Carl-Richard

I would put it as a "change" that both subsumes and transcends these things. For example, enlightenment is not merely a change in thought or perception. It's a change ("change") in consciousness.

Spiritual masturbator*

@Javfly33 People are so conditioned to think that "the point" has to be something extrinsic to the thing itself (extrinsic value, "purpose") that they forget that the point can be intrinsic to the thing itself (intrinsic value). In fact, intrinsic value is the only point that truly exists, because some thing's extrinsic value always depends on some other thing's intrinsic value, or else there are no things, only an infinite regression of promised things. In other words, if you can't enjoy something for what it is and always keep looking for an extrinsic value (always placing the value one step outside of what currently exists), then you're not just ontologically confused, but you're setting yourself up for endless suffering.

Not for the ego. If you think you desire awakening, it's not awakening, but an idea in your mind, often based on a desire for something else entirely (e.g. safety, belonging, self-esteem). The experience itself is way beyond what you can ever imagine, let alone desire, yet you've always known it.

Sounds like tulpamancy. Tanya Luhrmann talked about it in the debate I attended live:

"Deterioration issues"? I don't personally think of random lights overlayed everyday objects as a "perceptual upgrade".

I don't know, and that's a weird and random thing to ask. Are you @AtheisticNonduality?

I bought a light therapy lamp back when I thought I was seasonally affected some years ago. It certainly gave me more energy. One of the first times I tried it, I had so much energy, I came to a seminar at my university and finished the assignments in half the time and left early Be careful to not stare directly at it, even if you feel fine while doing it (I tried it sometimes, and it made everything look a bit grey for the rest of the day, and my eyes kinda hurt). Nowadays, I try to let as much natural light into my room as possible when I wake up, independent of the seasons. Even if I wake up too early for any light, I also do short 10-minute walks up to 3 times a day, and the times I get to do morning walks, I'm basically guaranteed some light.

I would say 95% back to normal. A big turning point happened on December 1st, the night before I went to see this debate live (luckily for me), probably because I was meditating deeply while falling asleep. That was also the time I had started sprint training again, which generally has a very positive effect on my cognition. I had thought about trying cold showers, but after that night, I didn't see much need anymore. Interesting. No, I haven't tried it. Damn, I can't imagine having no improvement in brain fog for a full year. That must really suck.

*proceeds to not respond to any other posts* 😂

@An young being @Danioover9000 The OP abandoned the thread, a low-quality thread to begin with, a miracle it wasn't closed. It's on its own two feet now. I feel that this particular discussion is soon over though.

I agree: not all incest is wrong. I don't know how I can make myself any more clear. It can be wrong for other reasons than potential risks too, sure. But I think one of the potential risks (the bullet exiting the barrel) is a big factor. If you want to define actual risk that way, then I can define the risk associated with the power differential that way (as an actual risk). The power differential is "actually there". I don't think "potential vs. actual" is a useful distinction to get stuck on. Both involve risks, and both are therefore relevant to morality. In fact, I mentioned "potential" in a very casual way which didn't affect the argument much. In most cases, that is probably true. Still, power differentials are risky regardless of the particular situation. If you define adult as age 18 and above, especially in a parent-child (or parent-"adult") relationship, there are still potential issues you can point to (financial dependence, role-blending, etc.). I agree. But again, you can still talk about many concrete cases of incest where morality is an issue. Again, I'm not saying all incest is therefore immoral. What does "inherent" mean in this case? I was including professors in that. You could also extend it to other professional relationships (e.g. employer-employee). It has to do with role-blending. But of course this is a more contentious area, but there are arguments to be made there. So you do have a conception of role-blending. I would just apply it to more situations (e.g. parent-child relationships). You're getting somewhere. Again, I'm not. I don't see the point you're trying to make. Again, my main approach to dealing with immoral people is to help them, not shame them. Anyways, I don't see it necessary to mix into the discussion much how we should deal with immoral people, and that we can just focus on whether incest is wrong or not (which you seemed to want to do earlier). I think letting most of your morality hang on a murky concept like "consent" (are we talking verbal or non-verbal consent?), and also morally greenlighting everything that goes on in a relationship past the affirmation of consent, ignores a lot of the complex and covert nature of relationships and how rife these dynamics are for abuse (even with so-called affirmation of consent). 80% is a lot. I would consider something like a cultural taboo to be appropriate in that case, i.e. strong disincentivization, not necessarily punished by law. Morality does not necessarily imply legality. Again, I don't see it necessary to mix into the discussion much how we should deal with immoral people. See "humans versus other animals" in Table 2. The p-value is 0.14, meaning it's not statistically significant (the alpha level is usually between 0.01-0.05).

When you can tie the quantum foam at beginning of the universe to what makes a meaningful life in under half an hour, your name can only be Daniel Schmachtenberger.

I agree that incest is not really what is wrong, rather the abuse that may arise. And I'm not saying that incest is wrong because abuse may arise (which you seem to think I'm saying). I'm simply saying in the cases where abuse does arise, it's wrong, and those cases are pretty common for incest. Still, "potential" can certainly be wrong. Should you convince a child to play Russian roulette? They can potentially get hurt, but as you say, they won't get hurt before they actually do get hurt. Also as you say, it just requires more of a certain thing (in this case luck) to engage in Russian roulette (and not get hurt). That is also for example why there are ethical rules against teachers engaging in behavior with students that is not compatible with the teacher-student relationship, e.g. initating a romantic relationship. The hurt is not in the fact that they're iniating a romantic relationship, but it's about the potential abusive outcomes of such a relationship (e.g. incentivizing sex through improved grades). It's just like how a parent-child romantic relationship might be wrong, not because it necessarily leads to the child being hurt, but because it likely can. I think there can be a definite overlap between dysfunction and morality, certainly when it's one individual (usually the one with power) imposing their dysfunctionality on another. I have the same attitude to people who I deem immoral (to primarily try to help them). I'm going to use your own logic here: what if there is enough care and maturity in the relationship? Some minors are more mature and caring than an adult. Why does them being a minor necessarily make it wrong? Even still, would you say that immature and uncaring minors can potentially (that word again) engage in such a relationship while also not being abused? Why does them being a minor necessarily make it wrong? Just a slight correction: pedophilia describes sexual attraction. It does not necessitate abuse. Also, again, I agree that incest is not really what is wrong, rather the abuse that may arise. I was just quoting the results of the study which uses statistical tests and threshold values for establishing statistical significance. There might in reality be a tiny difference, but not a large enough difference to produce a statistically significant result. Also, just because there is a taboo doesn't necessarily mean it will lead to a statistically significant difference. Maybe the taboo is actually really ineffective when it comes to stopping people from actually engaging in incest.

I think there are more problematic and less problematic forms of incest. For example, most forms of parent-child incest (different ages, different roles; more power differential) vs. peer cousin-cousin incest (same ages, same roles; less power differential). Sibling-sibling incest generally falls somewhere in-between. You could say it's not the incest per se that is wrong, but it's the potential of abuse that occurs in particularly sexual relationships with a power differential which is wrong, and incest is one common manifestation of that dynamic. There was no difference in incest avoidance between humans with supposedly higher social bonding and animals with supposedly lower social bonding, which is evidence against the hypothesis that social bonding affects incest avoidance. If social bonding is a significant factor for incest avoidance, and if humans display significantly more social bonding than other animals, you would expect to see a significant difference between humans and animals in incest avoidance.

Left-brain andy. Me (ex-addict though).

Will you kick the lyrica as well after that? It's a pretty addictive drug in itself. Beware when Christmas comes for any rationalizations to keep doing the drug. You just displayed one. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable rationalization, but that's what is tricky: rationalizations are always somewhat reasonable. That is why they're so seductive and how they keep the addiction going. At some point, you have to be fully loyal to your goal, no matter the rationalizations. Delegitimize the PhD debate panel, be dogmatic, don't listen to them.

Spotify gives you an annual summary at the end of the year of what you have listened to (and how much, etc.). Post the song that you've listened to the most here. This is mine 😂: I played it 135 times 😝. I tried to learn some parts of it on guitar, so I don't know if that maybe affected it (maybe it only counts full playthroughs). I don't think it matters though, because the top five songs are all also from the same album (and in chronological order from after that song). For the record, I don't only listen to Meshuggah; I listened to a total of 332 artists and 2642 songs this year 😅

I'm technically addicted to sauna 😆 I was loyal to a particular gym brand for over 10 years (built up a platinum membership with a lot of perks), and then when I moved closer to the city, I changed to a different gym brand soelly because they didn't have saunas 😝

😅

Hehe, it's in Norwegian, so you would have to use Google Translate on the entire thing (I don't know if that is practically possible). But I can give you the abstract which I've pasted into Google Translate and slightly tweaked for grammar: I don't mention "New Age religion" explicitly in the abstract, but it's essentially equivalent to "newer individualistic forms of religiosity", as well as "spirituality". As you can see from the concluding remarks, the students in the study don't actually perceive "spirituality" as having anything to do with religion, as it's not included in the definition that was arrived at (which you can also see on this forum and more generally), but the scholars do. What the students perceive as religion is largely what the scholars refer to as the traditional and collective forms of religion.

True, but in another sense, to separate life prior to genuine realization from the realization itself (certainly in a way that avoids responsibility, care or concern for those who are suffering), is equally madness.

Or just say what you actually follow, which is New Age religion. I've written a short research paper on this very topic, so I can talk more about it if you'd like.

New Age religion.