Carl-Richard

When it comes to pure physical pain, you could have a point, but when it comes to suffering in general, humans are capable deep and complex states of emotional distress and mental suffering. Some animals have their own version of that too, so if you care about that, maybe avoid eating animals like cows or pigs. Arguably chickens, certainly bugs, are a bit different.

@LSD-Rumi Don't take it personally. I'm just thinking about the people on the forum who have a hard time distinguishing fantasy from reality.

People are still going to call each other by gendered pronouns however way you square it.

It's a thorough ear cleanser

Well, the most extreme example would be the song "I". Fredrik Thordendahl said that he basically just sat down in the studio, pressed record and played some random stuff, and then the band built the rest of the song around that. For all intents and purposes, the song consists entirely of non-repeating patterns, like an irrational number. That would be their most experimental album though (and not just for that reason lol). Other than that, even some of their most well-known songs are very much like that: the intro riff to "In Death - Is Life" and especially "In Death - Is Death" are good examples (I swear to God, I've spent probably 4 hours trying to learn the first section of "Is Death", and I'm only halfway through lol). It's also so god damn heavy and weird-sounding, I'm afraid of traumatizing my roommates What I just noticed is that the intro riff to "Is Life" is non-repeating in terms of rhythm but not melody (uses almost only the same two notes), while "Is Death" is non-repeating in terms of melody but not rhythm (but it's still a really wonky polyrhythm, so combined with the non-repeating melody, it mindfucks you really bad when trying to figure out where in the song you are when trying to learn it, hence why it takes forever to learn ?).

I play guitar and improvise a lot and have wanted to see what I sound like when I'm "connected", but every time I press the record button, I play like shit Like Gavin Harrison puts it, it's hard to "mentally undress" when there is pressure to perform 38:32 And he goes on to talk about getting into Meshuggah in that clip too lol (the threads are connecting in my mind!). I was going to say this in the previous post, but I didn't find a way to make it fit (it's a concrete example of complexity in music), but anyway: the reason Meshuggah is often kind of hard to listen to, is because of the general lack of short and catchy repeating phrases. They often either use very long phrases, or they use similar phrases with slight modifications, and it can throw you off if you're not used to it (in other words, it can seem like it doesn't "make sense" ). But when you do get it, it's absolutely genius.

It's interesting that you mention music. Many people when they hear something like highly technical improvised jazz, just perceive it as non-sense or "noise". They aren't able to copy the intended message and represent it in their mind (understand it). On the other hand, if you're able to pay attention and actually hear all the sounds, and if you're familiar with the musical concepts that are being used, you would think it makes a lot of sense. Music, like stories, like logical arguments, have a kind of narrative structure to them (sequences of information in a particular order). It's just that the more complex the narrative, the harder it is to follow. So in that case, highly creative endeavors (like improvised music) can make a lot of sense. I think the point you're getting at is that creativity exists on a razor's edge, and that it can easily turn into non-sense. For example, great improvisers will tell you that to truly play something great, you have to risk making mistakes. You have to push yourself to the limits of your abilities and exist at that edge, and when you do play something incredible, it's when you've temporarily extended yourself past that edge into God territory (Steve Vai calls it "connecting", also referred to as "flow" or "channeling"). There is a great clip of him talking about it when remembering Allan Holdsworth (legendary fusion guitarist): 0:57

I went to a hypnotist once when I was 12 and she kinda cured my fear of flying. I say "kinda", because it has actually come back in later years, although not in the same way as before. Before, it was more around the event itself, but now it's only triggered if there is severe turbulence. I actually think it's because I started studying in another city where I started flying these tiny propeller airplanes which are cheaper and used for shorter distances, and the turbulence hits way differently on those ? There will be like a slight breeze and the plane flips upside down and folds in on itself.

Nature made homosexuality.

1:12:05 I like when he says "I think only person-making agents can be properly moral". Combined with all the other points (autopoesis, rationality, perspectival knowing, fluid intelligence, etc.), it really makes you think how similar these things have to be to biological humans before we can truly call them generally intelligent.

And being is what you are.

If you tell me a story, and I fail recount the sequence of events in the story, that would be the copying error I'm talking about. It has to do with reproducing the logical reasoning, and like a story, you have a start, some middle parts and an end. If you fail to do the logic, you fail to tell the story, and you end up not making sense.

If I were to summarize what I just wrote, it has a lot to do with non-propositional and embodied knowing, i.e. things that aren't easily grasped or taught through concepts or logic and which correlates with the amounts of data points and perspectives you've been subjected to. The problem of course is that because of this, it's hard to say concretely what it is.

Pineal Gland Optics and Deadlifts.

Being > meaning > happiness.

Leo's standards of awakening are quite ridiculous, so don't expect to hit that mark. But generally, there are signs that can give you insight into someone's mental state, but you can't know for sure.

When I think of non-sense, I think of failed thinking, like a copying error. Things like the unknown go beyond current thinking, but there are certainly parts of the unknown that will be thought about in the future, and those thoughts don't have to be non-sense, unless of course there is a copying error. There are certainly things we can never make sense of, but we have a word for that: "trans-rational" (or "trans-sense").

I suggest consulting more sources than ChatGPT

Coked up.

You don't have to die on the hill of a ChatGPT answer. It's supposed to give mediocre answers. That's how it was trained.

I can understand hearing the word "transcognitive" and then reading the examples and intuiting some superhuman state of being, but if you're realistic, this is what most intellectual people do.

The thread and the posts in that thread all follow: Growth mindset Critical thinking Expand your knowledge base Embrace complexity Creativity Stay open-minded Embrace uncertainty Inter-disciplinary

That's just called not being stupid

I'm an ex- drug addict who benefited from mindfulness, but it was certainly not the whole story. Reductionism is rarely a sufficient answer. One of my old roommates from last year who began a downward spiral of heavy drug use was recently spotted by my friend picking bottles from trash cans. He regularly watched Sadhguru and talked about the benefits of meditation. When I think about it, that could've been me. I consider myself very lucky. There were a lot of fortunate circumstances in my external environment that coincided with each other and which affected my behavior and way of thinking. When I count up all the details, it actually seems like a miracle.