Carl-Richard

This is why our civilization is collapsing ?

I think my position is compatiblism: there is a reason why we talk about making choices on an everyday level, and there is a reason why we talk about how in a more ultimate sense we don't have a choice, and both reasons are valid.

That's a limited perspective. I gave both perspectives earlier.

There is a lot of wild shit that pops into my mind that I choose not to say.

You have free will in the sense that choices seem to present themselves to you and you're able to evaluate each choice according to some inner thought or feeling, and then you'll experience yourself making a choice according to that. You also don't have free will in the sense that you don't choose which choices, thoughts or feelings present themselves to you.

You could've chosen to not say that

"Are you an INFP too?! Awww, we're meant for each other!" ?

?

True rationality is when you're in dialogue with your emotions: not a slave to them, but also not completely above them.

My mind can't help but to draw comparisons to the hugely profitable business model of Hustlers University by Dr. Emory Andrew Tate lll himself. Their purported goal is to drive down the price of a bachelor's degree to 4000 dollars, which sounds like a noble pursuit in itself, but charging this amount of money before having achieved accreditation does seem like a bit of a hustler-esque kind of move à la Tate the lll, right? (because an unaccredited "bachelor's degree" isn't really a bachelor's degree, right?). At least there doesn't seem to be a MLM component involved (for now ). But do they really need that when they charge 4000 dollars just for some video lectures? I'd be interested to see what those lectures are about and what types of degrees they're offering. https://www.instagram.com/p/CoKnYuGvOGf/?hl=en I just imagined a scenario where some controversial political figure 100-200 years ago ended up creating their own education institution and what that would've looked like today given some sort of success. I mean, isn't that essentially the story of many universities today (e.g. Harvard)? Maybe in the not so far future, what looks like a shady online business in its startup phase might be largely indistinguishable from most universities today.

@Jehovah increases Stop talking to yourself.

Bruuuh 76% success rate on Triple 3-Back (86%+71%+71%), first attempt after a 2-day break. Maybe you're right that you should take breaks.

We've been over this already. Different people have different relationships to food. If you could be me for a day, you'd be surprised how easily I'll eat 2500 calories and more.

I had the same type of guy come up to me when I was out buying some new pants a few weeks ago. He showed me these small pamplets about spirituality and talked about needing money to finance travelling to India. When I gave him the "I'm just a poor student" routine, he said "just out of the kindness of your heart, you know, for good karma; what goes around comes around". I denied and he left, and I thought the same thing as you: "what if he cursed me and my future is fucked?". After all, the guy seemed pretty fluid. What if he was actually awakened and has some kind of spiritual abilities? What if he knew that I was into spirituality because he is just that awake and knew that I would get tripped up when he mentioned good and bad karma? Then I also thought "what kind of supposedly spiritual person goes around guilt tripping people to give them money?". I also think he lied straight out when he said he was a psychology professor as a response to me studying psychology, but I wasn't quick enough to ask him which university and what field, which could've maybe tripped him up. Other than that, he seemed passionate and genuine, but the professor thing made me thing that he could just be a super charismatic conman. I'll never know, but he surely tripped me up a bit.

Obviously because his name is world famous by this point.

@Jehovah increases Be nice.

It's inbuilt. Think of there being an ethics module inside your mind. It competes with other modules. An ethical person is one who achieves a well-integrated functioning across the different modules, who is not unbalanced or stuck on just one of the modules. That often requires some work, and anything that promotes general functioning and health will lead you there.

But here, for randomness to work the way you're describing, you need to presuppose manifestation (and atoms and time), which are patterns. Why are they patterns? Because they are a certain way, they unfold a certain way, and patterns are of course not random. But how do patterns arise? They simply do, through pure creativity. So whatever randomness you're talking about is contingent on presupposed patterns, and therefore I don't think it's even necessary to invoke such a distinction. Infinity doesn't need anything but itself to be infinite.

Maybe it's not a niche brand from her perspective. Maybe you're just unfamilar with brands that sell purses. Maybe she sees the brand everywhere and it's not such a big coincidence in her mind. Maybe it doesn't matter.

So when I was writing my bachelor thesis in psychology on the relationship between mindfulness and physical activity, I came across two cases where a single study tried to measure the same thing (mindfulness) using two different questionnaires and came to very different conclusions for each questionnaire (i.e. mindfulness correlates positively with physical activity vs. mindfulness does not correlate with physical activity). This made me have a moment of "what even is science?". Well, it turns out that my feeling in that moment seems to be echoed in a bunch of articles I've had to read in these past weeks, largely specific to the social and behavioral sciences (and therefore psychology). The articles are mostly addressing possible causes of the replication crisis (for some numbers: depending on the sub-field, some estimates say 50-75% of studies in psychology fail to replicate). Here are some excerpts from one article to show you what I'm talking about: "The generalizability crisis" - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/generalizability-crisis/AD386115BA539A759ACB3093760F4824 Reading those last two sentences took me straight back to looking at those studies a few months ago. It made me feel that the entire quantitative branch of psychology was sort of meaningless. "Just quit!". Will I? What if psychology can be saved? Is it all for nothing? What do you think? Here is another article on the topic: "Addressing the theory crisis in psychology" - https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2

Imagine if you were on that date and you walk past a Nike store and the girl says "isn't that store the same as your shoes?".

When was that (if it's not inappropriate to ask)?

I mean like going on a mission for an extended period of time trying to simplify how you write in general. It's an entire process. I'm sorry you feel that way. I've responded to multiple clarifications. At one point, you stopped clarifying, and I answered with "if you say so". Then you kept clarifying, and I responded some more.

Even worse: I'm actually Norwegian. I will say both "colour" and "color" when it fits me ?

Just curious, have you ever gone through a phase of trying to severely simplify your language? From personal experience, I find that it also helps for thinking clearly It also helps to admit when you don't know/understand things. Maybe you'll come off like a simpleton like I did earlier, but at least you'll be more transparent to yourself, less foggy.