Carl-Richard

8.

There have been times due to some rare fluke that I wake up rested after 6 hours of sleep.

Well, when you said "why not like a dog?", that implies that it most probably came from a similar solar system to ours, as an organism is a reflection of its environment. So if it's "like a dog", it's probably as intelligent as a dog. The fact that we're the only bipedal species and also the only metacognitive species on Earth is not an accident. But sure, if we're talking about a very different solar system, then you could probably have a very different type of organism which is also very intelligent, but again, it's probably not like a dog.

When you free up the hands, you free the mind.

ChatGPT is like a 10th grader trying to copy a wikipedia page from memory and gets it somewhat right 90% of the time and dead wrong 10% of the time. I don't see why you would ever use ChatGPT to learn anything of value. It's like you're sitting in a 5-star restaurant and you're choosing to order Foodora from McDonalds, which gives you a lukewarm cheeseburger from a snotty teenager on a bike, is guaranteed to get your order wrong at some point, or never arrives.

The dude says he remembers his past lives and has met ethereal aliens up in the Himalayas.

If the pizza has a lot of dough in it, it makes me feel weird. It also generally doesn't hit my criteria of a proper meal. I'll really only have a pizza if I'm at a proper italian restaurant, which is maybe twice a year.

You could call my eating 100% clean in the sense that I only eat proper meals and only drink water. A proper meal is a really wide category, but for me, it needs to have a proper ratio of proteins/fat/carbs, the right amount of fibre, and some micronutrient awareness (and you start eating when you're truly hungry and stop eating when you're truly full). What that usually looks like is some meat, some starchy food (rice, potato, pasta) and some vegetables, leafy greens or other plant-based foods (and some sauce or other things for taste, preferably not too fatty), i.e. very standard stuff. Naturally, there will be some oils, diary, salt, pepper and other spices in there too. I checked my average diet in Cronometer, and the only thing I need to supplement with is vitamin D (which I already am) and maybe some calcium. The only exception to the proper meal routine is I'll have one sweet fruit (most often an orange) at the tail-end of my workouts. While I don't want to eat too little fibre, I also don't want too much fibre, or too much of certain plant-based foods like nuts, seeds or legumes, for the sake of my stomach. As for avoiding certain foods: foods with too much flour in it and processed meats (if what you're buying is 100% raw, it's generally ok).

I stumbled across an English video that goes over the same concepts, albeit in a bit drier but still highly informative format:

The video is so well-made that I had to share it, but it's in French, so you have to put on translation in the subtitles (it's still worth it). It's of course extra cool if you already know Meshuggah and are intuitively familiar with the concepts presented.

Yup. And I can see where you're coming from as well. The five senses seem instinctive and uncontrollable (e.g. pain feels like it happens to you), and are therefore in one sense more "direct" than say solving a math problem or thinking about philosophy. But the five senses are also extremely limited (e.g. you can only see so many things at one time), and prone to manipulation, deception and illusion (from both "external" sources, like somebody performing a trick, and internal sources, like the act of labeling). So in another sense, they're also not direct. The most direct thing there is, is just isness itself. That is what I think should be referred to as direct experience. What spiritual teachers want you to do with direct experience is something like this: Teacher: So focus on your direct experience. What are aware of? Student: Sensations of sitting, thoughts about tomorrow, aching in my foot, slight hunger, etc. Teacher: Ok, but those are perceptions with labels attached to them. Try to become aware of the fact that you are aware. What do you feel? Student: A stillness, emptiness, nothing, *keeps listing labels* Teacher: Ok, but we're not interested in these labels. Keep returning to that thing. *repeat ad nauseum* The teacher tries to guide you away from compulsive labeling of reality and towards the experience of reality as it is in itself; the direct experience of it. They want you to experience the world directly without superimposing various mental frames onto it.

Causality is indeed an abstract concept. I'm saying "the five senses" is also an abstract concept. Causality looks like how the world seems consistent to you and not like an incoherent mess. That too, according to you, is direct. Doesn't the world seem pretty consistent to you right now? Rocks fall downwards, not upwards. Boiling water feels warm, not cold, etc.

When you say there are five senses, you're creating a conceptual distinction within what you call direct experience (just like time, space and causality are conceptual distinctions). Why are the five senses real, but not time, space and causality?

You might've noticed, but AIs are able to make cover songs by altering the vocal track. It's pretty neat. Post your best finds here! James Hetfield is a good one.

How do you distinguish the five senses?

So you're not granting time, space and causality then. These things are intrinsically tied to what most scientists and philosophers call perception. If you want to talk about "direct experience", you can do that, but it's not what they are talking about.

If you grant the fact that your perception seems to be limited by your biology, then will it not be reasonable to assume that there exists things that you're not currently able to perceive? You can't see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? You can't see what is behind the wall, but that doesn't mean there is nothing behind the wall, right?

You can't corrupt something that is already corrupted. Jking. Sorry, I have like 10 offensive jokes floating around in my mind.

ChatGPT is its own kind of stupid, and you have more ways to tell when humans lie.

ChatGPT is a stupid liar not to be trusted. Change my mind.

Well, things like being highly time efficient in what you're doing can actually be conducive to a flow state. The flow state also requires some kind of feminine finesse or sensitivity, so that could be an example of a synergy of the two modes. If you're too focused on efficiency and trying to push the gas pedal through the floor, that is where you'll lose some of that finesse and you're more prone to making mistakes (and get injuries lol). Masculinity in its purest form is high risk, unrefined, raw, thunderous rage. Flow is a state of perfect balance. So what I see in my mom's fiance is a lot of masculinity and maybe a lack of balance. Now, what happens if you're overly feminine is that you become a bit of a slug: smooth but low energy movements. I think I've been a bit of a slug in some places more than what is optimal.

Imagine that you're an archer trying to hit a target. You're trying to stand as still as possible to get a good aim, because a moving target is harder to hit. Now, apply this same principle to everyday life and your state of consciousness. If your state of consciousness is constantly changing; for example when recovering from a spike in blood sugar from drinking a glass of orange juice, or taking a stimulant like caffeine that slowly loses its effects over a couple of hours; all the targets you're trying to hit in everyday life will become harder to hit in some way, because the targets are moving. This applies to everything; from basic bodily movements, to following a line of thought, to your intuition; everything is impacted by these changes in state. Your ability to engage in various activities depends on your attunement to them, and changing your state will make you constantly recalibrate your attunement rather than refine it. This is probably partially why meditation increases functioning at virtually all levels, because you're removing yourself from the ever-changing nature of daily life and focusing on something that is constant (the ever-present field of consciousness), effectively practicing the act of attunement itself, making all the targets of everyday life more still and easier to hit. So if you want to experience what I'm talking about, try to eliminate all these things that cause excess fluctuation in your state: keep your blood sugar stable by avoiding fast sugars, avoid stimulants like caffeine or just all psychoactive substances that are not essential for your health. See if your experience of reality becomes more clear, more stable, more coherent.

That makes me think about this idea that tying the concept of universality to culture or societal context is actually an incomplete version of universality. For example, we know that things like genes or personality traits also impact behavior and thus development (it's obviously not just culture/society that does that). So why are we not concerned about controlling for specific genes or personality traits ("cross-genetic research")? And why stop there? There are probably millions of such biological or psychological factors that we can control for. Have we truly found an universal model before we have ruled out the variation produced by these factors? This also ties into another idea I've had about the future of developmental psychology, which uses heavy computer models to create highly detailed simulated realities where you can tweak each factor (biological, psychological, cultural, etc.) and see the possible developmental paths that arise for each individual (or each culture for that sake). Now, we're of course nowhere near creating these highly specific models, and even when we get there, we're inevitably stuck with some limits on specificity (because there are limits on which inputs we're bothered to plug into the computer and investigate). It's kinda like how the AI chatbots are limited by the prompts that the humans feed them. So again, we probably shouldn't care too much about finding a truly universal model for development, not just because it's virtually impossible, but because you can still use existing models in their limited contexts. There is nothing wrong with using SD or Piaget as long as you have some decent knowledge about where the model applies and where it doesn't.

I think body language experts(?) are more likely to bullshit you than Mr. Grusch ☺️

If you're so weird or out of control that people think you need serious help.