Scholar

The Leftovers must be watched, but I feel like 90% of what makes it so deep is Max Richter's score.

Oh god, now I'm imagining you, with a silken robe barely clinging to your othterwise nude body, flailing your gun around as people invade your home, going John Wick Guru Style.

To me it seems that the human brain is using a very similar system to visualize things, just more sophisticated. One of the reason for greater sophistication in the human mind is because we are using inputs beyond mere words, like for example many non-descript emotions and feelings, as well as using actual understanding of objects to create more accurate impressions. We don't merely learn what something looks like by having bazillion images of them perfectly saved in our brain visual library, we can look at one image, truly understand it's components and what makes it that objects, visually speaking, and then visualize it. So, we abstract from a singular image the relationships that makes a thing a thing, whereas the AI is kind of stumbling upon what makes a thing a thing by having millions of images and finding patterns in the geometric/visual relationships. I am curious to see how far these AIs will go, because I suspect that there will be a hard limitation at some point in regards to the hardware that is being used, as it cannot generate the same kind of unified experience bubble as the brain can. My theory why these images look trippy and dreamlike, is because during tripping, the systems that visualize are altered and some even disconnected, connected to new things within the brain etc. which leads to the phenomena we are aware of, just that of course, the brain not only is capable of visualizing "images", but emotions, sense of space and time, sounds, and pretty much every other substance of consciousness. So, these AIs are simulating one aspect of the same approach to visualization the brain is using .

Yes, I never made such a claim.

I think you should question why it seems so unbelievable to you that someone has different values. Of course from your perspective, it is possible that it's me suppressing aspects of myself, but it could also be the case that I just genuinely evolved as a human being. I have no interest in buying these goodies. I am not depriving myself of anything, like you are not depriving yourself of anything when you don't go to church every sunday. Yet, a stage blue person (from 200-400 years ago) might find that utterly incomprehensible. It's not about what's bad, it's about what I value. People underestimate how ingrained their value system actually is, and how truly relative it actually is. In a thousand years, if humans will have evolved sufficiently, the kind of goodies you are talking about will seem utterly absurd to them. It's like having a toilet made of gold, it's just absurdly unnecessary and silly. The fact that there is this war of values, where you struggle to decide between whether or not to save someones life and buying a golden toilet, should tell you how unevolved you truly are. And I'm no exception to that, I am unevolved aswell compared to what people will be like in a thousand years. But I am atleast past the point where I care whatseover about the lifestyle Tate is advocating for. I don't find the women attractive which he finds attractive, I don't find his house attractive, I don't find much about his lifestyle attractive. If I had a magic wand, not many elements of his life would carry over to my perfect life. Imagine how absurd it would feel to you to shit on a toilet of gold. To me the goodies and lifestyle you speak about is exactly like that. It's just silly, I don't want a toilet made of gold, even if I could have one. I'm not depriving myself of anything when I don't have a toilet of gold.

Well, your values are your values, it's hard to get beyond what you have been culturally indoctrinated with. My values are such that I would not even enjoy these things, there are uninteresting to me, and would probably to a large degree contradict more important values I have. I wouldn't even want to be such a person, because I value other things more so. I would genuinely rather spend my money on helping animals than some fancy car. The thing here is, you will probably think "Oh wow, he is just virtue signally selflessness!", which from an orange perspective will be the only way you could comprehend that kind of decision. But from my perspective, it is not even a sacrifice. It would go against my integrity to own such things, and I would genuinely enjoy for example saving some animals. It's not even about me thinking it's the right thing to do, it's simply that my values have moved on from what I had when I was a teenagers. It's hard to fake the values you have. I never said you can't have this or that, I am telling you, if you had grown beyond these values, you wouldn't even want to have these things, genuinely. Not because of some sort of ideology, but because of your core values. So, these things are unbelievable to you precisely because of the values that you hold. To me, they are not enjoyable, nor are the unbelievable. They are a waste of my time on this earth, and go against higher values that I might have. I have no interest in driving a lamborghini, I value petting dogs more than I would value driving a lamborghini.

There are some useful nuggets you can extract from him, it's basically just stage orange to the max, though if your value system grew beyond that, you will probably find his life-style very unattractive, aswell as his general attitude. He will actually be useful for you to see how much orange values you still have inside you, if you are willing to be honest with yourself. One very important lesson to learn is the trap of ideology. Tate has basically got himself stuck as far as development goes precisely because he has created such a sophisticated ideology, that is so consistent. You can see the same happening with Stage Blue Christians or Muslims, like presuppositionalism. They will put huge effort into justifying their worldview, and making it consistent. The problem with intelligence is that it is a tool your ego will use to serve it's values. So, whatever values you have, the more intelligent you are, the better you will be at justifying those values to yourself, as well as being able to dismantle any challenge to your world view. This is why consciousness is more fundamental, and more important, than intelligence. If you are not conscious, you do not know what your intelligence is even doing, and you cannot even gain the distance to truly be in charge of it. Andrew Tate might as well be a robot, programmed in a particular way. He is a slave, he just doesn't realize that his ego tricked him into believing that he is the master.

Watching the first episode rn.

So, should we all watch Carnivale over the next week and then make a thread to discuss it?

Don't tell me what to do, devil!

Indeed, but I simply lack the consciousness, intelligence, experience, and wisdom to see this.

Julius Caesar basically was the Hitler of Rome.

It's not just a guy, it's Leotl!

Oh no, that's exactly what Connor Murphy said.

Sadly we are unable to have a civilized conversation, I wish you all the love anyways!

What? So you will invalidate anyone's opinion as long as they don't correlate to yours or the people you deem to be authentic? You are clearly dogmatic about this. You are just ad-homineming me. Telling me that I am stupid doesn't really point out to me where I am wrong, and you still haven't even bothered to try to assess if your own interpretation of my position is correct. I think your attitude is part of the problem, you are unwilling to engage with me, and all you can do is call me bigotted and stupid. It's so clear that you have attachment issues here, not me. You are defending your identity, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to be this cruel and dismissive.

You assume that everyone who has gender identity issues has the same experience, which is already fundamentally flawed. Either way, try to do a good faith job at summarizing my position, and the reasoning that has lead to it. And by the way I know people who have had pretty much the experience I described, you can probably find such reports on youtube as well.

Nobody is going to get enlightened from that series, no matter how much one watches it. Leo thinks it's so obviously enlightening because he is tripping balls. It's like when someone is stoned and reads much more into a movie than it actually is saying. He didn't get enlightened watching that shit, he is feeling high and watching it, and then attributing that high to the series.

His comments about watching that series over and over to realize one is God is especially strange, seems like the advice someone would give who is in a bit of a delusional episode, where one is unable to actually feel how what one says will be perceived. I wouldn't worry too much, Leo usually is grounded pretty well, but even he is not immune to such things.

But usually he kept his manic episodes private, the only exception was when he did that tripping video, but even that was planned and calculated. So it seems like this is different.

No I did not, I described the experience of young women who might be confused about whether or not they have gender dysphoria, or be pushed towards certain identities as a result of their suffering. Look, if you want to point out a flaw in my understanding that's fine, but at least first understand my understanding, because otherwise you are just talking to an imaginary friend. If you want to show to me that you understand my position, try to summarize and explain it to me in your own words. Tell me what you think I think, and I will point out anything you might have misinterpreted.

I never described the trans experience in my post, and your interpretation of my position is incorrect. I have no interest in conversing with you if you continue being bad faith.

It does come off a little manic.

I'm not even sure what point you are making, in the end you have to give some sort of reason that has explanatory power for why there is this difference in men vs women. A hypothesis which can provide an explanation for that should be rationally preferable, no?