Carl-Richard
Moderator-
Content count
12,445 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Carl-Richard
-
-
-
The ego sees what it wants to see
-
On 2.6.2024 at 4:23 PM, BlurryBoi said:For example, LSD, THC, 2CB, Shrooms, and i assume all the DMT variants seem to consume/activate a lot of energy, wich is a problem when you're stuck with chronic burnout and other exhausting illness.
The "classical psychedelic receptor" (5HT2A) is involved in the stress response, so the experience is always going to be energetic in some way.
On 2.6.2024 at 4:23 PM, BlurryBoi said:Correct me if im wrong but i think awakenings/psychedelics experiences like realising Love can also happen in a low energetical way.
Kinda, but not really. The most low energy way would be meditation, but the awakening experience itself is high energy (but not in an unsustainable/stressful way, so you shouldn't actually worry about it). The activation levels experienced during meditation can be visualized like an U-curve. When you first sit down, your energy levels tend to drop. Then, the longer you sit, the more rested you get and the more energy you can expend, and also you might have an awakening experience which actually releases tons of energetic chemicals (endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, etc.).
On 2.6.2024 at 4:23 PM, BlurryBoi said:Maybe some specific strands of Cannabis, but i'm not sure about that.
It's primarily the CB1 signalling caused by THC which makes cannabis "psychedelic". So strains with less THC essentially just means strains with less psychedelic effect. And like 5HT2A, CB1 signalling is involved in the stress response (in fact, CB1 interacts with 5HT2A signalling).
-
19 minutes ago, Nilsi said:that's a big difference.
Yeah. But curing aging is a big thing. I think absolute immortality, i.e. when even infinity itself cannot stop you, requires omnipotence. Then we're truly in spiritual territory to say the least.
Just imagine if 10 million years in the future, you run into an inter-galactic, hyper-intelligent, sociopath asshole who constructs a machine that keeps all the atoms in your body away from each other using some force field, or he locks them inside an unbreakable box in liquid form, or he throws them into a black hole. Even if you had the medical capabilities to rejoin each individual atom back together into your physical form, that helps very little if they're being kept forcefully isolated from each other. These are the things we have to start considering
-
2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:From your definition my experience doesn’t fit since I dont recognize the non duality although I still intuit it somehow so it’s weird.
But non-duality awakening was only one example (I edited the post now to make it a little more clear). The general definition of awakening (or spiritual transformation) still fits I think.
-
Awakening is a radical and often sudden change in how you experience the world on a moment-to-moment level. The type of awakening which is probably most referenced is awakening to Oneness or non-duality, which coincides with the loss of self-referential thinking and experience of self in space and time, reflected in the deactivation of the Default Mode Network (DMN).
Spiritual transformation is when the awakening creates a lasting but incomplete change where some parts of yourself will never be the same. Your first awakening tends to coincide with a spiritual transformation. For non-duality spiritual transformations, this coincides with a lasting relative deactivation of the DMN.
Enlightenment is when the awakened state becomes your new baseline, i.e. what you operate from most of the time (~90% of the time). After many awakenings in different ways and contexts, the tower topples over and flips. And for non-duality enlightenment, this coincides with a lasting and more significant deactivation of the DMN.
Your enlightened state might refine over time in subtle ways, maybe filling in the remaining 10% and for non-duality enlightenment maybe eliminating self-referential thinking altogether, or through more embodied manifestations (in the case of non-duality: purifying egoic responses/behavioral patterns, contractions, "defilements").
I used awakening to non-duality to illustrate each term, but you can substitute it with any type of awakening; awakening to God, Love, even intellectual awakenings; but of course, the terms are less commonly used in this way. An example of an intellectually focused (or moral) spiritual transformation I had was the transition from a hedonistic to a eudaimonic value system.
-
On 31.5.2024 at 11:31 AM, Javfly33 said:when I recently went through 4-5 days of eating no more than 1500cal and eating almost no protein at all, I felt so fucking weak.
Why do that? Just eat more food lol
On 31.5.2024 at 11:31 AM, Javfly33 said:Having muscle tissue might have their benefits but I can clearly see that long term, it just requires too much 'fuel'.
How is it too much fuel? Are you running out of money? How much more food are you really eating?
-
There are times where I'll have thoughts where I imagine some place, and it brings up a very specific type of place which seems like it's a real place, but I can't confirm ever having been there. Or there will be times where I imagine events that I couldn't possibly have experienced (like being killed in a particular way), and I'll create a surprisingly vivid image of it in my mind, as if I'm recalling a memory.
Trivially, we know that previous experiences influence imagination, and likewise, imagining a specific scenario will draw on specific previous experiences. If I were to imagine being killed in a grotesque way (e.g. in war-like scenario), the most relevant memory for that would of course be experiencing being killed in that grotesque way. And considering the potential amount of previous lifetimes and the probability of having experienced such a death at least once, it seems likely that these experiences could've informed the imagination given the existence of past-lives.
-
4 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:While that is comforting, I always look out for comforting falsehoods which pump up my ego.
You found a positive thought and turned it into a negative one. You turned "hope" into "comforting falsehoods which pump up my ego". This is a pattern your mind seems to engage in very often. Try to become aware of that.
4 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:If something sounds too good to be true, I might assume it to be false.
Why does it sound too good to be true? Is that statement based on an objective fact, or is it based on a subjective feeling? Does merely the fact that it's a positive thing mean it's too good to be true? Is anything positive too good for you? Do you see how unfortunate this thinking is? It's called hopelessness. Again, try to become aware of this type of thinking.
As for "comforting falsehoods pumping up your ego", that is what hopelessness is (just like any other form of thinking). It's just one way your mind tries to cope with a situation, and for some reason, you learned to get stuck there. It's possible to unlearn it and to allow hope to exist. And it starts by becoming aware of what you're doing.
-
6 hours ago, Nilsi said:what makes you say that? everywhere i look, i see death and impermanence. unless you are talking about whatever eternal spiritual core there is to all of it, i don't buy it.
Maybe not 100% immortality, but close to it. And I'm talking about physical immortality (this current body).
Curing aging is probably theoretically possible. You might not be able to stop being smooshed by a 10 ton boulder or an asteroid, but I think regenerative medicine could become really powerful as well. We could be on the verge of a paradigm shift in fields like synthetic biology or medicine in general (cracking the morphogenetic code or discovering the next "antibiotics").
-
@nuwu I said you're free to talk the way you like. Just don't expect people to understand you very well. Let's move on.
-
Probably. Will we destroy ourselves before that? Maybe.
-
40 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:Help from Claude:
Translation: yes.
Beautiful 🤩
35 minutes ago, nuwu said:Conceptual density is minimalism. This is the opposite of redundant expressions with pseudo-eloquent fillers. I don't use complex terms in any ways. Your wasteful racists.
You're free to do whatever you like (within reason of course). I think the point has been made "clearly" at this point and we don't have to keep talking about it (it was tangential to the original topic anyways, my apologies).
-
40 minutes ago, Nilsi said:again, as mcluhan put it so eloquently: the medium is the message.
Clear and concise might I add
50 minutes ago, Nilsi said:it is precisely peterson’s prophetic pathos and his gesturing towards christian theology, western philosophy, and modern psychology that gets his message across. if he were to just bluntly tell you, “individual responsibility is important,” the message would land flat on its face.
I think I made that case. But I think some of Peterson's communication problems can be worked on without losing that entire connection and which would be a net positive.
47 minutes ago, Nilsi said:your obsession with “clarity” is at the core of the “western buddhism” zizek often talks about, which also happens to be the ruling ideology in silicon valley and tech-bro circles. this leads down the road of brain-computer interfaces, where at some point we won’t even have to communicate at all, because the message is instantly transmitted to the recipient.
It's also An Antidote to Chaos 🤓
52 minutes ago, Nilsi said:there is the classic zizek joke, where a man and a woman who are romantically involved meet up and instead of having actual sexual intercourse, which involves a lot of psychological games and ambiguity, the man brings his pocket vagina, the woman brings her dildo, and they watch their toys having intercourse on behalf of them. that’s the vibe i’m getting from you sometimes.
Wtf 😂 And you give me the vibe of the piss fetish people who sit in pools of piss in public and let the academic piss of history rain down on you 😂
-
7 hours ago, nuwu said:Sorry, individuals reporting negativity in this context were overtly malignant grotesque predators, describing the messages of mine as « word v*m*t » in their explicit derogatory terms. Hence I have difficulties taking this criticism seriously, and projection of narcissism does not come off as argumentatively relevant. Inclusive thought structures have benefits, utility of packed style is not evident when analyzed from a place of wastefulness, of needlessly verbose and inappropriately persuasive conventions over symbolic arrangements requisitioning abundant energy and time for construction and interpretation in neurodivergent intuitives.
Consider from my point of view, this is other way around. Vocabulary, grammar, standard punctuations and capitalization are nonsensical, and most writings have boring, highly redundant structures with low conceptual integrity. With respect to intellectual diversity, reinforcing specific language patterns is counter-productive. Things may be expressed with minimal logical and|or semantic connectives in their canonical forms. It’s trivial to bridge concepts and decorations across domains to scale fundamental ideas in enthralling formattings. However originality is profoundly difficult, if not originated from miracles. Maximally expressive information structures with clear original scopes may become relevant in post-AI corpus. For instance, medieval individuals may hardly appreciate modern or academic styles, neither convinced from their strength or weakness.
I think I've made your case for you in my previous post quite well judging by what I gleened from that. You can of course choose to generally lean in an authentic inward-focused way of communicating, but it doesn't hurt to work on your weaknesses a little bit, especially when humans and AIs alike are screaming about them. And at some level, you are obligated to do that. You are in a space with other people and there are guidelines for quality posting:
Quote[...]
- Write using proper English grammar, spelling, and punctuation so that your posts are easy to read and understand. If you we cannot understand your posts, you will be banned.
[...]
https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/
(By the way, I'm not saying you're at the level of getting banned, but it's something to have in mind).
-
On 2.6.2024 at 0:06 AM, Nilsi said:you assume people come here to "communicate," which i argue is not the case.
the medium is the message. and the primary message of most people here is "look how spiritual/smart/virtuous/etc. i am." whether the actual content of the communication is intelligible to others is only incidental.
Maybe that is why some people come here (or why you come here
), but be careful with projecting that too much 😅 I see many people trying their best to communicate effectively along the maxims I provided.
On 2.6.2024 at 0:06 AM, Nilsi said:i would even go as far as to say that such "simulated" communication, to use baudrillard's term, is the primary characteristic of social exchange in our postmodern society in general, and that your concern with "effective communication" is largely a nostalgia for authenticity, which is a rather reactionist stance to take.
I can maybe see that, but also, on the contrary, I think the "expression without content" is actually sometimes an authentic expression, and that it often takes deliberate effort and practice to step out of that and more into effective communication. That was at least the case for me to a large extent.
And I see this dynamic in particularly Jordan Peterson. He explicitly answered "that is not my problem" to Alex O'Connor's question if he understood how people might misunderstand him due to the way he speaks. He seems to value his authentic expression over what others seem to call clarity, and maybe even quite deliberately.
After all, this "artistic" approach to verbal communication has some positive elements to it in that it engages and enthralls the listener, and it makes the listening experience an aesthetic experience as well as an intellectual experience, and in a sense it adds depth or provides ease of access in a counterintuitive way beyond mere concepts (the word I'm looking for might simply be "charisma"; that is, if I were to be concise. But should I be? 😉). Maybe it also allows your mind to go in places where it doesn't usually go and to connect different concepts more easily. Authentic inspiration is powerful, even though it can be murky and imprecise.
So maybe there are situations where you should deliberately avoid venturing into the realm of crystal clear communication and keep your listeners at the edge of their seat (and your mind at the edge of its capacity). But that said, there is a difference between doing that deliberately and doing that unintentionally. It's at least an invaluable skill to learn (effective communication), if not pursue passionately, not primarily for other's sake, but for your own sake. Communication is just thinking out loud. Even if you're letting some part of yourself die in the process of becoming clearer, maybe it's worth it.
-
1 minute ago, Nilsi said:i don't know if you're arguing that this is just leisure, or that there is somehow a shared mission of "personal growth," or whatever, but i would claim it's mostly neither of those.
I'm arguing that we're trying to communicate (I'm not being deliberately obtuse by the way).
8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:i would assume most people's actual (probably largely unconscious) motivation for coming here is having their identity validated, because they don't have any social structures in their everyday life that value traits like "consciousness," "intellectual sophistication," "moral development," or whatever. and i also suspect that many individuals here have developed these traits to the detriment of other, more generally valued traits, so of course people will try to signal these traits as strongly as possible to reinforce their sense of self-worth, which is the primary reason why they are here in the first place.
I wasn't asking why you think people come here. I was asking how you think people would communicate in this place most effectively. I think the maxims I provided apply perfectly. If not, what would be your maxims?
-
Just now, Nilsi said:i agree that this was a uniquely obscure and atrociously structured argument, but i disagree with the premise that what we’re doing here falls into the category of "conversational communication in common social situations," as your "maxims of conversation" imply.
if i wanted to have a "conversational communication," i would precisely seek out a "common social situation." i would step out on my terrace and have a chat with my neighbor, or meet up with my friends in a bar, not visit an online forum which mostly appeals to ubernerds.
I would argue this is a common social situation. We're chatting. But let's assume it's not: how do you think we would achieve effective communication in this situation?
-
Hey, I finally found an AI answer I agree with:
QuoteQuestion
Rate the communicative clarity of this sentence:
"Conscious growth may not be isolated by a quantitative approach subject to systemic bias of extrinsic confirmation | heterogenous knowledge graph inter-mappings | non-symbolic understandings | mismatch emotional valuation | failure to capture long-term potentials or local-extremum (of dynamics | organisms | systems) in multiple dimensions such as time (weighted bias in short-term adaptability and transfer learning of non-consequential closed systems such as puzzles, shadowing non-constructive cognitive functions with reduced effectiveness in processing language-based information transfer reinforcing negative cycles between neglected knowledge corpus and perceived utility thus eventually exclude the quality from traditional quotient models) and scale of organisms (globally inefficient compute structures at the expense of collective intelligence or awawareness expansion)."
Answer
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being extremely clear and easy to understand, I would rate the communicative clarity of that sentence as a 1. The sentence is excessively long, convoluted, and filled with complex technical jargon, making it extremely difficult to comprehend the intended meaning. Here are the major issues that severely impair its clarity:
- Length: The sentence is extraordinarily long, spanning multiple lines. Such excessive length makes it challenging for the reader to follow the logical flow and retain the overall meaning.
- Complexity: The sentence employs numerous complex phrases and technical terms, such as "heterogenous knowledge graph inter-mappings," "non-symbolic understandings," "non-consequential closed systems," and "globally inefficient compute structures." These terms are likely unfamiliar to most readers and contribute significantly to the sentence's complexity.
- Lack of coherence: The sentence attempts to convey multiple complex ideas simultaneously, jumping from one concept to another without clear transitions or logical connections. This lack of coherence makes it extremely difficult to follow the intended meaning.
- Unconventional punctuation: The use of the vertical bar (|) as a separator between parallel elements is unconventional and adds to the visual clutter, further impeding readability.
- Nested parentheses: The sentence contains multiple nested parenthetical expressions, making it challenging to discern the relationships between different clauses and ideas.
- Ambiguity: Due to the excessive complexity and lack of clarity, the sentence is highly ambiguous, leaving the reader uncertain about the precise meaning or intention behind the statement.
To improve the communicative clarity of this sentence, it would need to be significantly restructured and simplified. Breaking it down into multiple shorter sentences, using more common terminology, and providing clear transitions between ideas would greatly enhance its readability and comprehensibility. Effective communication relies heavily on clarity, conciseness, and the appropriate use of language tailored to the intended audience. In its current form, this sentence fails to meet these fundamental principles, making it extremely difficult for the reader to grasp the intended meaning.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Explain-this-text-d0WMuoy5QquJZ.wbtp5wug; https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Rate-the-communicative-7QVPg1KvQnSMtgPfgfKC7g
@nuwu Here is some general advice:
Grice’s Maxims of Conversation
-
Maxim of relation
- Be relevant to the aim of the conversation!
-
Maxim of quantity
- Be as informative as required (but not more)!
-
Maxim of manner
- Be clear!
-
Maxim of quality
- Be truthful!
-
I feel like a worker in an asylum.
-
3 hours ago, nuwu said:Evidently intelligence is fictional, similar to how characters in a book are not considered individual sources of intelligence. However in sleepy states, assumption of ego theories and relative survival incentives may define perspective networks, or equivalent, as wave functions shaping top-down and bottom-up pseudo-constraints from which layered singularities accrete self-reflective qualia potentials. Even in this context, conscious growth may not be isolated by a quantitative approach subject to systemic bias of extrinsic confirmation | heterogenous knowledge graph inter-mappings | non-symbolic understandings | mismatch emotional valuation | failure to capture long-term potentials or local-extremum (of dynamics | organisms | systems) in multiple dimensions such as time (weighted bias in short-term adaptability and transfer learning of non-consequential closed systems such as puzzles, shadowing non-constructive cognitive functions with reduced effectiveness in processing language-based information transfer reinforcing negative cycles between neglected knowledge corpus and perceived utility thus eventually exclude the quality from traditional quotient models) and scale of organisms (globally inefficient compute structures at the expense of collective intelligence or awawareness expansion). Concretely, non-human primates have proficient visual working memory and significantly outperform humans on related tasks, whereas auto-regressive artificial models may vastly surpass human capabilities in various tests with debatable creative potentials.
Do you understand this?
-
56 minutes ago, integral said:Everything is psychoactive.
if you eat a tomato you’ll notice that you’re high now on tomato. The air you breathe, the food you eat, the location you look, the thoughts you think, sound you hear, memories you experience... all of it is psychoactive. High on life.
Psychoactive ≠ psychedelic though 🤔
-
On 31.5.2024 at 7:42 AM, Epikur said:Even we would say officially there is NO proof that it raises IQ it would still be very good to have better memory.
We also have to remember that from a theoretical standpoint, your working memory is not just this narrow thing that your mind sometimes engages in. It's more like the very platform where conscious cognitive operations are performed.
So from a theoretical standpoint and using a rational argument, increasing the capacity, speed and flexibility of your working memory (i.e. training it), will increase your IQ, as IQ is a time-limited test with multiple different tasks with increasing cognitive load. The point about doing empirical studies is to find out if our theoretical intuitions are somehow completely incorrect, as well as the quantitative aspects of our intuitions (i.e. the exact numbers of how much the training would influence IQ). So in short, we would expect brain training to increase IQ. The empirical questions are mostly about the details.
Let's also look at the general concept of brain training. Doing anything at all (compared to doing nothing) is known to increase your IQ: reading, writing, playing videogames, talking. We know that various forms of childhood neglect destroys IQ. There have been studies of monks who have meditated in caves their whole lives who have an IQ of around 70. So most things in life can be considered brain training. The question is just if you're already doing these things, what more can you do to increase it further? Are there more efficient methods than others? That is where games like N-Back come in.
This also feeds into your point about trying different brain training games. If you're already doing some form of efficient brain training, doing a different type on top of that will probably start to have diminishing returns (like I've pointed out in a previous post with the overlap between different IQ boosting activities). That doesn't mean you shouldn't do them, but if you're maxing out your fatigue quota on one efficient brain training game, you probably won't gain much by trying out another. The question is of course which game is the most efficient and if there are synergistic effects by trying multiple games, but even then, it's probably only minute differences. It's probably more important to focus on maximizing the way you play your chosen game (strategies, time of day, posture, etc.); "do it well". It's a wild example, but just look at Tyler1 reaching 1960 elo in Chess in 9 months by just using one opening (and a really bad one; "the Cow"). That said, I might check out some of the games you mentioned just for curiosity's sake.
-
54 minutes ago, Dryas said:What about Quad N-back? I've done that for about a month (skipping one day, ~25 minutes) and I didn't get a 10 point increase. I will admit to some cognitive boost but I'm skeptical even of that and it definitely wasn't 10 points.
I'm kinda lazy these days but intend to get back on it for the entire summer and see what happens I guess.
I don't like Quad because I feel it induces a kind of ADHD-like state. I will notice that I try to switch my focus between different stimuli types quite rapidly in order to get an even score on all stimuli types, and the manner in which I switch seems impulsive and unstructured. With Dual, you're much more able to keep a steady focus, both because there are fewer stimuli types and because visual and auditory stimuli can be processed in parallel quite well. You're also probably more able to develop a structured strategy with fewer stimuli types, which streamlines your progress.
54 minutes ago, Dryas said:What about Quad N-back? I've done that for about a month (skipping one day, ~25 minutes) and I didn't get a 10 point increase.
Have you seen any progress in your in-game performance (have you advanced through any N-Back levels)? Have you developed an in-game strategy? Are you taking adequate breaks to deal with fatigue (both within each session and between sessions)? Consistency is important for growth, but rest is just as important.
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard
I've wrestled with this question: how to deal with the unknown (that which is beyond that which can be known, the known being e.g. consciousness)? The answer is: you take it as it is and leave it as it is; potentially true, but unknown. You don't make any more fuzz about it (and if you do, you'll be in a constant state of existential anxiety, which is not really worth it).
And it's one thing to say that, but it's another thing to base your metaphysics on it (on an unknown, which is what materialists like to do, anyway). Just because something is unknown and potentially the case, that alone shouldn't hold much weight for your approach to reality.
So while I can't know if the entirety of my idea of reality (including emptiness itself) actually rests inside the butthole of a pink elephant, that doesn't necessarily mean I should entertain that thought very much.