Scholar

The function of this interview is to change american public opinion in favor of disbanding aid for ukraine, and it's obvious this is the case. The timing of the interview and the fact that it happened in the first place is the best indication of this. And of course, the right wing of the US is gullible enough to eat all of the nonsense Putin has been spewing up because it fits their narrative.

I never said this. Dave is not a scientist. I don't disagree with this in a strict sense. But it's wishful thinking. I don't disagree with this. IF x was the case, then y. But X is not the case. Also this is a myopic view. Democracy relies on an informed public. Opinions matter, sense of reality and ethics matter. And most importantly, you are assuming people are reasonable, which is not the case. One of the problems is that reasonable people do not stake out positions confidently, which is actually necessary in a democracy. This is why people like Dave are necessary given the current environment. You are talking about some higher level scientific aims, but Dave is trying to ensure that society doesn't fall for BS like flat-earth or evolution denialism. That's his function. It is limited, but it is there.

I never said people have to be dogmatic about everything. Dave is close-minded against science denialism. It's like a white blood cell that will attack anything that calls into question science in a fundamental way. It's just an immunesystem response. This standard would lead to a complete degradation of the informational landscape, simply because the more ignorant you are, the more likely you will be to assert things with confidence. A flat-earther who will have this absurd theory and assert it with confidence will convince more people than a humble scientist who will, in humility, attempt to showcase why that person is wrong. You cannot stay agnostic about things any longer because the informational landscape is a competitive, evolutionary landscape. This is the very reason why climate denialism has been a thing for so long. It's simply because the other side confidently asserts that they are correct. I am not a fan of magical thinking. You won't get intellectually honest people and epistemically humble people fighting these types of informational cancers. They wouldn't stand a chance against the overconfident assertions of the delusional sophists that are currently convincing the masses of complete parallel realities. Of course, if there was a magic wand and we could make everyone perfectly rational and informed and mature, then I would wield that wand. But that's not how this world works. You can't just replace your immune system with magical nanobots that will somehow be able to detect intelligently what will harm you and what will not. In the same manner, Dave and his popularity are a product of this system. Humble people are not popular. Leo is the best example. Most people find him convincing because he asserts his positions with a complete lack of humility and an almost inhuman arrogance. That's incredibly appealling. There are plenty humble scientists around, none of them will ever achieve the kind of popularity necessary to fight the rampant dimwittery that is going around today.

You guys are totally missing the deeper dynamic here. Dave is a consequence of the current informational landscape, in that sense he is a actually a necessary and important consequence of this system. The dynamic is fairly simple: It is takes less energy to create false information than it takes to falsify false information. Due to the nature of the current informational landscape, in which information is freely distributed and accessible by everyone, there is only one result that can follow from this. Most of the population are laymen in regards to all scientific realms, and therefore it is not possible for them to distinguish between authentic information and false information. This is necessarily so because no single individual could possibly understand all scientific realms. Faith and trust in the institutions is therefore an essential part of the survival of civilization in regards to maintaining a coherent informational landscape. The truth is, most people who believe in scientific facts do not do so because of understanding. The only reason they believe it is because it is A) the first understanding of reality they have been confronted with (in schools: Evolution, Biology, Physics) and B) that understanding giving them a coherent and functional way to understand reality. Because scientific knowledge in most regards is not practical for 99% of the population, they have no ability to truly verify the truth of any given piece of information or even informational model they receive. This means the only thing that could possibly maintain a coherent informational landscape is blind faith and trust in scientific institutions. This does not only extend to laymen, but also to scientists, because they run into the same problem given the vast amount of information that would need to be processed to truly verify all information within the given landscape. The idea that we can make science conscious is a failure of understanding this problem. This isn't a problem that can be addressed simply by changing how science functions. The reality is, people like Dave, mildly informed dogmatists, are an essential part of maintaining the societies informational hygiene. The way science functions as an organism is by balancing structure against degrees of freedom. A degree of freedom, in any evolutionary system, is necessary to claim new information and to advance the structure itself, but too much degree of freedom leads to a dissolution of the structure itself, and therefore a collapse of the entire system. Due to the organic nature of these systems, we can even use the immune system as a metaphor. There is a simple reason why any immune system remains open such as to allow a degree of viral and bacterial agents to infect it. It must do so, otherwise it would become so strict in it's enforcement that it would attack it's own structure. On the other hand, it must be strict enough so as to capture any potentially harmful agent. This means, sometimes it will overreact and attack agents which could in fact be even beneficial. A system cannot be absolutely free, because it will undermine the structures necessary for the expression of freedom. Now, this simple evolutionary dynamic is inherent to all systems which exist, including science. Science is not merely a method, it is a living organism, with living informational memory. It is an organ of the collective organism of mankind. If you are wise enough, you will thank the Divine itself for the existence of people like Dave, who are nothing but a part of the immune system of this current informational age. Evolution has patience. It will always prioritize survival over truth, because in the long term, to reach higher levels of complexities requires survival. If this means sacrificing some potentially novel pathways towards new types of truth, then so be it. We live in a time in which our entire informational landscape is fundamentally threatened by the new informational dynamics that have formed over the past decade. And you should realize by the inevitably of this dynamic how serious of a threat this is. This goes beyond education, beyond people being ignorant. You cannot fix this with mere education. The reality is, most people believe in the things they do because of peer pressure and faith. What will happen now is a new age of dogmatism, a new age of constriction, as a reaction to the degrees of freedom which have destabilized the very survival of this system. For the very same reason why religions existed in the past, they will now form once more. The reason why arrogance is emphasized in this system is because blind confidence is what the population tends to be most attracted to. In a system in which there is no authority, arrogance itself becomes a signal for authority. It also allows you to dismiss information which otherwise would take time to falsify, and due to the dynamic I described, that would be a task doomed to failure.

Existence is absurd.

Awareness is Existence. To be Aware of All is to be All. No One will reach a state of No Self, correct.

To love completely, unconditionally, means to love partially, conditionally. To be Infinitely Complete, you must be Infinitely Divided. To contain all Possibilities, you must contain all Limitations. To have no Self, you must have all Self.

Your self is not God, No-Self is God. If self is gone, all there is, is God.

This is correct, because the current identity is contracted. There is only existence. All of existence is One. That's all there is to it. The story this contracted identity, which is part of existence, will tell itself, is merely one more part of existence. Existence will exist, that is correct. There is nothing beyond existence.

The poorest people in the poorest countries eat almost exclusively plant based. Vegan diets become expensive if you start buying mock products, otherwise the staple foods should be the cheapest you really can get in terms of nutrient ratios. Lentils are great for example.

Tucker Carlson is not a good faith actor, this won't be an interview but pure propaganda. It serves to further divide the american population, which will of course be exploited by Donald Trump for his presidency.

Why does this guy sound so much like Terence Mckenna? Dave is a reactionary, meaning he reacts to the anti-science crowd that will use these types of arguments to invalidate established scientific facts. He is mostly focused on arguing against people who are scientifically illiterate, bad faith or just profoundly stupid. I don't know enough about the topic, from the video it seems like the critique he has provided of Formscape is accurate. Obviously there won't be any deeper philosophical discussions about the limitations and the nature of science, because neither Formscapes nor Dave are interested in that.

Imagine using 5-MeO-DMT for recreation, lol. Kids these days.

Well have fun destroying your brain I suppose.

Why would you do this? We have no idea what this could do to the brain. Why wouldn't you just learn some meditative practice, if you are interested in mild effects?

You are responding to chatgpt lol.

Of course the topic is not to blame, it's the level of consciousness of the people on here. And consciousness of course can be degenerated. It just depends on what you mean by consciousness.

I think this topic actively degenerates the consciousness of anyone on this forum who is engaging in it. There is no maturity to be found here. It's laughable how you guys interact with each other and analyse this conflict.

I'm pretty sure it is related to the brain tingles I get when taking them. It just feels like it targets motivational centers, and the complete annihilation of libido that happens during the trip just continues on. It definitely feels purely like a chemical process happening in the upper part of my brain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSD/comments/5ad8f5/no_empathy_feel_less_human_after_bad_trip/ Did some research and I found quite a few of these and similar accounts. There is this delusional idea going around as if LSD and psychedelics could not possibly be harmful to users, and that any negative effect is all psychological. People have different brains, and chemicals can have different effects on them. Not everything is some sort of psychological or spiritual phenomena. Sometimes it's just brain chemistry.

Wasn't that a misunderstanding? I think they "slow down" older phones because the updates can cause a lot more battery consumption for those phones, and I think they also might slow down phones once the batteries have lost a certain percentage of capacity. The court case they lost I am pretty sure is because they have not made this clear to consumers, which really is a technicality. It's not like they slow down the phones so they can sell new phones. I am pretty sure other phones have to do this or suffer the consequences of degradation. The apple hate is a little exaggerated to me. Apple definitely has it's advantages and disadvantages.

I didn't get any awakening, it's basically a microdose. And it's definitely something to do with brain chemistry, because it kills my libido as well, completely.

5g of magic truffels actually caused me the same symptoms. Felt almost identical to a small dose of LSD. Pretty annoying, it seems like serotogenic psychedelics are just causing my brain to get out of balance in some way that takes longer to recover from.

How has self-help degraded so much, lol.

I am not a dualistc, there is no fundamental distinction between experience and neurons because it is all simply existence, in different forms. The relationship between what we interpret as structures in motion and other types forms of existence, like redness, is fundamentally mysterious. It is one of the infinite ways reality can relate to itself, there is no mechanism beyond the relationship itself. The correlation is the relation, there is nothing more to it. Using the structures in motion (as described by a mathematical, physical system) as causation is more useful than other frameworks, because we have no physical way of interacting with something like vision. We cannot alter the structure of the brain by altering the experience. But we do have ways to interact with the physical structures of the brain, and we can alter the experience that way. Causality is fundamentally a construct. All is caused by Infinity, all relationships emerge fundamentally mysteriously. In the end, what is rational and scientific is not about what is real, but about what leads to functional understanding. Because the picture is not information, the picture is what is hallucinated by the brain to turn the information into functional understanding. The picture you see is informed fundamentally by the information from sensory organs, transformed into a different type of informational landscape using a different substance of existance (visuality). This informational landscaped then is processed via interpretation and pattern recognition. You assume I am a naive realistic or a physicalist. My framework is beyond idealism, materialism and physicalism. When I use terms that remind you of these frameworks, it is so that I can have a conversation with you. There is no causing anything, there simply is a relation. It's not a correlation. What I mean by already existing information is information already present in the brain. I could have an out of body hyperreal dream-experience that my brain can fabricate based on information that only exist within it. In fact, I have had hyperreal dreams that looked more real than reality. If I wasn't lucidly dreaming, I would have believed it was an out of body experience. My brain was capable of reconstructing the entire town I live in, in full detail. OOBE most likely are just such dreams, similar to experiences one can have during psychedelic tripping. It's not a correlation, it's a relation. If I hit you on the head, there will be a difference in your experience. That is not merely a correlation, we know there is a direct relationship. A correlation is when there is an apparent relation, but no evidence for an actual relation. But with the brain and experience, we know there is actually a direct relation. It's not a persistent correlate, it is a persistent relation. You have given no evidence for experience that fall outside of this relationship, or cannot be plausibly explained by this relationship. Therefore, positing new relationships is simply unnecessary and would require evidence to support. I had a hyperreal dream where I saw myself in the mirror of my bathroom. There is no reason to think your experience is not merely a dream. I don't have to provide evidence because I am not making claims about new relationships between experience and the world. So far all evidence suggests that the only relationship experience has to the world is the structure of the brain, and this understanding is in unity with our understanding of the physical nature of the universe, biology and so forth. We have not observed phenomena that necessarily fall outside of this understanding. You can of course make any claims about reality you want, but there is no reason to accept them given basic principles of rationality. Eventually we will develop technology that will be capable of visualizing brain activity, converting your dreams into visual information processed by a computer. When that happens, a lot of the spiritual mumbo jumbo will be put to an end, because we will see the out of body experiences. Everyone will have a gadget at home that will be able to record their visual processing, be it stimulated visual processing, imagination, hallcuination or dreams. Neural networks are capable of processing information and dynamically recreating such information using mathematically stochastic dynamics. Meaning we have an expanation for how imagination is possible (how you can see an apple in your mind, and how your mind can create a new apple that it has not see in that exact form before), as well as hyperreal dreams. You also get similar artifacts in dreams as you get in generative AI, something you can observe if you dream lucidly and pay attention to the visual experience. If you want evidence of this you can take a high dose of LSD. Other than that, there is no metaphysical or physical law that prohibits a brain from being structured in such a way that it would translate stimuli received from the eyes into sounds or other types of substances or information landscapes. Google Synesthesia. Animals have far more senses than five senses, so do humans. In the end, the amount of senses we will develop is determined by how many different types of information can be gathered from the environment. Light is prevalent in the environment, and it provides information that is useful for evolution. So do molecules for smell, energy states for temperature and so forth. If there was some sort of aspect to reality that would provide useful information for an evolutionary organism given the presence of sensory organ, it would most likely have evolved. I doubt plants have individuated consciousness, real time information processing does not provide any benefit to them. Because we have no evidence of animals behaving in ways that would suggest they have gathered information outside of the senses we know they have. Even for bird navigation we have found that they have an organ that can perceive the axis of the magnetic field of the earth. So, we did have behavior that was difficult to explain before we had found those organs, but now we no longer observe such phenomena. It is unlikely that we would miss entire spectrums of behaviors in animals that escape the current notions of sensory information processing, given that we have detected behaviors that have eluded us before we have found by what means animals could have gathered such information. Given the potential usefulness of astral projection, we should see behaviors that indicate such information processing far more frequently in nature. Even if this is not definitive evidence, it is one of the dozens of things we understand about nature that makes your hypothesis more and more unlikely. This is why you have to provide extraordinary evidence to actually show us that these phenomena are real, if you want anyone to take you seriously. Yes, what I rely on are the basic tenants of the scientific method and it's institutions. Basically hyperreal dreams. When I speak of information in this context, we are talking about sensory information. The brain can generate new information given already present information in the brain. When you astral projection, your claim is you have astral sensory organs that gather astral sensory information (you claim you see yourself outside of your own body). No, I am not gathering novel sensory information about the world as we speak, outside of my physical sensory organs.