Carl-Richard

If I might add, one of the ways it's limited is in how accurately it maps onto the current science, because science is still very materialistic and doesn't have a very good understanding of things like paranormal phenomena (clairvoyance, OBEs, remote viewing, astral travel, etc.). A model that better accounts for those things would be Tom Campell's TOE (he bases it largely on those very things). The weakness there of course is that it's mostly based on his own research, and thus there is a lack of replication. Kastrup's limitations becomes evident in points like "biological life is the image of private conscious inner life". It fits well with scientific observations, but just intuitively it seems very restrictive. Campell's view is much less naturalistic than that ("consciousness can log onto any form if it so decides to"). As for the potential of AI consciousness, both agree that the structural-functional organization of stuff is not what "creates" consciousness, neither transpersonal consciousness nor private conscious inner life. Rather, looking at that stuff is simply a way to make reasonable inferences about private conscious inner life (e.g. a frog with its advanced nervous system and metabolic activity is likely to be privately conscious, while a rock is not). While Kastrup restricts his inferences about private conscious inner life to biological life, Campell thinks that consciousness can decide to log on to a computer, but that such an event isn't technically limited to the underlying physical stuff in the first place.

How on earth would life work if there was no death? Evolution wouldn't have gotten to produce anything.

You don't need to prove truth.

Logic is a pointer.

There is a trade-off with having a silent mind: you'll have very few thoughts, but whatever thoughts you do have will carry a lot of significance and be crystal clear. When your mind is loud, you'll be more capable of ruminating over the same things over and over, but much of that is just repetition, unclear thinking, logical dead-ends, fear-based and reaction-based thinking. But sure, being obsessed about something can certainly produce some result that a lack of obsession couldn't produce, but will that product generally be one of virtue and deep genuine insight, or one of ego and delusion? All I know is that the people I consider "enlightened" tend to have the deepest and most streamlined minds I've ever seen. On the other hand, the people I consider "obsessed" tend to have deeply troubled and chaotic minds and often over-complicate the simplest things.

Explore more paradigms.

Got any more Andrew Tate quotes?

If he ever addresses that point (or if he did — I never saw the video), I wonder if he feels compassion for Leo considering the shit he has been through himself the last couple of months

It's not as much anxiety about the interactions themselves as being a bit inexperienced. I have certain things to work on, and I have to take the challenges as they arise, and there might be an element of anxiety involved in that, but as for the social interactions themselves, they're not the main problem anymore.

Responsive to their follower's needs while being an exemplar of virtue.

Bernardo Kastrup. I used to have very much trouble reconciling my mystical experiences with a scientific understanding of the world. "If consciousness is not created by the brain, then what is the brain actually doing?". While Kastrup's approach has its own limitations, it can definitely help to clear up a lot of confusion for many people. I highly recommend watching his numerous talks and interviews. This one is a particularly good one, although it's maybe a bit advanced, but anyway:

Nah man. I basically didn't talk to anyone except my few closest friends in high school because of social anxiety, but today I'm a different man.

The conflict might be extremely buried and practically unsalvageable, like for some lifelong psychopaths, but for others, the conflict is much more cerebral and reversible.

That is only what you tell yourself consciously. The conflict can be unconscious. Ethics is more fundamental than propositional beliefs. You have cognitive functions that concern ethics. That's your conscience. Your propositional beliefs are only the tip of the iceberg.

True, but there is something about 2020s production quality of some metal bands that just melts your ears.

If you like metal, I actually had this very thought some few days ago: I think "Grind" by Gojira is one of the best metal songs ever made (and I've been around the block). Catchy as fuck, cutting-edge production, creative, pristine, soulful, transcendent.

I once asked it for studies, and the authors it cited were not real people

Ethics is not just an external thing, or some abstract framework. You have a conscience. Unless you're indeed a maxed out narcissist, if you're acting very unethically, there will be internal conflict, conscious or unconscious.

EXACTLY!????

The problem with ChatGPT is that it gives very simple-to-understand answers in a coherent and convincing way, even when it's completely wrong. If you don't understand the answer, that is something else. At least you can tell that Wilber believes in what he is telling you, unless he starts stumbling in his words or becomes evasive. The AI doesn't even believe in anything. There are various ways which we determine who or what to trust, and it's crucial for learning, and ChatGPT escapes that in too many different ways for me.

Can you really have it all if you're neglecting aspects of yourself? ?

I know. I'm criminally buff ? Holism though. You want a balance. Neglecting all ethics or all aesthetics is what you want to avoid, if you care about health. If you only care about aesthetics, sure.

Just be a normal person. Knowing about spirituality or having a had spiritual awakening doesn't make you special. You still have emotions and insecurities.