Carl-Richard

That's obvious, you can now answer the real point. Is enlightenment valueable only if I don't have it? Things have innate value. They have value because they provide certain functions and freedoms, or simply because they are good in and of themselves. Scarcity only amplies that value locally and temporarily in some situations. Some things provide the basis for a lot of functions and freedoms, for a lot a value. Water does that, mothers do that. You could put that which is more basic and opens up for the most functions and freedoms as providing more survival value, by virtue that they make those things possible.

Seems a bit vague, doesn't it? If I had asked "who is physically stronger?", it would be easier. The point is that "survival value" is a bit vague, and men and women contribute a lot to survival in their own ways. Who contributes the most seems a bit hard to pin down.

What makes you survive more? Your mom or your dad?

Or rather, only focusing on the speed of your car will make you drive off a cliff, certainly in mountainous terrain

Is survival value even a specific concept? "Value" is like the least specific concept there is, "survival" is arguably just as much.

I think my analogy in the original post is a bit more elegant: philosophy would be like a particular skill (e.g. playing tennis or golf), while brain training (for working memory or IQ) would be the muscles and the skeleton. Or another analogy I've used before is the car: working memory is the speed of the car while philosophy would be some of the roads you have discovered, your orienting skills, your map knowledge. Science is a particular set of roads, maybe polluted highways, while philosophy (not the calcified historical ones, but the one you do as a person) could be the mountainous and sketchy roads you see in my country, surrounded by nature and fresh air.

Yes, both written and spoken. Not to brag (yes brag), but my first radio appearance and first wedding speech recently were very successful (according to other people; I'm naturally more critical, probably by virtue of being in the 1st person seat, but I think I did well enough). And I've never been big on that.

Interesting that you've looked more into it. I stopped Quad N-Back because I felt I was giving myself ADHD. Maybe I tried too high N-Back levels, but I would end up impulsively switching my focus between just a few streams to "even out" my scores, instead of trying to keep track of all the streams consistently every trial. Maybe this could benefit somebody who is less naturally inclined towards ADHD, but for me, it's like pouring gasoline on a hornets nest.

Dual-N-Back. I've been going for two years now. I noticed effects instantly the first time I tried it. I think there is a kind of "state" effect you get from it (in addition to the training effect) that is more instant than the training effect, similar to how you get a certain body and mind effect from working out even though your muscles aren't incredibly big yet.

Make a banana baguette, a veiny one.

Probably coolest Meshuggah song.

I just took a small break from brain training and came back again. Anybody who says the effects don't translate to other things are absolutely fooling themselves. I read literally 3-5x faster. And I believe the effects stack multiplicatively when you enter states of arousal or excitement or you combine it with the right forms of physical traning and minimizing fatigue and optimizing nutrition, etc.

And without mothers, no janitors. No millionaires, no billionaires, no Steve Jobses, no Jeff Bezoses, no Elon Musks. Women make the market, the men just grow it.

You described it as a contradiction. That was what I was contesting. Presenting a strangeloop as a contradiction is a choice (be it deliberate or indeliberate). It's not necessary. No. Calling something that is not absolute absolute does not happen as a result of logic or reason. "Multiple absolutes", "multiple Gods", is simply a failure of communication. As is what you said right now. We're already conceding that by talking. I know you probably didn't intend it, but this is identical to a certain naughty word: narcissist gaslighting. Your statements, Leo's statements, are perfectly logical, perfectly precise, all up until the equivocation part. And you want to come off that way. You want to come off as logical, clear and precise. That's why you make a video. That's why you're speaking to me using logic right now. But then, when I point out the contradiction, the error in logic, the equivocation, you suddenly revert to "every statement about God is imprecise". As if every statement you make is imprecise. As if every mistake I point out is actually the mistake. Suddenly it's all completely flipped. It's the same with "that's just a mental projection you're making". Yeah, like every statement you're making.

It gets paid less because it's less marketable. When your profession deals with "things", that's more fungible, more quantitative, more scalable. When it deals with people, it's less fungible. Money is fungible. More things = more money. Motherhood is not very marketable, but it's qualitatively very valueable.

Any fruit for me is deliciously sweet. So I technically start my mornings with dessert.

WHEN YOU REALIZE SOLIPSISM

Balding people who lift 🫡

Were you actually wronged, or did you make a mistake and you didn't own up to it? How "justified" was your anger? I approach emotions like What is the purpose of the emotion? Emotions have a direction, they point you towards something. What do you achieve by expressing the emotion, and is it best achieved by expressing it? If anger arises, does expressing the anger best solve the problem? And while I say that, you should be morally sensitive, not a pragmatic sociopath, but also sensitive with respect to yourself, not just being a doormat. What you'll find if you express emotions in line with their purpose but also in line with your morality, they will arise shortly and then subside. They did what they came to do and you tried to do what is most right.

I've maybe contemplated something once. The rest of the time my mind just spews connections. The times I've "contemplated", it was actually just entertaining cognitive dissonance and being unwilling to let go and realizing I was trying to force something that wasn't a well-formed thought. If something is a well-formed thought, you can't help but to express it. If you can't seem to express a well-formed thought, let it go, it will come back better.

The gym is a spiritual practice 💪 A jail is a monastery 🧘

It can happen without the use of symbols. The experience itself is what is communicated, is what information is transferred. Information can be transferred, communicated, and the information can be an experience. For example, an emotional state from a person is transferred as an experience to another person. There are no symbols involved there, simply a transferring of that emotional state. The emotional state can be a symbol, for example anger being "stay away", but when the anger is transferred and felt, what is felt is the thing itself (granted perceptual limitations), not necessarily a symbol for something else. When a bird chirps and another bird understands and performs the action that the chirp referred to, is that not a case of symbol use? The chirp is a symbol used for suggesting a performed action. If not symbol use, what is language, and how does it precede the transferring of information (communication)?

It's not. It's when you jump levels and you get back to where you started. It does not necessitate equivocation or a logical error. That's a choice you're making. You can always choose to make the steps in the strange-loop explicit so an equivocation doesn't happen. No. The absolute includes everything, including the relative. The relative is a sub-set of the absolute. The absolute is the superset. God is the superset. See how you can choose to avoid equivocation? It's a purely linguistic choice, but it's a choice that increases clarity, that doesn't equivocate. And I'm saying that multiple absolutes defeats the concept. You can choose to be logically consistent in your words, even though reality fundamentally isn't. If you stop holding your words to logical consistency, then anything flies, and you're down the rabbit hole of thought disorder and things that people want to lock inside hospital walls.