Carl-Richard

How many IQ points did I just lose from just glancing at that chart?

The real question is why did he after that make "Infinity of Gods", which presents the idea of multiple Gods existing separately from each other, when that is seemingly antithetical solipsism? And I can hear Leo answering something like "no, you just multiply the solipsisms", but that really just negates the term. I also think "Infinity of Gods" is flat out redundant, as God is infinite, so Infinity of Infinities is redundant. You just put up an arbitrary boundary when there are already infinite boundaries. The problem is complicating something which is really simple: God, Infinity, Oneness. But maybe I'm just simple-minded.

What happened is that Leo started using the word solipsism and people became confused. It's his biggest pedagogic blunder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion) When you are referring to attributes, things that are changing, or the magic show of form, you are referring to Maya. When you talk about appearances, e.g. "other people" (mind-body complexes), you are talking about Maya. When you talk about Maya, you are talking about that which is illusory and obscures Absolute Truth. Solipsism (the way it is most often conceived) relates to that which obscures Absolute Truth.

Solipsism is Maya.

Oh yes, that's a lot of substance right there, exactly what I asked for. I can also only talk in single sentences: You are stage BLOOOO.

You're literally no different from a religious zealot from the 10th century if you get hung up on a word like that without addressing the content of what is being said. What is the substance of your disagreement?

Not everybody is unemployed

No joke: As for "there is nothing magical in your brain, just the same neural network throughputs; [...] anything that is happening in a human brain can be replicated in a machine", try replicating electrochemical gradients that create a graded response of neural signals (instead of the "yes/no" signals of neural networks) backwards and even "sideways" propagation of signals (instead of strictly unidirectional signals) on average 860 trillion connections (instead of 1.7-1.8 trillion of GPT-4) And this is still assuming that "neuronal signals" is the salient level of computation. Why not the ion channels along the axon that drive the signal, or generally the rich flow of activity across the cell membrane (e.g. transporters, neurotransmitters, general enzymes, nutrients)? And what about the cellular interior (and where for example microtubules have been hypothesized to exert quantum effects)? And just look at what ChatGPT (an LLM) is. It pumps out letters on a screen. Unlike an organism, it doesn't have agency. It doesn't actively seek out new information. It doesn't tap you on the shoulder and ask you a question out of curiosity. It doesn't give you unsolicited advice when you are just minding your own business. It doesn't have concerns, self-concern, homeostasis, senses, relevance realization. It doesn't care, because it's not a living thing. Also, when we get wowed into thoughts of it being conscious because it simulates language very well, what about dogs, cats, chickens, fish? Why do we extend consciousness to these things while they have no impressive human language presentations? Like, is it not obvious that an LLM is a machine simulating human language based on some inputs? Why is not the Google algorithm or Google Translate conscious (which also employ neural networks)? Why do we not extend the same type of downward scaling to them like with dogs and cats? Is it maybe because we're not being wowed by them pulling on our heart strings?

😂 There are actually so many times he has had this super confrontational and reductionistic attitude of like "no, it's actually just this, and if you disagree, you're just being ignorant and unreasonable, and that's fine, we're all human sometimes" about a wide range of topics, it's like a character trait at this point.

I attended this one live:

Interesting point? What was it? 🙈

🤣🤣🤣

That's like four levels of logical error at once. My head.

I have nothing against breatharianism. I have something against how you defined the levels. As for the legitimacy of breatharianism, even within a materialistic paradigm, you can have increased efficiency and behavioral modes within a system that would lower requirements for things like food. For example, if you have a very low resting heart rate, you are generally calm and not very stressed and you do things in a very consciously aware and streamlined way (like when practicing "active mindfulness"), I wouldn't be surprised if you needed only half of the food of somebody else of a similar size. The one time I spoke on the radio, I was starving a few hours later, probably due to the adrenaline. And definitely if you add on top of that a very "inactive" lifestyle where you maybe only sit and meditate for 12 hours a day (which certainly if you're in a samadhi, is also the most efficient way of "resting"), you probably don't need much of anything for days. And let's also not forget that somebody who weighs less of course needs less food by default than somebody else.

Even in that situation, I would probably not present something undigestible to someone. If someone is able to digest something, it should be obvious. But maybe it takes practice. I remember I used to always talk about whatever I was interested in without considering almost anything about how the other person related to it (which is actually described as "autistic thinking"). Then I deliberately spent a long time trying to only talk about things that were highly relevant to the other person's interests (and skills and capacities). Now I'm very acutely aware of how someone will handle something when talking to them. And over time, as I run into people who do exactly the opposite (and some who are indeed actually autistic), it becomes more clear that this is exactly what I did and that it worked. Yeah, duh. The only time I've talked about idealism with someone else is when we were in each other's company for a couple of hours.

Bumblefoot is the most natural, forward-moving (dynamically) and intuitive-feeling guitarist I've come across. Everything feels like he just instantly grabs it from the ether with no plan or thought. So many guitarists make it into a neurosis. This just flows effortlessly. No pretense, just presence.

Don't. Keep yourself as simple as possible and you'll fail at even that. EDIT: I only read the title. If somebody asks me "what do you think about sexism?", I don't know how to answer that. I don't think it's a question you usually get asked (feel free to expand on what you were actually asked). It's more the case that you talk about something and the topic of sexism comes up and they spin their story and then you just give a thought related to it. It doesn't have to be "the deepest most amazing" view, that's not what pops up in my mind. When you usually talk to people, your mind naturally tunes in to their level, unless you feel some kind of drive or compulsion to share something else. And if you do and they look at you sideways, it was probably not for the right reasons. In a conversation, the focus is really always on what the other person needs or wants or thinks. If you present something way outside their wheelhouse, you're not really tuned in to the conversation. Just do whatever "feels" right. If it feels icky to present them with some odd view you have, don't.

Whaaat?

A.k.a. intermittent fasting. Soylent drinkers and protein shake enthusiasts rejoice. So does anyone. I would say step up the definition game for this one.

Glimpses of awakening. Keep going and they will happen more frequently until you can't stop them from happening. Then you'll see if you can really handle it. But then it's also too late.

Weed addiction is much more sinister than addiction to caffeine or nicotine.

What is a physical law? Here is an insight I had about gravity (an "original" insight): People often say gravity is not a force but an acceleration. But when I jump off a 10 foot diving board, I don't feel like I'm accelerating as if I'm sitting in a car that is pumping the gas (there is no feeling of inertia). I just feel like I'm weightless, in free fall. But still, my speed relative to the ground is increasing by the second (m/s^2), so I am indeed "accelerating" relative to the ground, but there is still no feeling of inertia. So what is more accurate to say is that when you're falling towards the ground, the ground is accelerating towards you rather than you accelerating towards it (but that is also not accurate if acceleration requires inertia in some part of the system, because the Earth certainly doesn't experience inertia either in that case). And now I just realized that the reason they say gravity is not a force is for the same reason that I experience inertia in the car but not when jumping off the diving board: When you are acted upon by a force (which can be expressed as "Force = mass x acceleration") and it causes you to move, you experience inertia. But you only experience inertia when moving relative to your own reference frame ("inertial frame"). The fact that you experience no distinction between the ground accelerating towards you and you accelerating towards the ground when jumping off the diving board, is because they are equivalent with respect to your reference frame. And not coincidentally, The Equivalence Principle states "there is no difference between an accelerating frame of reference and a gravitational field". So when accelerating due to a gravitational field, it's actually your reference frame that is accelerating, i.e. the thing you use to judge whether something else is accelerating, which is the same as experiencing something else accelerating towards you. Holy shit Einstein is a genius.

Wow