Carl-Richard

So you didn't awaken for your first time around a year ago when you posted that thread?

I don't want to be harsh just for the sake of it, but the first year after your first spiritual awakening is usually spent floating between genuine spiritual insights and a huge spiritual ego, so don't be surprised when people tell you to pipe down. Just relax man No need to be the most awake person you can ever be yet.

Now I feel that this ironic attitude we just created in this discussion (and which also probably involves a shallow interpretation of the feminine) is counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve (i.e. not "othering" women), and it feels unironically not ok ?

Because I don't know how to do that without being inauthentic. Is this me being emotional? ? And aren't we talking about people things right now? ?

Lol. It felt very sincere to me Maybe it's the Easter sun. Hmm. What would that look like in practice?

How can I make my presence more female friendly?

I think the things you see on LSD when you close your eyes is merely an enhanced version of the normal kinds of imagery you have when you're daydreaming or falling asleep. To me, opening the third eye is either a direct reference to the final process of kundalini awakening (the snake exploding out the final chakras), or a metaphorical reference to the various psychic powers that are granted to you through spiritual growth. Either one can be practiced with third eye meditation (hold your finger so that it's almost touching your third eye area, and when you feel a tingling sensation, remove your finger and focus on the sensation while in a meditative posture). I will also say that you should be very careful with that particular practice. Kundalini energy is not something to be messed with.

Is encouraging people to lose weight positive motivation?

What is positive/negative motivation exactly?

@Someone here I find that sitting in an upright but relaxed position with at least one of your legs folded is very conducive for the meditative process. There is like an unwinding of tension going on that you have more control over, and there is less pressure on your internal organs and more room for your chest to expand as you breathe. When you let that run for over 1 hour straight, you're almost guaranteed to have something happen ime. Also, when you commit to just using one technique, you close off some of the potential for your mind to activate itself ("should I maybe change technique?"; "ah this technique is boring now"). It might seem like a subtle difference, but if you feel resistance from your mind when considering it ("it'll be too boring"), that means it will be a challenge and a sign for potential growth. Besides, small differences quickly add up the longer you sit.

Nice. I doubt you did 6 hours in the same posture. Try sitting for 1-1.5 hour in the same posture and stick to just one technique (I suggest watching the breath; and you can still do the body scanning "warm-up" if you use that). No movement of the legs to alleviate pain, no standing up, etc.

Many indigenous and primal cultures have engaged in things like tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption. It's possible to survive while engaging in behaviors that compromise your health and longevity. So the fact that something has been done by humans for a long time does not mean it promotes health and longevity. It could, but that would be for a different reason.

?

@Danioover9000 I think I understand what just happened: your point about the relativity of language seemed like a tangential point, but I still responded to it. Then you somehow tried to shoehorn that point back into the discussion, which is why I said "that's a weird twist". Then I thought we were moving on from that tangent, but you apparently kept rephrasing that same point in a more verbose way, and that is what threw me off.

This guy is very enjoyable to listen to, and he makes a very thorough case for why religions (or "grand narratives") exist and why we need them.

If you're an idealist, consciousness doesn't arise from anything, because it's beyond physicality, but sentience is a concept we ascribe to lifeforms. It does seem to have something to do with physicality. You wouldn't say a rock is sentient. It doesn't feel pain when you step on it. It doesn't have eyes to see with or ears to hear with.

Why is that the end goal? Isn't it the survival of the organism as a whole? And if you're singling out signalling between neurons as the only important process for sentience, what is so special about this process, and why are other processes in the brain irrelevant? But then, would it be able to think? Does it have memories of previous experiences?

It's true that there is no reason why it can't become sentient. I'm just talking about what reasons we have for it being sentient.

You'd be surprised what goes in there. I'm just saying we have less reasons to believe this than the alternative. Besides, what exactly would they experience? How would you replicate the signals associated with sensory input if you don't have sense organs?

@LSD-Rumi The inside of a neuron is also extremely complex. Maybe missing out on that complexity means missing out on sentience. There are also other arguments about things like embodiment. For example, we have never experienced being a brain in a vat. What if sentience requires being born in a body, developing sense organs, growing up and learning to respond to environmental inputs and relate to the world in some hands-on way?

Why is the signalling between neurons the important thing to replicate and not for example the various types of signalling inside the neuron?

;_; That is what I meant. You know, Silicon Valley? So you're fine with merely replicating the patterns of neuronal signalling, not say the ion channels or the various neurotransmitters that exist in a real brain? But that would still need a substrate, no?

Would you be satisfied with a silicon replica of the brain at the level of neurons, or would you also want to replicate what is happening inside and outside the neuron as well?

If a computer had the intelligence of a dog, would you believe it to be sentient?

@Danioover9000 I don't see how it relates to the discussion.