Carl-Richard

His commentary during it was "the more pain, the better" (paraphrasing). 7:14

Bryan Johnson shoots shockwaves into his joints with a special-made device in order to improve his joints. Is that high impact? VO2 max is definitely good for cognitive functioning. I just did 4x4 running. But there seems to be a trade-off between VO2 max and lactate. Lactate just makes my brain go insaneo mode. I've actually noticed a distinct difference in the stink from my headset after a sprint vs a 4x4 run. Sprint produces a much more sour and unpleasant smell which I have to be more rigorous about wiping off, hence lactic acid.

Pushing to the limit is the greatest feeling in the world. For example assault bike. (Volume warning): Or normal bike, but then you run into the issue of lesser upper body recruitment. I haven't tried assault bike yet, but my hunch is that sprinting is still better for maximizing energy output per unit of time again because of biomechanics. If your arms and legs are built to move a certain way, they will move better that way than if you move in some other way => better movement, more movement, more energy expenditure. Assault bike could lessen impact on joints, but I don't think impact is detrimental for expending energy (or maybe I need to think more about that).

If you're not going to spend that time after 3 PM reading for your degree: build something, do something that has a "narrative" or which grows, not something which cycles through the same low attention span things primarily driven by impulse. For example, I had a very awesome idea for a business for passive income (true in theory but probably not in practice because I can't stop tweaking things) that I will start setting up next weekend. And when I have time, I will play some guitar. Me personally, I work with my thesis all the time (except one day a week). And soon I will work a job next to that when I'm close to finished. If you get to a place where you feel there is not enough time in the day, that's probably a good measure (but then learn to schedule time off so you don't die of over-exhaustion or burnout).

You should be nice so that the other person is treated nice, not so that you are treated nice. Women like nice men, just not men who use being nice in an act of desperation. If you depend too much on your surroundings and you try to inhabit the role of a man, you won't be fun to hang around, especially for women. How to get women: have a backbone and be nice.

If you want to take a reductionistic evolutionary lens, you were given the ability to think abstractly ("have intrusive thoughts") in order to plan, predict and simulate movements, actions and events, such that you can create better movements, actions and events. It's not like thinking is this completely separate and isolated thing that occurs on its own without any ground. It spawned and branched out of an underlying foundation, of organisms moving out and about in their environment. Also, in your brain, your abstract thinking areas (the prefrontal areas) literally grows out of the motor areas (the precentral gyrus). So to "solve" the problem of abstract thinking is just to use them as intended — to guide and inform your actions. And that requires you to ACT (both as in "act" but also as in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy). If you were a tribesman living in the wild and you woke up and started your day, your thoughts would be "how can I chop this tree?" or "what footprints are these and which animal should I be expecting?". The thoughts are grounded in action, and necessarily so, because they are forced to survive. But when your survival is taken care of, you have to rediscover this purpose of thought in order to ground it.

When you got people like Mike Israetel who believe ChatGPT is conscious and cries while talking to it while claiming to have a 160 IQ, it doesn't surprise me.

Nothing is more boring than when relative discussions get derailed into the absolute. We were just giving examples of meaning, but now you want me to ground my a priori assumptions? Nowhere did I say what I'm saying is absolute.

@Nilsi I didn't come here to give an ontological guarantee, only to describe meaning. So when you started talking about discipling yourself, I thought we were talking from within the framework, from within the assumptions, not critiquing all frameworks or assumptions. But sure, if you want to call all frameworks or assumptions "discipline", you can do that.

Post-modernism is good for invoking pluralism and awareness of assumptions, not for disproving any particular perspective. So it's tangential to the discussion. It forces you to be equally critical of frameworks that invoke concepts like "natural" and those who don't. You haven't disproven that certain structures have a certain naturalness to them, only pointed at the assumptions underlying them. But postmodernism also has a chicken and the egg problem. Does not critiquing meaning rely on meaning?

12:14 Literally destroyed Elon Musk in one sentence 😂 Or who knows, maybe he will invent a gravity device ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When I was getting my driving license, I was currently meditating so hard every day that I was ultra conscious of everything I didn't know when driving, and it made me extremely careful. How do I know exactly where my car is placed in the road? How do I know exactly how much I should turn the steering wheel when in a curve? How do I know if I can stop on time if a person jumps out behind a car and runs out in the road? How do I know exactly when it's too late to drive or stop at a yellow light? Over time, I just had to accept that there are so many things I can't know while driving and that this is normal and people just are used to driving while knowing very little and have just learned to do what seems to work by simply driving.

Yes, I agree you need to assume language, reason and observation to conclude that meaning is natural. But I'm not particularly worried about that.

Blabla.

Puer aeternus and existential OCD are two sides of the same coin.

Synchroncity: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkxhb44-s5FuKii1d1duEnhocQaQBMA1l_P?si=kqFpEEeQRa64p2jd

There exists lots of valueable non-vertical, non-construct aware stuff. I'll take massive dumps on theories any day but I'll also acknowledge their value.

What's that?

@aurum I have problems with necessarily tying functions together into 4-function clusters. But it's fine if you treat all the types/functions (only functions if you want to be rigorous) as statistical traits, so e.g. I'm x% INFP, x% INTP, x% ENFP, and so on (or x% Fi, x% Ti, x% Ne, x% Te, and so on). Other than that, MBTI's "type" aspect is really no more problematic than the diagnoses in DSM-5. If you e.g. have 7 symptoms of schizophrenia, not 6, then you "have" schizophrenia (or you "are" a schizophrenic). Like the diagnoses in DSM-5, MBTI is useful for describing and predicting behavior. They might not capture the entire complexity of a single individual, and indeed one individual might have several diagnoses at one time (or be just below the diagnostic threshold).

Is there one spiritual teacher you're not paranoid about?

*Somebody starts petting Reciprocality* — "I've calculated the emotional entailments of the situation and dissimulated it".

Spontaneous orgies during UN council meetings. That would be something.

I fed the prompt in the original post to the deep research ChatGPT o3 and told it to type @Leo Gura with a ≥1000 post sample size. Here is a summary and a link to the enormous ~7500 words research paper it generated: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6863583b5c588191a59bb26dfccec267 I might be misremembering, but this "INTx" answer was something I argued at one point when discussing Leo's MBTI type with @thisintegrated some years ago where he insisted he was INTJ. I should probably tell it to not weigh any previous test results though, but it didn't seem to weigh it that much according to the report.

One of the greatest things you can do is to sow the conditions for people's self-expression.

We usually focus on other ways of giving humans attention, like talking. But we do "pet" each other, e.g. to show physical affection or to communicate, e.g. patting somebody on the shoulder when they did a good job. It's just more likely between people who have strong bonds.