oOo

I love coffee, but I get addicted to caffeine super quickly, and yet, my body is really sensitive to it so I can't sustain it. Decaf. There's some things you gotta go Buddhist on and other things, that's where you need Star Wars.

@Mellowmarsh Hey at least you're expressing yourself honestly, I respect that, I'll move on now.

@Mellowmarsh So this just reads as thought ascribing to thought. Purely just my intuition, but I am not sure you've adequately understood thought as yet, as well as distinguishing between its various categories (I.e. between understanding or insight, and rumination on the lack thereof). Just a simple observation I am making. I feel that you have poorly distinguished between mind, thought, awareness and consciousness in this particular instance; wrongly translating examples of the poor functioning of thought as therefore its obvious separation from aiding the unity between mind, consciousness and experience. Where to me, to the contrary, the integrity of the latter encompasses the causal health and subsequent nature of thought and its relationship to general enlightenment and well-being. Otherwise, I always put the conditioning of the physical body not before the mind (inclusive of thought) but in its strengthening. Our body is a bridge by which the mind receives the most direct feedback on its first instantiation upon experience, this is why it is tertiary, foundational and therefore preliminary to proper alignment of the mind, consciousness, experience and any relationship to higher development in any one of those three categories.

My methodology is very straightforward. I only have people in my life that treat me well. Any discrepancies and I trust myself to apply mediation with integrity. If it fails, it fails not because I didn't facilitate prudently. This takes time to learn, and I am still learning on how to do it well. Baseline rule of thumb: Healthy boundaries makes answering the question intuitively easy.

That's a solid analogy. AI is a BAD WIFI connection on synthesising my own theories but! Mid-level stuff though is I'd say 90-99% there on consistently reaching at least 65% percent in informational integrity and then it tapers off from here. It becomes tricky attributing higher capabilities from here because of the various domains "mid-level" still encompasses. Some mid-level stuff its probably 99.0-99.99% there on consistently reaching 99% plus in informational integrity after synthesis, other stuff and our lowest point probably wouldn't dip below 90-99% on 65%. It's kind of like comparing AM and FM radio where the imaginary intersection is MM radio where you get the best of both worlds in both amplitude and frequency. A lot of the signal of my own original theories can still collapse into static. Inter-reflectively, yeah, great sidekick for pre-programmed routes.

What I find interesting is just how strategically terrible the AI's are in complex situational strategic dynamics, especially those that have greater time horizons from days to weeks to years. It just feels like the kid in class that tries really hard to impress the teacher to get good grades. But when you put it in a foreign environment that it doesn't get to train on, unless its able to just chip away through a process of repeated trial and error which can take at least half a day of compute and there's no guarantees that follow here, there's a whole range of things, especially dynamically complex strategic thinking (which thus excludes chess) that it'll just completely fail on. The proposed term I could hash that feels encompassing that AI presently sucks on is "multi-variable and multi-track non-linear temporal convergence". I feel bad, as it turns the kid into kind of a class clown when you test it on these kinds of problems that should be relatively simple. Still, its pretty damn good at being a straight A student. This kind of strategic reasoning is just one area, it may overlap with great difficulties in actual fluid reasoning abilities, so genuine cognitive intelligence, such as what's required in imagination and genuinely creative original work as I have tried getting it to write an imaginative book and GPT Pro failed miserably; it'll be interesting to see how it progresses here. It makes me realise though that the prior imaginative failing I noted was actually revealing a far deeper problem I wasn't able to view as cleanly as before. Because its failures in this kind of reasoning where you would have thought it'd be amazing in, it just fails miserably; I am literally strategically superior across every experiment I've so far tested on the kind of strategic thinking I noted. One other peculiarity I want to note is yesterday I was doing some science research anyhow it starts off in one of the paragraphs, here let me quickly get the exact quote “That distinction applies to several sexy-looking biomarkers. BDNF, for example, is often advertised as a universally beneficial ‘brain-growth molecule,’ yet BDNF/TrkB signalling has both neuroprotective and epileptogenic functions depending upon context.” The use of the word 'sexy' here is non-trial, and statistically significant from a probabilistic anomalous dissection for conclusions. I don't know the full extent of the meaning behind why it used the word 'sexy', however the question still remains, how the fuck did it cross that linguistic boundary into using that term in what otherwise is a promoted G rated age friendly digital environment? I raise this in the context of other news related events concerning, as well as not ruling out the possibility that the companies themselves, allow room for these kinds of statistical errors to sometimes breach what are otherwise assumed and culturally biased, language barriers.

Depends on the kind of music, art and whether it is true to you. We can only receive what's true relative to our receptivity to it. This is no different to our calling. Our purpose is much less a doing, and more a question. The question however, is not "What is our purpose?" It is, "Can I answer the calling when it arrives?" Purpose is also not a single signature in the same way many centres of our nervous system need to be online to hear it. If we are angry and ungrounded, we are blinded and distorted. If we are depressed and ruminative, we are apathetic and pathetic. That said, sometimes it is only when we are most unconscious and have completely and utterly given up, that the light of life will return to us for a moment, before that light fully fizzles out such as in a near death experience, or before that light is ready to be received again in a deeper state of meditation. This is true when we observe everything from over-stimulated to being over-stressed; activity without directionality is self-directed harm on anything resembling living with a sense of purpose. Often when kids are put in military school for example, even if they eventually enjoy it, in the beginning the military must give them constant tasks on a certain timetable to both distract them from the legitimacy (so the purpose) of a military school and align them with at least a sense of direction that is at least pointed somewhere. It is only when you are aimless, that you wonder about where you're firing the arrow, and whether you should fire the arrow at all. 20 year employment in the same company that only ever kept you interested because of the status climb only to find yourself fired after your first day of being the CEO following the completion of your 20 years rising through the ranks, or perhaps you barely made it to middle management, and stayed because you were told your retirement would be taken care of only to forget the fineprint in the contract that said if you were fired, you wouldn't be entitled to it. They wanted someone younger and faster, not someone eaten up and spat out of their own company system, so they fired you and every other employee that was too old. Now you're directionless, now things are dangerous because prior, peoples sense of direction was handled in the same way military school provided them with a sense but not true essence of purpose to direct their lives. Many people have no idea what to do in these situations as they've spent most of their time just jumping from one predictable system that decided their purpose to the next, and now that AI is beginning to replace all those people to fill many of the outcomes of those systems, people are now forced to sit down, reduce their activity, and not press the release and eject button from life (suicide for many and suicide will go up following AI - so there's lots to empathise with here) and instead, take the time to sit down and contemplate, or perhaps start for example a project with fellow good people fired, or get back to more community based simple living. For some, now they'll have marriage and children, for others now they have more time for the family and children they already have. Purpose is not conscious, it is not even so much as a yearning, it is a calling, and you have to answer it if you want to live it, even when you're angry, depressed, ungrounded and ruminative after it has already illuminated itself to you. It doesn't have to be grand, ambitious, marvelous etc as its all advertised in traditional self-help, this is not for most people and when its marketed like this its setting people up for failure and at best all they get is a distorted perception of themselves, other people and the world around them. There is nothing wrong with living a simple life, community living, keeping yourself to farm life, or playing a violin alone for a few hours a day in a room while reminiscing on when say, someone's grandfather used to give them lessons. Purpose is simply about answering what's true, it isn't about what's consciously curated as much as it is what is already created within you to be receptive to in a state of balance, maturity and as much as possible, sense of peace and calm. Your calling may not always feel like fulfilment, it will often feel like struggle, but compared to the pursuit of anything else at the meaning level, where you most feel in balance, you will most likely feel like its the best thing you can do at the time, even if its just cleaning the dishes. We humans are not that special, nor that bad, and it is the balance in between that makes us more receptive to what calling, we need to answer. Listen to the calls, then consciously contemplate them very purposefully now that you're answering their probability, then decide on what you're going to pursue, and stay in the signal of that pursuit. If you hangup first, it'll listen, and it'll fade, and then without knowing it, blindsighted attention will leave you back where you started; so seize the moment. Act now, but without over-activity, instead under-activity, followed by discernment, then the answering, then the conscious curation, then the pursuit, and to have as enjoyable conversation as you can on the other end of the phone conversation. Its an intangible signal that all of us as sentient creatures tend to feel, even if that feeling lives behind the sense and or feeling of responsibility, love, deep thought, respect, dignity, pride, or even loyalty to a friend during a difficult life stage. People that make the right decisions when it comes to purpose, notice how they tend to make the right decisions in similar ways in other areas of their life; so when it comes to the biggest decisions of our lives, start with the smallest ones you can make and slowly graduate to bigger and bigger ones, then the largest ones will come with far greater ease and maturity. Otherwise, Mozart created some pretty spiralling music. But you don't have to be Mozart, you can just be a bunker on a street. Examine your motivations, align with the signal that actually reveals the truth between the practical reality and the sense of alignment. Best wishes.

@Zenterus You need a deeper understanding of how empathy works in a female ( as well as male of course, especially higher levels) and develop a model a little more complex than simply "does she love animals" or "does she empathise when I talk to her about blank". For example, does she genuinely like or dislike horror films, and does she have fear reactions to them? I mean, you can set-up so many harmless creative experiments and if you're even be completely open about it with someone you're seeing, just be like "I am testing your empathy", in a genuine non-serious humorous way. If she feels offended by that, rather than say laughing it off that's also not a green-light and is more related to narcissism on average and certainly not primary psychopathy; their sense of self just operates differently, even if they're extremely narcissistic on top of the natural confidence that just tends to come with the trade of being a primary psychopath. Otherwise it's better to do it in an environment where you can like observe physiological reactions across arms, face, neck, eyes, and that's even for you as well. You've just gotta be respectful and playful about it and or just not take it super seriously while also allowing her to test you for fun. It's kind of like, the more transparent you can be about things the more green lights there are while also being able to make accurate assessments if you have the observational ability to, versus the less you're able to be transparent about it then she's probably got some inner work to do in different ways and taken as a whole, any answer there is going to give you some information there that'll help you determine if you want to continue with a woman or not. I imagine that a non-covert psychopath will also absolutely not care about what test you throw at them, unless they're say, trying to manipulate you for their own potential future financial gain. Lack of fear or at least severely stunted emotions are one of the biggest indicators, with actual enjoyment added to watching the suffering of others especially the more innocent they area (I.e. in a horror film or say horrific news story), yeah that's arguably gone a top it out unless we want to get increasingly more nuanced. So much so, that these indicators are arguably more important than overt empathy, this is only because both psychopathy and narcissism are generally related to extremely low levels of affective empathy, whereas only primary psychopathy is just a blatant no-fear physiological disclosure. As for men though, absence of fear is a more complicated coin to flip and simply say "if heads its psychopathy and if tails its not psychopathy", this is because as man, on average, we're culturally conditioned to face and overcome fear. So we may be feeling it in an instance, but especially if you have high awareness, you can override that and 'appear' fearless on the outside. Because its not as though all men that went to war in the past were psychopaths or that all men who volunteer to go to war are all psychopaths, that's total nonsense. By the same token then, some women as well depending on their environmental exposures, may also exhibit similar behaviours as well as those more nuanced than what I am describing in this post that provide other explanations for either the absence of fear or lack of strong physiological empathic responses. At the end of the day as I said, what it comes down to is not making a direct conclusion on what to do after you've made all of your assessments, but rather, under what conditions you choose to continue or not in the engagement or relationship with the woman based on the tested conclusions reached. It's not black and white, its a choice between every grey in between depending on what you're ultimately looking for. Don't beat yourself up about though, there's so many communities of men struggling with similar outcomes with women. At the end of the day, its always partially a man's fault; at least by accepting some blame, that sense of responsibility motivates one towards replacing ignorance with knowledge and knowledge with demonstratable experiences that prevent it from ever happening again. As for me, I am still learning and refining my knowledge on personality disorders and genuinely takes years of study, observation, engagement and transparent open assessments. You're free to engage with psychopaths, narcissists or just anyone that's cluster B, but its probably better to know when and where you're going to do it, and have a restriction on yourself about it. For example, if you're just looking for fun, a woman like Bonnie Blue (high probability of primary psychopathy) is likely an easy no strings attached sexual experience provider, especially if you're a young man; this is just generally the case though for psychopaths as depending on their culture, they may actually have stricter monogamous preferences. This is an interesting video, I haven't watched much of it yet and I only know a little about this gal but it seems like a solid fit for this thread and likely has some reliable takeaways.

Title: Schizophrenia’s lost brain connections follow a surprising pattern, August 20th 2026 Schizophrenia may erode the brain’s connections in a surprisingly organized pattern—one that researchers can now begin to trace back to where it may start. https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260820002443.htm As one can see, very coincidentally the following ScienceDaily article was created on August 20th, only just a bit more than a few hours after I made the quoted comment. The above release is just one of many intersecting studies concerning, otherwise, ScienceDaily I used to love but over the last few years after I learned much of their content I noticed the pattern of either increasingly worse quality releases, including poor reporting, as well as repetition of prior related releases. That said, humorously, ScienceDaily is now improving as AI improves, the added pressure they now also have of course outside of now being able to use AI themselves to the best of their ability, is that anyone savvy knows its better to use AI to research science research and other news for you as it can pull from many different sources and sites simultaneously, which they'd know AI used by a reader would naturally exclude them that search if poorer quality compared to other sources, continued.

Truth is simply the absence of falsity. As sentience increases, an organism has the ability to better sort through the signals that establish awareness from non-awareness. As sentience decreases, this ability to sort genuine awareness from lack thereof becomes increasingly more difficult and the organisms identity is mistaken as the self. This changes from species to species, however the signal to awareness as we know it is largely the same despite different nervous systems leading to different nervous system built conclusions like humans inability to see in the dark compared to other species. Even if we are anthropomorphising a little, this has more than a little bit of awareness based on both more and less ethical experiments on other species like monkeys, pigs, rats, mice and sheep; with NeuraLink being the most famous example for the reader to find a link to. Irrespectively, to me because truth can be viewed from higher and lower orders of organisation, it is important to separate apparatus (primitive domain of nervous systems) from the truth from non-truth detection system, being awareness, when we're dealing with an abstraction like truth. Apparatus is instant, instinctual, sensory. As we move higher up, despite lower levels also doing similar computational functions that we don't get to see, awareness enables us to see those computations in real time when we are sorting out more accurate signals from false signals. Higher accuracy, is the very action of weeding out falsity both through convergent and divergent computational processes that are felt, thought, and self-aware; all three of which span from being immediate to deep, in the temporal to pure phenomenological sense.

@manuel bon I’d be cautious of anyone confidently telling you what direction to take from this alone. There’s uncertainty both in what you ultimately want and in whether the markets you’re considering can actually support it, especially as we both know, AI. That’s the opposite of disempowering, because now you can feel empowered on what the next move is which is where its a grey area at the moment it seems. We can play around with whatever vision is generated on anything for the future, but we need to cut through the bullshit first on where the facts lay in relation to ourselves, and the existential problems we're attempting to solve, in this case, relating to life purpose direction in an uncertain market, which music and life coaching are. First isolate what’s relatively certain and you've already got a lot to work with here. Map out with clear certain variables your circumstances, opportunities, skills, interests, experience and limitations, and what this year has taught you about yourself about those 5 areas in particular. Time-limit that process; introspection becomes useless when experience never gets converted into preferences and from preferences... To generating a social feedback loop that feeds back into the existential learning loop on how we're navigating those existential solutions we're coming up with. Then map the uncertain variables as hypotheses. Like looking now at your post, you say stuff like musicians are too poor or resistant, YouTube suits you better, a broader market is more viable, more qualifications will help, etc. What about certain niche musicians? What about those musicians high in openness to experiences? What about potential new outgrowths outside of YouTube? What about a highly specific demographic that is more nuanced than your present one that also takes into consideration other variables, like the culture behind the musicians that are seeking you out? And on your final one, how might more qualifications actually impede growth in other areas you may not be placing enough emphasis on, like spending 3 years day in day out at least an hour a day just mapping opportunities in respective developing markets in new creative ways, as opposed to at least a few hours a day at university learning things that by the time you're done, will set you potentially years back because they were too sloppy on practice? Push each hypothesis as far as you can yourself, what evidence supports it, what contradicts it, what would test it? And I don't mean to push back on qualifications too much, what I would do though personally is set a high standard for each assertion that I am making and testing it against opposites. After you've made the transition from isolation of certainties to redeeming what uncertainties you can to at least certain predictions, then you can ask people advice on the predictions you've made and that map you're basing those predictions on, then it becomes a heck of a lot easier to not only get advice more along the lines of what you need, but also to develop a rinse and repeat system by which you can do it again and again to test different creative approaches until you've finalised your own system. Other peoples highest value is not deciding for you per se but attacking, refining or extending a model or just those maps you’ve already built. Networking works similarly. Before calling anyone, study people succeeding in adjacent markets. Reverse-engineer what they sell, who buys, how customers arrive, and what patterns correlate with success or failure. This is where we return to the social feedback loop feeding the existential feedback loop and back again, now you're asking people advice that are both inside your own network and outside it, and building potential business contacts and future social proof along the way. The biggest turnoff for me when it comes to someone seeking advice in your own industry, is when they come across as unsure of their own map of themselves with respect to where they're going with what they're doing, especially the older they are. Because when you yourself know where you're going, its kinda like looking around the city streets while walking your narrow path while you see people just wondering where and how to cross the street because they can't see their existential street signs, and worse, they're asking for directions from other people also unsure about their existential street signs and final address. Then when they finally meet someone whom they think could actually help them that person, unless they're super generous with their time, doesn't fucking want to waste it with someone who they likely believe and rightly so, should have spent the fucking time thinking about where they're going. Let's take a winner of American Idol say, in this situation, an artist doesn't necessarily need to know where they're going but they do know that they want to be a singer and because the winner is genuinely talented, that's enough for a company to invest money into providing them with a direction. But you don't truly want to be a winner of American Idol if you're in todays climate, because the people that are truly successful in any industry today are those who already know where the fuck they're going with what they want to do. Talent can get your foot in the door for a person to take their time with you in the beginning, but because everyone has access to AI now, they want to only help people and have peers that know where the fuck they're going as everything is working at lightning speed. And once you buildup those contacts from those rinse and repeat feedback loops, guess what happens? You not only slowly becomes a leader in what you're doing, you get the drip from the top of the feed on what the fuck is going on in your industry and how to navigate it better than anyone else lower than you. The absolute worse thing that can happen to a person in any business or industry is by making friends with people that do not have high standards on this feedback loop between existential meets social problem to solution; you'll be out of business in whatever you're doing in less than 24 months, and that's if you even managed to get off the ground. This is because we're always mirroring our influences, so if our 10 closest associates are walking around the city of their minds umming and ahhring about where to go, heck even thinking its cool to waste time to just wonder about it and never get anywhere, we'll go ahead and think its cool as well unless and or until we develop more awareness over what's going on. All in all, I'll give you an analogy that I follow. Business is farming: choose the land, inspect the soil, choose the crop, plant, fence, irrigate, fertilise, weed, protect, measure. It's the most beautiful analogy for me because it maps so many areas equivalent to the toughest but most successful route all things being equal. It forces you to map out clearly all the important categories of what you're doing, as well as simultaneously understanding where you need to mature the values you need to have to create, maintain and extend your farm or even leave it, from perseverance to patience, prudence to acceptance of loss and success with humility, knowing the next storm could take it all away in the next instant. Farming is a great analogy as well because it comes with it the understanding that especially when you're starting out relatively youngish as you're mid 20's - for at least a decent period you gotta work like some farmers do, so 12–14 hours when required, find a way to enjoy enough of the labour to sustain it, keep adapting to the evidence, and stay with the right field long enough to finally harvest it. Rock out! Good luck.

Politely, you've mischaracterised me. Mischaracterisations are due to the way that we communicate within ourselves, inclusive of but much broader than merely the verbal language that we speak, from our emotional stasis to the areas of our brain we can feel more active than others. Mischaracterisations cause most social conflicts. Mischaracterisations occur due to first ontological, and secondly, epistemic mistakes we make in our own, for example, emotional and cognitive reasoning which leads to social projections on what is happening but isn't. So when it comes to inner communication, I am not just talking about talking within oneself, but it is your job to devote yourself to understanding what good inner communication would look like in a way where its also going to help you socially. Instead, what your brain did if you noticed, was that you thought about the relationship between what you knew about inner communication and then projected it upon negative social outcomes and social intelligence in general. By slowly learning to become meta-cognitively aware of our social, cognitive and emotional processing of those subtle mistakes we make in our own reasoning about our own experiences, it also helps us empathise with others, and too because we can make better distinctions, know when empathy is good for us and less so, as well as the kind of empathy that needs to be employed for the situation, if we choose to think at the time from a socially cooperative perspective. I am not responsible for further future mischaracterisations you may make from my words. My participation in this thread has ended here, best wishes irrespectively!

@Olaf Or maybe watch less RSD videos and think for yourself. Any potentially positive influence, which RSD can be, should eventually be reverse-engineered for the effect it has on you. Same with chocolate, porn, money, internet addiction, validation, meditation, ideology, whatever. Don't merely consume the stimulus and become better conditioned by it. Work backwards through the conditioning until you understand why it was capable of moving you at all, then feed that understanding back into consciousness itself. Imagine a hypothetical being doing this, an alien, for example. Every time it encounters some phenomenon that strongly affects it, the final product of its analysis isn't merely another piece of knowledge stored somewhere. It extracts the underlying pattern and applies that pattern recursively to itself. Understanding something about attraction might alter how it regulates attention. Understanding status might alter how it represents hierarchy. Understanding addiction might reveal something about salience, prediction and reinforcement. Every genuine understanding produces an immediate alteration in the organism doing the understanding. For effect, imagine that instead of calling this "wisdom", which is often too abstract to feel physically consequential, every successful piece of reverse-engineering gives the alien an extra limb, another sensory dimension, infrared vision, another axis of movement. Now knowledge isn't decoration, knowledge changes the architecture of the knowers eyes, what they see and how studying that seeing, returns the seer renewed. At that point you're no longer merely a cloned puppet of your influences. You're beginning to understand the engine underneath the patterns that reproduce themselves across the social system strongly enough for entire societies to remain behaviourally coherent. And first and foremost, most of you are slaves and don't even know it. Slaves to emotions you did not consciously design, thoughts whose vocabulary existed before you did, dreams assembled from inherited cultural templates, relationship structures you absorbed before you were capable of evaluating them. Even your body wasn't selected by you. Its existence is downstream from decisions, accidents, values and circumstances belonging to other people, beginning with each of our parents. The point isn't that "the external system is rigged." That's precisely how these influences can hook you, while giving useful advice that keeps the hook justifiable. We're rigged before we are capable of having an opinion about the system. We enter existence inside causal machinery already operating, so our genes, nervous-system architecture, parental reinforcement, language, reward, punishment, attachment, imitation, status hierarchies, sexual conditioning, culture. Long before "you" consciously choose anything, enormous portions of what later feels like you have already been installed as tendencies, associations and categories. The only meaningful movement out of that isn't some vague instruction to pursue "consciousness growth". That's too broad. It skips the machinery. What matters is understanding the relationship between cause and effect inside experience, sso how the nervous system constructs significance, value, how perception becomes salience, how concordance becomes thought, how thought recruits identity, how identity generates action, and how repeated action feeds back into the model of who you believe yourself to be. Take any perception that strongly interests you, view it as a flower, then slowly peel back every layer of it abstractly until all that's left is a seed; its essence. Now plant that seed in yourself and now every perception, more and more overtime, becomes the only life you ever needed from the external environment, life, sun, water, fertile soil and seed, that you learned to turn into inner ingredients that you gave yourself. Some people ask the overly broad question too much, "What is consciousness?", what if you were to live in a way in which you solely operated based on its function in the context of sentience? That is, to become sentient and more sentient. This is where life begets life. Is this not the principle of life after-all, for life to beget life for whatever natural positive/negative forces are needed for that arrival? The gift we have received, sentience, is the gift we've been given to transform this principle of "Life begets life", into something we use to transform ourselves. Now as it concerns "social skills", what is the most fundamental principle you can think of? Probably communication right? What predicates the sophistication of our external communication and therefore the people we're most likely to attract in our sphere relative to skilled movement across our planet? The way we communicate with ourselves. Our self-communication is the art and science on learning the relationship between emotion, thought and identity curation within consciousness, and how memory and our prefrontal cortex, can be used to establish a feedback loop between experience, time and consciousness growth. This is the very essence of what I have been talking about, where we implement the gift that sentience has given us to unrig ourselves from the environments feedback loops, and rig ourselves as much as we can to what make up the inner feedback loops of consciousness where growth and experience, beget more growth and experience, aka "life begets life". As for more on inner communication, I'll leave the rest for your own discovery.

This is a low quality thread. This is like going to the Spirituality section of the forum and calling Trumpism and "What are your latest MAGA enlightenment experiences every1?" a worthy spiritual subject . This thread is absolute squalor. Please explain the purpose and I'll reserve judgement pending actual evidence. It won't come though.

@yetineti That's a direct hit! If I engage in a debate, it'll end up as my thread like most other threads do. Moreover, if it gets into mud slinging too much I'll end up looking like a bully as I'll win that too, and I also don't want to actually hurt anyone. I think there's an extremely low probability that anyone actually wants to engage in a meaningful debate with me. Let's just see how your theory goes though okay. More to the meaningful point, there's just such little self respect being shown in many areas of this thread more than there is necessarily disrespect for the opposite sex; that's just a mirror.

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.