Scholar

I'm still in this state. It's a bit annoying in some ways because it's harder to be creative. It almost feels like Anhedonia, how I felt after I took LSD. Time passes very slowly, I am completely immersed in the moment, but there is little motivation inside me to actually do anything. It feels a little bit like I am in the backseat of experience, watching everything neutrally. And I also have like, 1 thought per 30 seconds, my mind is incredibly still.

Anyone can enjoy breathing fresh air, and breathing in general. In fact, you just have to not breath for 2 minutes and you'll appreciate it a lot. Consciousness is not about what you experience, but your depth of perception. Most people breath unconsciously all the time. It takes practice to reach a deep state of consciousness in sex as opposite to just normal sex. Also, notice that this is a completely abitrary notion. Why does something being difficult make it "higher consciousness"? Most parents love their children with ease, yet that is in no way "lowly" or "low consciousness". And if this was the case, as you have conveniently constructed for yourself, it would mean sex is actually an even greater higher consciousness activity, because it takes deeper states of awareness ot appreciate sex on deeper level than just the mere pleasure of it.

No, that's actually exactly what it means. No action can be qualitative in terms of consciousness. Your most basic and primal need is to breath, yet breathing can be an exercise to reach the deepest states of consciousness.

You can seek sex out of pleasure in a highly conscious state. Leo is also making money doing his videos. If he did not, he could not make such videos. You just repeated what you said before and then asserted that means porn in and of itself is Low Consciousness. But that doesn't make sense, it's a purely emotional statement. I can make highly conscious porn if i wanted to, which wold mean Porn in and of itself is not Low Consciousness. It is simple the current cultural context that makes most porn a product of lower consciousness states. Again I think you have a profound misunderstanding of what consciousness is. You keep attributing "low consciousness" to activities, even to procreation, as if consciousness was an action. It's a state of mind, and you perpetuate a certain confusion about the nature of consciousness by playing the game of consciousness supremacy. You are injecting your ethical views into your views of consciousness.

The problem with this idea is that activities are neither low or high consciosuness. Consciousness is a state of mind, a perception. You can have the highest consciousness and engage in any activity, including sex, and remain in that state of consciousness. It's just that by default, with unconscious minds, certain activities will generally lead to a narrowing or broadening of perception.

We get your point, it simply does not add anything to the conversation at hand.

Why do you have to be such an edgelord contrarian. You pretend like what we consider degenerate or not is completely arbitrary, just so you can make a point about the nature of reality. You make a thoughtless, spur in the moment statement and then you weasel yourself into selling it to us like some sort of gift from the heavens. If anything is degenerate it's that. What is most hilarious is that everyone takes it so seriously when it essence you are just trolling your own forum. "Oh but Leo, you are inconsistent here, look!" Guys, he literally doesn't give a shit. He says what he thinks at the time and then backward engineers it into wisdom. Just laugh at him and move on.

What is this nonsense lol. A bunch of whataboutism, which is not even relevant to anything because you can produce all of these things perfectly ethically. Not all cartoons have to be produced with sweatshop labor. And I doubt hentai and erotica are produced in unethical ways either. None of the things you mention make it low consciousness. You made the assertion that selling sex is fundamentally low consciousness, and now you are moving it to the unethical ways in which some porn is produced. You can make some arguments for why most porn is low consciousness, like most food is low consciousness. Sex itself is not in some essential way low consciousness, nor is selling art that contains or centers around sex. Rejecting an entire fascet of humanity is what I would call low consciousness. Also: The most low consciousness thing possible is selling the Wisdom of God on a Youtube channel and making money with it. That's like the olympian medal of perversion and distortion of Truth. I mean, just consider: All the trillions of beings who had to be eaten alive, tortured, raped just so you could sit on the internet and make your videos about God! Degenerate!

To me the fear is very much associated with things I know about Derealization/Depersonalization/Dark Night of the Soul. I immediately have thoughts of getting stuck in that state like some people do, and just suffering and being unable to competely dissolve the ego.

Religion is a symptom of a far deeper problem that plagues all human beings: Ignorance. Ridding the world of all religions will not rid the world of ignorance. Ridding the world of ignorance will rid the world of all religions.

The ideological tenants of both Islam and Christianity have ingrained in them various forms of irrational discrminatory attitudes. The degree to which this will manifest in a group of religious believers is how seriously they take their religion. But don't be confused, even moderate Christians and Muslims perpetuate highly discriminatory attitudes, mostly in regards to things society largely still holds biases against. And in many cases these biases stem from historical religious dogma in the first place.

I'd say it is a mixture of both, but I enjoy reinventing the wheel in many ways. I'm a very independent thinker, I enjoy thinking, enjoy exploring ideas, checking things for consistencies, finding holes in perspectives, etc. In general I probably am more so thinking for myself, simply because I enjoy the process more, even if it might be less efficient overall. It's a trick question. It's always best if you have a thorough understanding of the common positions first. For example if you want to master a certain skill, learn the fundamentals first and then explore your own kind of ways of looking at things. For things like ethics it is a bit of a longer process. You should strive to understand yourself as well as possible and be clear about any biases you have. Challenging a norm requires you to understand why that norm is held and the reasons why society holds onto it. When you go contrary to a position that is commonly held you need to do your homework and have a thorough understanding of it, and seek out limitations to your own perspective. But in the end it's all difficult to put into words. You have to strive for truth, refine your intuitions, make predictions and test them, and so forth. Self deception is the biggest enemy here, but I'm pretty sure Leo made some indepth videos about this.

You are pointing to something important, and in essence why ideology exists in societies. Most people lack the capacities or skills to navigate the uncertain epistemic and moral landscape that would need to be navigated if you were to fully decouple yourself from contemporary ideologies. Ideologies serve a few functions in human society, but mostly: They give individuals something they can orient themselves towards (a value hierarchy), a shared understnading of the world. The more you decouple yourself from society, you will notice the more challenging it becomes to orient yourself towards something and to navigate the world in general. Morality is an easy example: It is much easier to just real a religious text and be given instructions for what is important in life and how to achieve it, rather than work from first principles and rational consistency. People are highly biased and lack reasoning skills, so if you give them "free reign" in regards to their orientation in life, many of them will mess it up terribly. Often they will not improve on the ideology, and rather just embrace more and more of their own biases, until they are so lost they will become highly susceptible to be captured by a new ideology. And in the end it's just easier to go along with whatever society has prepared for you in terms of ideology. You will be in line with most people and therefore reduce social friction, and you will not run risk of stumbling into a dangerous aspect of the unknown. That is what you do when you let go of societal ideology. You open yourself to the unknown, and traversing the unknown is very dangerous. It requires significant sophistication to be able to do that on your own, the further you venture, the more difficult and dangerous it becomes. In the end, exploring the unknown is a collective process. A lot of people have already thought about many of the things you will come to conclude to yourself, so it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel.

I don't think limitations in regards to how the physical universe behaves will exist the way you think of them right now. Reality is fundamentally infinite. There is no fully understanding it, unless you yourself are infinity.

Limitations are necessary for existence. But to you it will appear limitless. Your mind right now is too limited to even fathom the limitations of future minds. Understanding the physical nature of the universe will not be one of them.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by macroscopic levels of rationality? What is the process of abstraction and how do you define rationality? Do you recognize rationality as a form of existence?

At some point we will transcend our biological limitations. Understanding the universe will be a non-issue. Our concern will be about exploring infinity.

They are examples for things that contrast rationality, namely things that construct function through evolutionary selection within a field of complexity. It demonstrates the limits of rationality, because linearlistic processing could never arrive at functions that require the level of complexity necessary to achieve something like visualization or replicating the relationships of a language. LLMs are precisely not the result of human rationality, that is why they are so good at what they are doing. They are only a result of human rationality insofar as humans having constructed the conditions necessarily for evolution to allow the functions they sought to emerge through selective emergence. The researchers of AI have no idea what they are doing, most of them are highly specialized baffoons.

You should re-read my post because you seem to have misunderstood. I never made the claim that LLMs are rational. They are fundamentally intuitive, that was the whole point my post. Rationality is a function of individuated consciousness.

Large Language Models are a perfect example of the limits of rationality, and so is evolution. The most significant limitation of rationality are actually it's metaphysical limitations. Rationality is a particular form of existence, namely concepts-symbols and their relatively simple relationships to each other. Rationality is fundamentally linearlistic and linguistic and that comes with obvious limitations as far as Creation goes. A rational mind can create a complicated machine. Machines, like computers, are a perfect example of how rationality functions and how it constructs functionality. Namely, each component in a machine relates to another component, but usually how many relationships each component has to each other is very limited. It works more like A -> B -> C -> D, in a very complicated way. That is in essence what processing is. If you compare this to a complex system like the human body, you will notice that each cell is in relationship to every other cell. Everything inherently affects everything else. A rational mind could not possibly arrive at a system of such complexity because its' linearlistic nature is too limited to take into account the amount of relationships you would need to hold in a given space (consciousness) to recognize it's functionality. In fact, sufficiently complex systems are not only impossible to construct within a rational space, they are also virtually impossible to understand and grasp. Even if scientists would understand the function of every single molecule in the human body they would not be able to predict the holistic motion of the body, simply because the functions as they relate to each other create such high complexity that new, metafunctions would emerge that would be impossible to predict via a linearlistic framework. A rational mind has to basically process any complex problem by putting it into a linear language that it can grasp and process. In essence, this is an attempt to translate complexity into complicatedness. "Part A does X, therefore if Part B does Y the resulting interaction will be Z." There will be no rational mind that will ever truly "understand" what a Large Language Model does when it is constructing an image or intuiting the shape of our language and collective understanding. And no rational mind could have ever constructed a machine that would have achieved what a Large Language Model does. A neural network fundamentally achieves what a complicated program or machine cannot achieve in the same way, and that is the emergence of true complexity. A large language model is not understanding what an image is and how to create an image, and then recreating an image. No, what a large language model is, is a neural network that literally is the function of what it means to imagine an image. It doesn't need to understand itself or it's process, because it's very nature is the function itself. It literally became function, whereas rationality attempts to imitate or grasp functionality through linearlistic understanding. This hard limitation cannot be overcome because it is actually metaphysical. This is the same way evolution functions. We look at evolution and we think of how impossible it is that such complexity could exist. How could we possibly ever understand the human machine? But this is flawed thinking. The human body is not a machine, the human body is an organism. It is not imitating function, it literally is function. And the forces which allowed the complexity of the human body to emerge were not limited by linearlistic processing. The universe doesn't have to think in "If A, then B, then C.", because the universe in it's very nature is complexity. It is every single interaction and their infinite relations to each other. This is why, given the right conditions, it is utterly effortless for the universe to construct life from dead matter, to have it self construct itself in the oceans and eventually evolve into all the diversity we are seeing today. There was not a single rational thought put into any of it, and no rational mind could ever hope to imitate this kind of complexity. For that, it would require a creative mind, a mind that that can become Complexity itself. In other words, a mind that can Imagine. In the future, we will create a Non-Machine Machine, whose very hardware will be organic, meaning it's components will have truly complex relationships. Today's machines will seem like a simpletons invention in comparison. It will not be processing, it will be doing what the human brain does, in which billions of components relate to each other and create an emergent function. This will be simulated using computer processing, but the very nature of computer processing is linearlistic and laughably limited for the reasons explained above.

Because it can always get far worse than it currently is. There are no experts on psychedelics.

Be warned Leo: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1fumstj/ranton_recalls_his_miami_podcast_experience/ lol

The problem is that I only feel well when I do take iodine, but only for a period of time until the thyroid gets inflammed, which is most often a few days or a week until that occurs. The thyroid does need iodine to function. Do you take no iodine at all? To me it seems like levothyroxine does not completely replace what the thyroid is doing. I read that there is a problem with the balance between T3 and T4, or whatever, and the one levothyroxine replaces is not as effective as the secondary type the thyroid produces. And it seems to me like taking levothyroxine itself, especially at like 100mcg-1250mcg rate, has it's own side effects, like increased thirst and heat intolance, despite my blood not showing that I would have too much hormone.

"Poland is save" my ass. What is this insane propaganda. In poland hooligans chops each others hands off with machetes. Try walking around in most cities at night and you will feel anything but safe. Poland is an incredibly violent culture that is highly underdeveloped. They are highly dogmatic and religious. Sure, you won't get immigrants messing things up, but the polish people are more than sufficient to do that themselves.

Spiral Dynamics is just describing the path of least resistance as far as societal and individual evolution goes. Given that the limitations of Stage Yellow have not manifested yet, because Stage Yellow is in no way prevalent in society, we simply do not yet know what the "path of least reistance" is going to look like for the next evolutionary step. Remember, Spiral Dynamics is not some preset way of how human societies necessarily evolve. A society, albeit it probably is less likely, could evolve completely different. Rather than stage blue, it could have an entirely different system and therefore the entire evolutionary pathway will look different. This is just less likely to occur given that all societies are connected to each other, and given that certain pathways are just much more likely to occur.