Scholar

Took 20mcg of 1V-LSD, which was my first experience using psychedelics ever. In general, I am pretty sensitive to dopamine and all kinds of substances, like caffeine, alcohol, weed and so forth, and I also don't consume any of them other than in exceptional cases. I am also very sensitive to music. After an hour or so of taking 20mcg 1V-LSD I basically felt light, painless and a kind of inner apathy where I didn't care about anything. As time went on though, the effects were stronger than I expected with such a low dose (I basically was told microdosing LSD basically feels like drinking a cup of coffee). It was slightly above a microdose, which would be from around 10-15mcg. If I were to describe the peak intensity, which was from around 2 1/2 - 4 hours (around 3h is supposed to be when the peak occurs) I would say it was definitely on the level of getting high on weed. It wasn't really that subtle of an experience. Now to what I experienced: As described above, I felt light and had a certain inner apathy. I also did not feel pain or discomfort from for example sitting or laying in a position that otherwise would cause discomfort over a longer period of time. Overall, I felt my meta-cognition remained intact and unaltered, my conceptual and identity cognition was also unaltered from what I could tell. Around the peak I definitely felt a dopaminergic response, a tingling in my brain and a sort of body high I get when I listen to certain music or I write about metaphysics. This kind of tingle wasn't really unpleasant, but I evaluated it as unhealthy, as I relate that feeling to addictive types of behaviours. Considering that this seemed liked a dopaminergic response, some of the other phenomena I experienced seem to fall in line with that. I was very easily absorbed in experiences, and completely absorbed by the experience. I watches this for example: And I was able to fully immerse myself in the visuals. How I would describe it is that I the visuals were much more real than if I had watched it sober. Watching the shapes change and morph, I had a wholistic perception of the entirety of the visual information. In other words, my visual processing was definitely enhanced, which to me was the major benefit. The substance seems shift one to Right Brain Mode Activity in general, and there is an important insight I had about this that I think is worth sharing. The dose I used was very small, yet I perceived the differences in my consciousness to be significant. However, if I had been occupied by Left Brain Mode Activity, I don't think I would have really noticed the benefits of this substance. Linear conceptual processing was kind of subdued and felt sluggish, yet it was easy to kind of get overexcited by it. I have trained myself to notice the difference between R-Mode and L-Mode, which I think might be benefitial for guiding the experience with psychedelics. I do think if someone is not familiar with this distinction, and would be more occupied by L-Mode during the experience, they would not have noticed that much of an effect by the 20mcg I took. Due to the shift to R-Mode, I felt a sort of child-like impressionability. I watched an episode of a TV series to see how much I was immersed, and I definitely liked the amount of immersion the substance granted. It really showed me that I have to shift my mind much more to R-Mode during my regular life, because I am sort of dysfunctionally stuck in L-Mode all the time, as I have these tendencies in general (overthinking, conceptualization and so forth). The substanced allowed me to just be in the moment and absorbed by the moment, instead of kind of sitting in my head and observing the moment from the same frame. It was funny, because an episode of a shitty TV series I would otherwise not have enjoyed was pretty enjoyable because of this, simply because I was so in the experience. I had very deep and good sleep, sort of how it was for me more than a decade ago, which is due the elimination of constant L-Mode activity. The day after the trip I felt mentally drained and sleepy, and even two days after I took the substance and I still feel a major shift in R-Mode. I still am very focused, calm and can immerse myself in things easily. A few things I have kept note of for my future, proper trip are: - You can easily lose track of your initial intention because of how easily you get consumed by anything that you experience, it creates a type of attention-tunnel vision effect. For my proper trip, I will keep the intention loose so I don't have to worry too much about achieving some goal, and I also will keep a reminder around that can refocus me. - If I get into negative thinking due to L-Mode activation, I think I simply need to shift to R-Mode and immerse myself in the experience rather than analysis. - Setting and music make a huge difference, L-Mode activating music I suspect can lead to suffering during a proper trip. - L-Mode leads to hyperactivity and overexcitedness, therefore the mind can easily get caught up in analytic thought-patterns. Probably best to ground oneself in a R-Mode activity during the come-up of the trip. In general, I think L-Mode will lead to resistance in frustration and this substance is definitely more geared toward R-Mode activation. - Having people around can stimulate L-Mode due to wanting to communicate to them what is being experienced, and therefore can also lead to hyeractivity and oxerexcitedness.

Very good talk, once again!

The problem with you guys is that you think God is like, steering evolution through some sort of magical, direct intervention. This is actually an insult to God's intelligence. He doesn't have a need for these types of cheap tricks. You think he is so dumb he cannot construct a perfectly understandable system that will manifest his infinitude through perfectly understandable mechanisms?

Creativity = Free Will Will is the Function, and Free is the Freedom of exploration. So, the universe has a function, yet within it there are degrees of actual freedom, which is what randomness is. This way, the randomness, given enough time, will fulfill the function necessarily, and yet, explore all the possible things that are to be discovered within God's Infinity, given that particular bias. And that's the whole point of the universe. God want's to maximally come to know himself. And this is the process. This is how Infinity is explored, how things within infinity are manifested into any given physical system. And then, this is one of infinite universes, of course. You can apply this to the collective of universes as well, Free Will.

For now, I will simplify it for you guys like this, and I want you to then contemplate the significance of what is being said: Taken a physical system and manifesting atoms randomly: if you are manifesting those atoms in an actually random way, given infinite time, you will manifest every object that could physically exist, including all possible complexity and function. If the way the atoms manifested are not actually random, meaning, there is a bias to how they are manifested, you will not actually manifest all possible complexity and function. The more biased your system is, the less things will get explored, but the less time it will take to explore all those possible complexities within the bias constraints you have created. You should recognize this as a mathematiclal fact, and you need to understand how significant this fact is. The fundamental problem for Creativity is: You do not know the physical objects before they are manifested, so by which means will you possibly get an object that fits your function? You don't know even what the object should look like, let alone how to get there using the manifestation of atoms. Now, if you look at machine learning, we face the same problem: What does a neural pattern that can visualize images look like? How could we possibly even know that, given the complexity that is required for the ability to visualize images? It's impossible to intentionally design such a system, because it is impossible to use linear, logical thought to understand complex systems. It's simply not possible if the complexity is high enough. The only way you could possibly, and this is metaphysical, come to arrive at such complexity, is by selecting for function and giving the system certain freedom of exploration. Given the logic-structure of neurons, you can create an object that will fit your function (visualizing images), if you create the right parameters between free exploration and evolutionary-function selection. You limit the types of things that are explored within the given infinity (because it would take too much time to ever manifest these complexities that way), and bias them towards certain functions. Using this, you will eventually have a complexity emerging that will fit the function you have created. You will not understand that complexity, you will not even understand, truly, how the complexity emerged. Because it cannot be understood in linear terms. True Infinity can only be accessed through a complete lack of bias, which is what randomness is. It has no pattern in it, it will not choose anything for any reason, it is utterly and fully causal-less. That's how you access to infinity, and from infinity you gain all complexity possible, and all objects that could exist. And that's how creativity works, that's how you can basically come up with any idea that could possible exist. You don't construct them from the buttom up by somehow know how they are supposed to be constructed. If you think that's how it works, you don't understand creativity. It is by having a constraint (function constraint) and accessing infinity through freedom. This is the only possible way to arrive at such complexities, and if you contemplate this for long enough, you will realize why it is the case. I don't have time, nor really the motivation, to be hand-holding you guys through the contemplative process especially considering there is this much resistance, so if you are genuinely curious about this, I have faith that you will be able to use what I said and contemplate it in such a way where you will see exactly what I mean.

Sure but that doesn't really help you in any way. That's just a given. By you, you mean existence, and by happens, you mean existence, and by imagine, you mean existence. So, it exists because existences makes it exist. That just doesn't help us with anything. And by the way, you imagine it the same way, you just don't know it yet.

I hope you don't take my comments about being logical too much to heart. You do offer a lot of wisdom that even a mortal like me can appreciate! It could be that what I perceive as logical rigidity is simply your personality style, because of how formal you are in your communication. Anyways, if fate wills it we will be able to discuss the states of being you are referencing on another day, with me being able to relate more deeply to them. As of now, I neatly tuck it into my conceptualization of R-Mode cognition. One of the issues, in my eyes, is that especially written communication is basically entirely L-Mode. So, it is kind of useless to convey R-Mode type of states that way.

You reduce the possibilities through the control for function, which is achieved through the very structure of the universe. These people assume that the process is fully random, which it is not. Randomness is one necessary component for the emergence of functional complexities. But the system overall, much like machine learning, has designed into itself the selection for a certain bias. Now, in the universe, this selection is not as crude as human made evolutionary simulations. Rather, it happens as the result of the unity of physical and metaphysical relationships. You won't be able to point at the selection process, it will escape you, unless you grasp how the whole system operates as a unity.

That's very heartwarming to hear, I feel honored that you would come back and post on this forum to help me like that! For me personally it was a breakthrough in many ways, but it was not focused on spiritual awakening, my focus was mostly around my life purpose, which I actually achieved! I will focus more on spirituality in future trips, I don't feel like there is anything to rush. I hope you are not too disappointed by this, but maybe there will be an opportunity for that in the future. Either way, I am happy to see you back on the forum. I also wish you the best!

When interacting with you, I always get the sense you are very stuck in a particular type of logic, because of how unflexible you seem in your reactions. It does feel like interactions always lead to the same type of conclusion, which to me indicates that there is a certain logic pattern which is very persistent in you. You are always the same Forest to me, and our interactions tend to always take the same flow.

You are not actually explaining how this could evolve anything, or how it could result in machine learning. Why does machine learning work? What kind of pattern? How does the pattern make things change? You are just presupposing different patterns, but where do the new patterns come from? That's what you need to explain. My position gives explanatory power to evolution, machine learning and creativity and unifies all of them into a singular process. And the proof is in the pudding: Evolution uses time and randomness (mutation) to reach function, and machine learning does the same. And, creativity, works also the same, if you pay attention to it.

So, I took 1V-LSD 5 days ago, and half an hour ago I started to get weird visual phenomena happening in my field of vision. It was very subtle at first, as if I stared too long at something bright, then it stated increasing and I could kind of see it having a psychedelic, fractal type effect. It was like a fractal tear in my vision,it moved into the periphery of my vision, and now it seems mostly gone. It lasted for 15 minutes or so. Any of you guys know what this is about? It is a little worrying, and makes me question whether or not taking psychedelics is safe for me.

Well I already try to simplify it, I don't see where exactly people are having a hard time following what I am describing. To me it seems like people simply are not interested enough to genuinely read it and have sort of knee-jerk reactions to certain keywords I use. For example, I was asked a question, and clarified it, but then, there was no response to my clarification at all. Instead, a whole new argument was opened which is different from the intitial statements I was making. In the end, I will not be able to provide a mathematical proof, which if we get into the details is going to be required to logically justify what I am saying. Also, it is a little frustrating to argue with people who seemingly are not even understanding my point, and instead try to go into counter-argumentation before grasping what is even being said.

If you follow a set of rules, you will be restricted to whatever the outcome of that set of rules is. You would just, over and over again, get the same outcomes. The more degrees of freedom you have, the more potential for novel information there is. How could this not be the case? Patterns are necessarily stable, meaning the outcomes will also be stable. Animal cognition, and most of human cognition, does function this way. But there are some degrees of freedom, even in animal cognition, and more so in human cognition. My brain is getting foggy so I can't think as clearly any longer, I will have to illustrate the problem more clearly because I can see you guys don't understand the challenge you face in terms of creativity and creation, so you don't understand the relevance of the solution I have provided.

What is a pattern?

I want to clarify what I mean by that: He means true randomness does not exists as some sort of, actual physical process. My point is that, functional random noise can still exist. As long as it mathematically basically looks like noise, it will work, because what matters is what happens in the mathematical relationships of things, not in the physical processes or laws of nature. You could do this with dice rolling, which is not actually random, in a physical sense, but it would work all the same. It merely has be the equivalent of statistical noise, basically.

You are so stubborn. If you want to continue, give me your summary of what you think I am saying, and why I am saying the things I am saying. In the meantime, I will try to think of some sort of analogy or metaphor that will maybe illustrate the point I am making.

Because the way I described it is the only way you can pull something out of nothingness/infinity. I think you still don't quite understand the function randomness has in this. Randomness is the only way to actually completely explore or come into contact with infinity.

You can observe this in your own cognitive process. You generate genuine, novel ideas when not by actually somehow costructing them from the ground up, rather, you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea. That's tuning into the process I am describing, you tune into randomness, given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind, and somehow the idea is captured or crystalized once it "fits" your intention. This is what is happening. And the interesting thing will be, that we will be able to observe all of this in the brain. Because, infinity is accessed through the very principles of math itself. There is no magical source that somehow injects itself into the process. No, the mathematical process, or meta-process, is what the access to infinity looks like. We don't disagree about infinity, we disagree about the mechanism of manifestation, or creativity. It's a subtle, nuanced disagreement, but it makes all the difference. Which just means you don't understand what I am saying, but if you don't have clarifying questions I can't help you. I simplified my point there, by the way, so you could go back and read my posts where I explained it in depth.

I already described all of this, in fact I am described why it is necessary for Creation itself. I described to you the very nature of creation, creativity and evolution. Re-read my posts carefully, and maybe try to summarize what I said. You should definitely gather from my posts why exactly I think that randomness is necessary for Creativity. Kastrup is making a point about physicality. My point, really, would stand even if you could predict "noise", it wouldn't matter, as long as functionally the noise would lead to the exploration of all possibilities within an infinite system. But, actual randomness does exist. It is freedom, it is Free Will. Kastrup cannot fathom this possibility because he is a rationalist. In fact, the point is not even that you need to explore all possibilities within an infinite system, rather, the more you do explore, the more complexity you can pull out of it, while on the other hand it will take longer to actually pull those complexities out. (this is why evolution takes time) Leo disagrees with this because he is scared of physicalism, so anything that sounds like it he will reject. He has become very dualistic in that way. So, to simplify it, I say randomness exists because complexity exists. I claim without randomness, complexity could not possibly occur, because complexity is manifested through a random exploration of the infinite and an overarching selective process for function. I think that is what imagination, creativity, creation, is.

No, you are pretending you are not understanding what I am saying. Leo knows exactly what he means by random, he means exactly what I mean by random, that's why he disagrees with me. You are the one who is being dense here. Biologists also understand what randomness means. Kastrup also means what I mean by random, that's why he says it does not actually exist. He is wrong, lol! "the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization, unpredictability." You are simply not even contending with what I am writing. You are incapable of responding to the substance of what I am describing.

It is actually you who is using it in some idosyncratic way. I just mean the common understanding of randomness, nothing more. But you keep pretending I mean some divine intelligence which I do not. You think when I say randomness I actually mean anything but the common mathematical conception of randomness, or random noise. But I don't. When I say "Freedom = Randomness" I don't mean that what I mean by randomness is some spiritual notion of metaphysical freedom, I mean it the exact other way around. I mean that freedom literally is just randomness, that's what it is. Kastrup is completely wrong. Randomness, actual chaotic noise, is the prerequisite of creation itself. He also misses that nothing has to be "metaphysically" random or "actually" random, to actually be functionally random. Computer noise is functionally random, and using computer noise you can do all the same things I described. What matters is that all possibilities are explored. Think about it this way: The human physical body exists in infinity. Randomness + Selection for Function + Time = Human body You "tickle" into existence the human body out of abstract infinity, which serves certain functions, through randomness and selection and time. That's what evolution is, that's what machine learning is, that's what creativity itself is, both the creativity that allowed this universe emerge, as well as artistic human creativity, mathematical human creativity and so forth. It all works like this. It's not my fault you are projection your own notions onto me because you are trying too hard to confirm to yourself the presumptions you made at the beginning of this conversation.

It's unfathomable to me how you could not understand this after I reiterated the point I made in 4 different ways over multiple posts. Genetic mutation is the way through which abstract objects (complexity relationships between atoms) within infinity are pulled into existence through a given degree of freedom. Meaning, that within infinity already exist all possible complex relationship-structures between atoms, and through random noise and selection for function, you pull those complex relationship-structures out of abstract infinity/nothingness and manifest them into physical existence. That is what creativity is, that is what creation as a whole is. The reason why this is so metaphysically relevant is that, how could you possibly imagine something that you do not know? Contemplate this. How could you actually imagine something completely foreign to you, something completely novel? You cannot do so by remixing old data, as that would not be what we constitute as novel data here. You can do so by selection for a function and random noise. Random noise in this instance is just an exploration of infinity, and the selection for function then crystalizes certain pathways until the function is completed. If you can describe this in math, how exactly selection for function and freedom relates to each other, you could in principle find ways to construct any object of any function that is possible within this physical reality, given enough time.

Well then you fundamentally are not comprehending what I am writing. you coudl do the same with noise generated by a computer. You think there is some magical intelligence, you are completely missing the point. It's literally random noise, no intelligence whatsoever. Forget that whole intelligence thing. That is not at all required for what I am talking, other than for the construction of the whole system. I am not saying within randomness there is this mystical intelligence that allows everything to arise. No, I am actually saying it is mathematically random, and that is actually what freedom is. And that mathemetical randomness is how you interface with infinity. And that infinity is completely abstract and stable. It's not some deep intelligence magical force. It's like all the objects that can exist between 5 points if you connect them. All possible objects are infinity, and by literally picking random connections between these points, through rolling a dice, you would eventually get all possible objects that could exist between those 5 points. That's what I am describing, and you are just pretending I am saying the same thing as Leo. You don't understand what Leo is saying and you don't understand what I am saying. What I am saying you could describe with math, and if you manage to do so, you will be able to rule the world.

I think schools should be a source of discipline. Remember, children today don't have anything to allow them to integrate all the important aspects of stage blue. The only place where this can take place for most children is the school. If they don't learn these lessons there they could come out dysfunctional for the rest of their life's, lacking that type of integration. The best teachers I had were strict, demanding respect. You can still be loose and loving in that context, but I strongly feel there needs to be a certain stability in you. The children have to respect you. That will probably be a skill you will need to develop. You are far beyond stage blue most likely, so you don't need to worry about becoming overly strict. That happens when teachers are kind of stuck in that stage of development. You need to be able to use all these aspects fully conscious of what you are doing.