. It gives me ability to take any imaginary idea I have and put it into print straight-away. This is what every creative person has been waiting for (that is, for those of us that have at least embraced AI), and now its arguably right now available at our doorstep to continually recursively fuel all the lights supporting our creative consciousness mode. I think we're maybe one or two, perhaps even three model upgrades from truly being there as it concerns writing mind-blowing 200+ page fictional pieces, but we're at least at the horse and carriage stage, just not fully tamed stallion mode yet. It's amazing to wonder that flying car mode could be as little as two years away but. I think right now, is the perfect time to start truly contemplating all the creative ways you can utilise AI.

@enchanted no you're actually making me laugh because I think you're acting stupid. There's such a word as paradigms.

The structure is basically right, though @enchanted, the anthropomorphic terms are not, and that's an important read given many are likely to be easily influenced by speakers like these into falsity. “Success” is only one possible terminal outcome, while “unhappiness” is better understood as salient disequilibrium, so a discrepancy between current and, say, preferred states of being. “Driven by” is the conversion of that discrepancy into directional activation, so: disequilibrium > salience > activation > momentum > stabilisation or threshold transition That said, neither stability nor threshold-crossing is intrinsically positive. Because stability is neutral, without sufficient awareness a system can stabilise around a maladaptive attractor state and then simply drift through entropy into almost any negative state you want to imagine, from depression to, Ellen DeGeneres drinking baby blood between stage appearances [ Look it up! It's all real I tell you! ] Threshold here is an even more important distinction because transition can go up or down. Further degradation can move toward major depression, upward movement can recover prior stability, or activation can enter an expulsive state that opens the possibility of corrective energetic action, like lots of physical exercise as one crude BDNF-positive example. That is the deeper error in “success is driven by unhappiness.” Frustration > thought, deprivation > pursuit, rejection > fame-seeking, and conflict > creation are all manifestations of the same regulatory architecture. Achievement does not necessarily resolve the originating disequilibrium and/or instability. People can repeatedly discharge the same “itch” while preserving the meaning-field generating it. If drinking baby blood was a bad idea to begin with, drinking more of it is never going to satisfy the underlying instability. If a consciousness’s meaning-field is fucked, i.e. the subconscious values inherited from its respective culture, then it can become even more fucked if it never develops the awareness required to interrogate its perspectives on itself, what it is capable of, and reality in general, then consciously integrate the new values it needs. Awareness cannot merely be cognitive either. Emotional awareness and emotional agency matter because awareness acts as a catalyst for integrating new values into consciousness. Lack of awareness does the opposite, shifting someone from enjoying a bit of metaphorical baby blood here and there to becoming leader of the blood tribe, or who knows, maybe getting downgraded to Trump blood donations as tribal punishment. Overall then, disequilibrium generates directional momentum toward apparent stability or transition, while awareness helps determine whether that trajectory becomes adaptive, pathological or destructive. For intellectual growth it is important to find the motif behind the motif, especially in subjects already heavily loaded by culture. This thread is a perfect example of how consciousness can accept a contextualisation because its logic looks accurate on the surface while remaining false underneath the hood, and by that degree unintentionally damage itself precisely because it initially “feels right.” The relationship between cultural value correction and self-reality perception is therefore a good example for the **Re-contextualisation Mega-Thread.** All energy is seeking a fate. Which one are you going to consciously give it? This is why we invent instrumental physical actions from types of meditation to extremely regimented psychedelic use to physical exercise to get a desired energetic outcome. They are tools we have learned to use to lever energy in particular directions, with salience determining its desired momentum. The bigger epistemic error is that people are not being taught how to fully own that WHOLE physical process. Instead they are indoctrinated into treating regulation as though it exists outside physical processes, through things like buying shit. How “buying shit” becomes the medium is itself important because the social is still a physical process. Until people learn to make their social process something that is not substituted for the self, however instead internally regulated and grown through the self, social adaptation can replace rather than develop self-integration. The survival interest has been activated by social influence through a perceived potential decrease or increase in agency, though it has not necessarily been integrated through self-appraisal by emotional and cognitive awareness. That integration is where agency loss or gain, and substitutive versus direct interaction, can be reformalised within one’s meaning hierarchy rather than simply inherited as another culturalised adaptation.

Present pain versus future pain + accountability for the past, minimisation of the present and responsibility for the future. That's something that helps me. Minimisation is the secret sauce here, as it anchors the present and re-routes the reward centre towards the past and future which is what many people struggle with most. Minimisation is simply, what is the minimal input warranted for this moment? Whether its thought, feeling or otherwise. This is with or without goals and ambitions presently organised. If they have been, it teaches the system to reallocate energy in a healthy way towards the present and or future. This isn't minimalism, it's more like a kind of jiu jitsu increasing the signal to noise ratio between self, action and what's often neglected and which even the most enlightened being can't escape if they're human, this kind of temporal routing; which in our case is strategic temporal re-routing.

------------------------------------------------------ I have something exciting coming. ------------------------------------------------------ I've designed an original training method to bring my brain up to scratch following pretty bad unexpected seizures that have re-surfaced. It'll be released with everything else on schedule as I determined months ago for PROJECT : MEANING, this coming September thereabouts. Some will be familiar with an aspect of the technique, so they will have a 10-15% advantage but for everything else it will be a steep hill. Partial doubts following my seizure about being able to integrate all that I wanted to by this period, have now ceased. I will be creating a new link for PROJECT : MEANING, as directly after a seizure because I often have memory and attention issues that follow I ended up losing the only authentication device that gave me access to the email that also corresponds to Authenticator access. So don't use the only link if you were planning on relying on it after the updates in September. I will remind again on this change when the PROJECT : MEANING journal is reopened in September. When September strikes, I'll be solely using this journal to express weekly essays and theoretical designs, or primary challenges in general; so nothing secondary or tertiary anymore. That's as I express here: This new technique I've come up with has been whirling around close to a year now, however prudence like everything else has made me hold back on consolidating it fully over alternatives. Following deeper integration of my understandings over those months to now, I have the certainty to both devote myself to the technique all of this month, and then share the technique next month. In advance, even though I am personally pretty prudent, remember that from a social perspective, the technique itself is still very experimental, with myself alone as the only test subject at present. For whatever you're personally working on, don't give up. Keep trying. See yal back here with the first essay on the 1st Sunday of September EST. It may seem pretty boring, "essays", especially given my first essay is on essays themselves (mostly), but it'll be something that I hope will completely alter your perception of essays forever and the way you perceive what the act of writing truly means at a deeper level. Best regards.

One suggestion I'd add to my other. Do lots of practical things that also test your cognition. Me being in medical school, its an interesting blend of both. But in medical practice, deception has a price that can actually be weighed. This is the benefit of the physical world, we can pontificate on the existence of our foot and how it meets the road all we want but until we actually do it we merely have at most, the confidence that we can. Here's the catch though despite that confidence, you've been imagining the idea of running your entire life from zero orbit so your bones and muscles have never truly developed the ability, you've only seen films on how its possible without the medical knowledge on how you can regress from having the physical capacity to. That's a little what it was like when I ran from Ho Chi Minh City to Phnom Penh. I was at the time, out of shape but had the memories of my more athletic days that gave me the confidence that I could. I decided on a whim at 8pm at night in the muggy heat knowing that I didn't want to begin in the blistering heat in the morning, and just started running with my military like boots and backpack. I had to run mostly at night due to the heat with wild dogs at my heel the whole way through, especially through Cambodia which was beautiful by the way as I met many natives that would spontaneously invite me in for lunch and dinner, even singing karaoke during the day with a group at one stage in the middle of no where. I made it through, but the physical toll made it a constant test of self-deception more than physical endurance. Because its the endurance more than anything else that is asking the question to the brain, can you do it? That's a very difficult question that needs to be managed with both confidence which can overinflated, and the removal of deception, which can cause personal doubt. This is also while I still persisted after having being hit by a motorbike head-on at night at one stage with blood pouring down my forehead and a nasty bloody gash on my leg that required stitches for both. Not to mention the extensive bruising over my stomach, thighs, arms and legs. And I had to limp to the hospital, which lucky for me, was less than a kilometre away. I thought I was done, I thought I'd seriously damaged my leg, but I was starting again the next day thanks to the kind doctor at the time that didn't even want to charge me money. So I came out stronger physically, but my mental growth got the better end of the deal when it comes to facing falsity, deception and the like head on. Be the rubber that hits the road, don't just dream it is the lesson there. It's this reason that from now on, concerning any say journal entries that I make, they will be inspired essays, because they impose a structure my mind is forced to comply and grow within, not merely just ideate wherever my mind wishes to travel at the time. And that's if I choose to share the essays, as it may be better for my personal growth not to share in some ways, there are pro's and cons. With falsity around every corner ready to catch you as soon as you think you no longer need a judgement that weighs, prices, correlates, breaks and generates through razors designed to trim through pain points. This is my way of not only measuring my recovery overtime from my seizures (epilepsy), but also converting the desire to extend my abstract understanding of where being meets the world through tested limits. And don't give a second chance at life or opportunity like a video game.

Positive critique @Leo Gura . My prediction is that you've taken a top-down approach and interpreted your stance literally, hence your belief that examining whether God is preliminary and therefore that epistemology, the fine-tuner of the engine, is primary, fundamental, the inception point. Epistemology however, is not bottom-up, it relies on the ice sculpture to already be a point to be examined, sculpted and refined. Ontology is the perception that there is even a ice sculpture at all to examine, envision an end result to, critique and refine; bottom-up. You exist as an ontological premise, the beginning, the inception point, bottom-up, and epistemology is a model of a toolkit that tests and refines this as an assertion; and well, with AI these days right! It is important to get these philosophical points things right, purely based on my impressions, you simultaneously take an arm-chair approach while wanting to be taken seriously for your work; this is one simple example of how they can contradict one another. Concerning this forum as a whole, fun is not diametrically opposed to serious, in fact the merging between the two is what defines inspired self-meaning, expression of individuality and through that, a trusted community network. This becomes a stalemated forum position around personal growth that only slowly degrades overtime if you choose to continue to separate them. Otherwise, please explain your reasoning for your approach, as your reasoning is presently unsuitable for a lay or formal audience. Best wishes.

@Hojo This is milkman physics you're typing without secretly being a genius, neither with milk. That kind of sycophantic reasoning degrades the standards of the forum. Although as I have previously said in various ways, the moderator of the forum has purposefully created a playground built for children rather than a place of personal growth, so what more can we expect. The only reliable hypothesis at this stage is that the moderator actually prefers it this way. It's not a matter of creating a place that is serious and therefore too serious, its a matter of designing a place, including the moderators own standards, that facilitates the fruition of the full person. @Leo Gura, are you a leader of this forum, I am not sure?

I appreciated this @Rafael Thundercat . Purely from the perspective of the model proposed, we need more people that have reached Level 3 on the forum, direct quote: "Level 3.0 – Synthesist: Contextual wisdom, paradoxical thinking, security through acceptance, multi-perspectival". Moreover, there are stages within each that need proper emphasis. Secondly, I love the idea of a "Meta-Crisis", this gives me a new angle to add to my own cognitive-emotional biography in terms of orienting myself existentially, where "meta-crisis" is its own commentary of how the individual needs to take responsibilty for understanding just where they are at each level. And that's contextually speaking, for the model itself, not as a perfect measure. Depending on where you are is descriptive of how you're going to be categorising another, especially if you believe they to be lower or higher than you. It's very important that for every level you are higher than another, that at a civilisation level, you learn to the mature to the point that your input is receptivity for another to raise their standards. I express this because this forum hasn't yet matured to the point where it is very conscious of these things. Reading more deeply yet casually, there are several threads of conversations that could be had on this work applicable to re-architecting the nuances of a social system to better position itself between problem context and solution context. One of our biggest issues in the world right now is the lack of alignment between the problems we have in the world versus the solutions our social system is seeking as a system in and of itself. A healthy relationship, and any healthy family or social system, is hyper-focused on the positioning between problem and solution spaces, their alignment and corrective frameworks surrounding. This requires however a level of sophistication that most relationships, families and social systems really struggle to appraise the significance of. By raising individual awareness and reaching our potential in at least our own relationship with ourselves, we become the answer to the meta-crisis that it speaks of in terms of a natural alignment being forged from people fulfilling all of their consciousness developmental goals. Most First World countries operate on the assumption that they are already solving the problem of potential by offering an incentive structure towards education through materialism and social hierarchy when the fine-print is that its only through the lens of a democracy run by economic and cultural capitalism that actively undermines that sub-goal. Capacity for the pursuit of potential in this framework, is through the space that exists between an individual and its society, and their ability to leverage it, rather than always their direct participation and attachment to its structures. This is the extra overarching meta-problem, and its relational. There is nothing wrong with the symbologic nature of a given "society", and it'll persist for several hundred if not thousands more years. There is everything wrong with how a human in our present society, whom starts out as an individual, is corrupted from birth till the end of their maturity, where their brain now operates only as a predictable algorithm computable by controlled social engineering from western civilisation. Our society, promising all parents of their children a loving family, ending instead in a narcissistic relationship an NPC (the parents child) needs to see a 'psychologist' over to point out the narcissist and have the courage to leave the relationship or at the very least, set new boundaries. Although that's often the case as well, concerning the child's relationship with their parents or family, so many get the double to triple whammy there! Human consciousness from a materialistic perspective has a very visceral problem-solution-relationship space that one should try and make very active in their learning mind in terms of their own solution to life and existence as a way of maturing their sense of personal agency in this world and any future problem of consciousness within it. This is especially important when it is so easy to get dragged into negational social spaces blind to this operative mechanism and how lack of awareness over this relationship is hindering their consciousness development; Reddit, twitter, YouTube, this forum, almost all social media spaces are abundant with obvious red flags and others, widespread honey traps. This "problem-solution-relationship-space" is a sub-problem of consciousness that if you learn to align in the right way, you solve several other problems surrounding the agency of your consciousness. For the reader, take in the work here of Dan Koe, its not the limits by any stretch, but its a very grounding beginner-intermediate foundation beneficial to any growth thereafter. Take your time to introspect on any other nuanced relationships, problems or understandings on civilisation, self and world you can personally come up with by introspecting on his work.

@Breakingthewall You're at the perfect time to start deepening your understanding of ontology, epistemology and their relationship to the growth of your worldviews. Best wishes!