Edvard

Member
  • Content count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Good

1 Follower

About Edvard

  • Rank
    Lesser Chimp

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

162 profile views
  1. @No-Thing But by this you will also die. We need the ego to eat, to put the body out of danger and harm. So the goal then becomes to die, which I guess you at the point of enlightenment would think is fine? And I don't mean physical death, I mean physical death IDK.
  2. So about 1 person in the world has an idea about absolute reality, then? (7*10^9)-((7*10^9)*0.9999999999)=0.7
  3. Didn't see this edit until now. Finally a response that makes sense to me. I have nothing to argue here. It didn't sound much like you were a fan of his projects, though, it felt like you spent about every argument saying how bad of an impact he's making on humanity, which is why this thread has lasted so long, because those arguments in my opinion were just full of flaws and seeming to miss information about Musk. But I like this one. It would seem possible to get someone to supply him in his place, or make sure everything is not depended just on him. So if anything sounds a bit egoic, it's gotta be that. But of course, I don't know his reasoning behind his choices. But yeah, working 100 hours at this point, getting divorces and depression... aha.. I see it now, why couldn't you or Leo just say it this way, instead of mixing in flawed arguments about his impact when you actually think he ultimately helps humanity? But anyway, a lot of thoughts came out of this, and of course it's something to think about that what may seem nice, may not be so nice after all, so thanks for that
  4. OK, thanks for adressing that. I needed a response to this question as I thought this might be one aspect that this topic boils down to. I've seen no one say the ego is necessary for survival, as that would make sense, so yes, good to eventually have that out of our way. What I basically meant by it is that we don't have free will. I don't know how reality is, but no one's gonna change it, because no one exists (which I have not had a completely direct experience of, meaning it's an idea) and we don't have free will (which I do experience). This wasn't really all that important for my main point, but thought it was just worth mentioning. I used reality as a semantic in this case, referring to the notion that things are the way they are and are gonna become the way they become, ultimately. Correct, I don't have the answers. BTW, who has?, we're just exchanging ideas and questioning ideas. The notion that enlightened people know what reality is is also at this point just an idea for me. Why do I hear Leo all the time talking about not getting into arguments, or push enlightenment, tell others how to live, etc.? Someone who is not a systemic thinker does that, they're not really able to see the world from other people's perspective, but instead just condemn people for not being like this or that, not seeing that "they" are part of a system that is not going to change by forcing opinions overnight. People don't want to think about the climate in their everyday life. This characterizes stage green - a lot of talk and condemnation of lower consciousness people. I earlier said Elon might be at stage green (a lot because of people scolding him for low consciousness), but I now think he is yellow, but of course, I don't know. BTW, recognize that I'm not claiming to know anything, I'm coming up with arguments my mind creates based on your responses, while I want them to be challenged. So you're confident it's not gonna be any risk? The fact that man has had the view of the world ending since the dawn of time, mostly religiosly motivated, has extremely little to do with today's concerns about this. 1) The timeline of humanity is relatively extremely small, and for the 200.000 years there have been humans, almost no progress in technology and population growth was made until the industrial revolution at the 1700s, a tiny, tiny fraction of history. Things are just accellerating really fast, and it's extremely hard to predict the future of Earth. I wouldn't be so confident. Technology is just on top of the already occasional natural events like super volcanos and meteorites (while eventually the Sun will soak up the Earth, while we have time for that). Don't know if you've heard about this (I assume you have), but research shows that CO2-levels in the atmosphere are increasing every year, which has and will lead to further temperature rise of the atmosphere, causing all sorts of trouble. Don't know whether you deny this or not. Point is, not comparable to ancient times at all. 2) Elon doesn't claim to have any immediate doomsday prophecy, and I certainly don't know what's gonna happen in the future. It's just that it may happen. Remember, this answer is a response to this isolated response of yours, above, which to me doesn't make any sense. I read that you supported him, but it seemed like you changed your mind. "For all intents and purposes, I'm probably the person most focused on helping his project considering the literal hundreds of hours I've put into it - but even I can see the pitfalls." So are you still focused on helping his project, then? That's also what I'm wondering. How do you measure Elon's ego? He seems fairly humble to me. I've written about this earlier, but why would he choose space if it was about money and success for success itself, while he also thougth he had a slim chance of succeeding with a high risk of losing everything he had earned from paypal, and being OK with living on $1 a day? Plus, he says we probably live in a simulation. Do you see this as typical egoic traits? Is this the thinking process of the stock market, Wall Street, Putin, Trump, Kim Jung-un? - Can you imagine them saying: "People, we live in a simulation". No, egoic people want themselves, and especially others to have a limited worldview, like belief in: significance (i.e.:Earth center of universe, God made the planet for us), free will, tribalism, self-centeredness, profit at all cost. That's at least the notion I have of it. I agree that we should be more mindful about the root cause of technological issues; like stop having profit at all cost, living unsistainably. There wouldn't be any need for Musk's plans if everybody thought like this. But so many don't; so many just want to consume what gives the most wealth, or not giving a shit about nature as long as they get the maximum profit. So many people are also already trying to convince them to have other values. I can't say that I know that Elon is doing what is best, but at this point, i think most likely. You think most likely not (or definitely?). Maybe he has a big ego, and that's a problem. I don't see it, and I don't know how I could find it, except for what I said earlier; that egoic thinking is what makes us want to survive and thrive, which we all do... All the personal issues about Elon's happines I kind of agree with, it's probably not pleasant, and yes, he would probably benefit and do better by being enlightened and raise consciousness (which I think is relatively high), I'm not gonna argue with you there, because I have little direct information about the true benefits of enlightenment. But I don't argue about this. I'm not enlightened myself so I have to be "agnostic" about it, although I have a goal of becoming enlightened, because I do think it makes sense, exactly because I understand that success won't make me happy! But that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is a lot of seemingly flawed arguments about the importance, usefulness and relatively positive impact that Musk is making on the world, regardless of whether it makes sense for me to take his path, although that's what I'm contemplating in regard to the value of the purpose and impact. However, if you want to solve the problem, it has to be by action and hard, determined work. Why can't technnology solve any problems, if wisely used? Why shouldn't we create sustainable technology when today's technology is NOT sustainable? I just don't get your point here. Of course you have to solve it technologically when the world won't move backwards and quit oil by itself! By sustainable technology, and it preferably has to work even better for enough people to want to use it, and that requires extraordinary work. Of course Musk could do things differently, and if enlightened he probably would. You could i.e become enlightened first, and then choose a similar kind of purpose. I don't know how far Musk would have gotten if he spent so much of his time doing enlightenment work, but I think he is a more positive than negative force, and if he took out pension in his early-mid twenties after selling PayPal for $300M, I think the world would be worse off. But I don't know how things would be without him, neither do you. I've heard of Neuralink and some of the conscepts of it, but I need to do more research on it. I'm not claiming people will be more accepting of that. Sure, Elon could advocate meditation, although anybody could, and everyone has heard of it. But sure, it's true that him advocating to work 100 hours a week instead of meditation is a possibly negative impact, but he only says this in response to people asking him how to succeed. In those videos, also Leo talks about accepting drudgery and working your ass off. It's just a recipe for success. If people are more accepting of meditation, they can do it, most people know about meditation and many people advocates it. Sure, Elon could advocate it, although that's not really his job, but sure, it would be great if he responded with that. He probably hasn't meditated much himself. Elon Musk is not an enlightened guru. If he was, I guess it would be better (although how would he have time for that. He is thinking systemically about the world, and don't see what more you need to change it if your intents are good - and that doesn't mean enlightenment is not beneficial), but that doesn't mean he is not making a positive impact.
  5. No, I'm not arguing that it may be worthwile for me to pursue, at least not in terms of happiness. I posted because I wonder about the authenticness and fulfillment in this purpose, as well as the impact (which I view as important), but the impact alone is not why I argue that a Musk lifestyle is "good". But responses here use the impact as part of the argument, as if that means something to why an Elon Musk lifestyle is "worth it". And that's what I'm arguing - that if the impact means something - how much does it mean, and what I argued was only the parts of the arguments that says his impact is negative, which there are quite a few of. So if the argument depends a lot on that, then I think it makes sense to discuss that part of the argument.
  6. I kind of wondered mostly about this originally, but when I try to boil it down to the question of how the value of personal development/enlightenment should be balanced with life purpose, many of the responses I got from like @Leo Gura,@TJ Reeves and several others, are arguments and attacks on the content of Musk's purpose, and that his purpose may have a negative effect, as a part of their argument to why he's not a person to look up to, and to that I am responding.
  7. We have been discussing many angles around this, all from the reason to go to Mars and develop technology, to enlightenment, to success, to workaholism. I've adressed several of them spread out on this thread. Of course the best thing would be if humans were "nicer" or raised their consciousness. But you also gotta realize that the way people are is just reality, so by changing the level of consciousness for the "good" of the world you're also manipulating it. So what are you gonna do? Make the whole world give up technology and energy from fossil fuel without replacement? A systemic thinker that wants to make an impact on the world sees that that won't happen, at least not until the earth is in pretty bad shape, and it's too late. So what should he do - develop a technology that works even better, but that is also sustainable, so that people are gonna buy it not necessarily because it is good for the environment, but because it's better - because at this point, that's the only way. Too many are below stage green. That's for Elon Musk the best way he can make an impact, because he understands that he's not gonna change people's minds over night, or decades, at least not alone. So what does Elon see? He sees that the reality of this world as now has a high likelyhood of not making it in 100-200 years. Actually, he has said that he views it as extremely important for consciousness to survive, so that we in the future are able to think and ask questions of our existence. This also make sense when you know every society goes through the different stages of consciousness. The future of humanity will be a better version of us, on other planets or not. That requires, of course, that we are able to keep our species alive so that we are actually able to develop ourselves. He could say, of course, like you suggest: - Hey, world, let's do this instead: fucking stop relying on the internet so much live more sustainably by accepting that you don't need so much stuff don't make the planet so dirty you have to leave in the first place! *Which he in fact is saying why the hell do we need to develop an A.I. so badly? war? health? porn? no one who's enlightened needs this shit to get by. On top of that, even if we inevitably move toward creating such A.I., at least we can become more aware of its affects and how to mitigate those effects by slowing down and thinking. we could benefit from slowing down a little bit and being aware of our actions. He has not desputed this. He is also careful about pointing fingers towards others, as he should, or speak about it quite a bit more diplomatically than in a specific interest group like this. He has BTW said that life should be about more than just solving problems... The world is a little too complex to say these things and expect to make a big impact. And Musk may not be controversial here, but many places is the big world, he is. - And let's not develop sustainable technology, let's not go to Mars, let's hope this will all be sorted out. This is not a strategy for saving the world. It's a strategy every individual themselves have to work on, while people like Leo Gura are dealing with these issues. So how many followers does Leo have? Like 630K on YouTube. That are 630K who are ready to hear his message. Elon Musk, as a systemic thinker, the only way he can change the world is to meet the vastly different levels of consciousness on their level, cooperate, integrate it. Seeing that all levels inhabit some parts of the truth. His solution is not to hide in a mountain or away from the rest of the world, or by just talk. What do you think people are gonna do? Quit oil, quit internet, quit technology? Do you seriously think that will happen at this point in history because a guy like Elon just said that? Do you think fundamentalists, ideologists of the world, etc.. will change their openmindedness so radically in some decades, not to mention centuries? BTW, as I said earlier Elon has said that life's gotta be more than solving problems, and I don't know how aware he is of enlightenment. The point is, he thinks it would be nice if consciousness survives, and he also thinks that the only thing that makes sense is doing good. Anyway this is just reality, I don't know, maybe you guys don't care if consciousness goes extinct, it doesn't ultimately matter - although this is Elon's purpose. I guess you have some too. Of course, ultimately it doesn't matter, one can say. Well, I think it does matter to be able to stay alive, to have food, to not live on a destructed planet. Now, are you gonna say this is ego? To eat? To stay alive? Well, you're able to write a post, so you're manipulating reality yourselves. You eat - manipulating reality. You do things to stay alive, because your ego doesn't want to die, or does it? I know, it's counterintuitive - you could of course eat without being attached to the thoughts that want to eat. But that doesn't make any sense, because your intire survival is depended on you caring for yourself. That's why consciousness creates the ego. So we do care, IMHO.
  8. What is Sam Harris' worldview?According to this, spirituality means to have no opinion, which is quite hypocritical, when you have to have opinions to stay alive. Every human being has the worldview that says eating makes us survive, i.e. But then again, assuming that you eat is just rationalism, right?
  9. Every scientist, automatically? I may become a scientist, and I think I'll be willing to take it. Of course, I may underestimate the intensity of it, but it's not hard to just snort it - just do it, as they say...
  10. @Leo Gura 5-Meo-DMT is not an unknown psychedelic - so how can it be that scientists are, as you essentially say, ignorant of the drug, if reality will become so obvious to them if they take it? Has no scientist taken it? And why would it then be so hard to convince other scientists to take it? Additionaly, I've seen some writings on other forums from people who have taken this drug, and they explain that they get a feeling of dying, but often they don't talk about Absolute Truth. So does this mean that Absolute Truth needs interpretation to be understood? But according to you, that's not how it was supposed to be, right? The Truth, as I have understood it, involves complete nonthinking, which means no interpretations, yet still, many who take the drug don't understand that the Truth is what is revealed?
  11. Are you now capable of enjoying physical (you know what I mean) pain? Do you ever think you can, and if so, could you effortlessly become anything «you» want?
  12. @Leo Gura But suffering exists (or?), and one matters in terms of increasing or decreasing suffering, even though there ultimately is no «you» who are responsible for it. What we do does matter, even though we don't have free will. Of course you can ask: because of absolute infinity, is one less suffer infinity-1, so what's that? But then, why does Leo bother about anything? You have enough money to just «be» the rest of your life. I'm just asking, solely out of curiosity, and perhaps in the hope of getting some insight. Idk, maybe I'm rationalizing too much... and reality it's just me, you said. No one else, which is hard to understand. You're supposedly a facet of me.
  13. Are you concerned about the future implications of global warming, in the sense that you care about it? Like, do you have opinions on it? Should efforts be done to prevent it, by convincing, creating green technology, introcuding tax incentives, etc? Or do you think it is all «meaningless» in the end? What would you vote for?
  14. @Serge It's not "wrong" to become famous or popular, I don't think that's what Leo advocates. However, what you should focus on is to reach your own goals based on your own values leading you to do what's necessary to reach it. Popularity will not make you fulfilled or self-actualized. You get fulfillment by living according to your values, and by doing that you probably attract people who share those values. Popularity may just be a bi-product of you living up to your full potential, in sort of the same way money is. Chasing popularity I would say can be very toxic, because it will make you very depended on what other people believe or value. Do what you yourself think is right, be yourself. If people happen to like that, fine. If not, also fine, although someone out there probably will. Think about it, if your goal is to become popular or famous, what would that require? It would require you to live other people's lives, being a people pleaser and living according to their values. With that said, popularity and fame is not bad, but it will never make you fulfilled or happy. Now, these are my words.
  15. @AleksM 1) How do you get anything done if you stop thinking 24/7? I guess this could work for an enlightened person, but before you get enlightened? Because this takes effort, so I don't see how mindfulness 24/7 is as compatible with life purpose. 2) Can you enjoy having a root canal without anesthetics?