Carl-Richard

I did, after the fact, because you seemed to not know the difference. If you can't judge what is a theoretical rationale / hypothesis and what is a scientific research result, that's on you. I said "so you want a mechanism?" (that can explain a relationship), not "so you want a scientific study that has been done on specifically that relationship?". But the thing about this question is unless there are some weird mechanisms I don't know about that come into play for porn and masturbation specifically and that are strongly antagonistic to the mechanisms I provided (which is in principle possible but probably in my estimation very unlikely), the mechanisms provided are so basic that specific scientific studies are most probably only testing the strength of the relationship; i.e. the relationship between porn/masturbation and lower energy probably definitely exists, but does it matter (or how much does it matter and in what contexts, in what way)? And if that is the case, my position of "it depends" is a quite justifiable position, because it says increasing the "how much"/"in what context"/"in what way" is what matters. I did, but it doesn't matter that much if it's not well-studied. What statement specifically are you concerned about?

When we think dualistically, we say the mind thinks it can not move, due to hampered feelings of autonomy, competence, control, and the body acts accordingly (or vice versa). And of course, when catching a virus or the flu, the tendency is to slant the explanation towards the physical side, as that is how we usually explain viruses and the flu. But consider that the hampered feelings of control (or feelings of the flu) are behavioral patterns of the body. It's what your body has been conditioned to do due to various responses. In this sense, the mind-body distinction collapses. What is depression in the mind is depression in the body. You can just choose to view it from different angles. Mind is essentially a lens onto especially the abstracted patterns of body, how it reacts to things, how it moves, how it responds to threats, rewards, stimuli, but also more passive states like interoception, propioception, senses generally.

By "mind" we of course generally mean human minds (unless we're talking about transpersonal psychology, i.e. God's mind, or animal psychology, i.e. non-human animal minds ☺️).

Studying the mind from a 3rd person perspective (which might involve looking at physical quantities as a proxy) vs studying physical quantities in and of themselves

Yeah ok, there are many epistemically retarded physicists (and perhaps other fields as well *erm* exercise science *erm*). But if you look at especially psychology where the scientists have always been insecure about and questioning the status of their field ("is it a science or is it pseudoscience?"), they are actually very aware of what it does and doesn't do. There are countless of times I've heard "psychology moved away from introspection as a method" in various methodology classes, and especially learning about qualitative methods, the insecurity and self-criticism comes up ("what is qualitative vs quantitative research, what are the assumptions, limitations, pros and cons?", "what are the assumptions and limitations of grounded theory vs thematic analysis?").

We're not talking about the law here, you're lost in a different discussion. We're talking about whether porn is harmful or not. Why are you concerned about the "burden of proof" in this context?

My guy, I was speaking from my understanding of basic concepts in neuroscience. If you want a source for that, there are various books on basic concepts in neuroscience. I gave you a theoretically plausible account of how porn and masturbation can lead to lower energy levels. If you want a highly specific empirical account, go to Google Scholar or something.

Goofy ass music video but the music hits me right in the feels, because of just everything about it (the song, the context, my nostalgia, everything).

It admits its blindspots and proceeds like they don't matter, until it's painfully obvious that what they are doing is suboptimal by literally everybody but a few old guys in wheelchairs.

Legal systems are also not about what is true, but about what is fair. But this is entirely besides the point. Why do you think somebody has a "burden of proof" if they make a claim but you don't?

MSc in neuroscience.

You want a physical mechanism? That's easy: excess prolactin from blowing your load constantly (prolactin is the "anti-dopamine" hormone), sexual arousal is also dopaminergic which in excess leads to downregulation of the dopaminergic system (and internet porn is bred like social media platforms to be hyper-salient so this effect is especially pronounced compared to mere circumstantial sexual arousal). Whether or not it is enough to be "substantial" is again up to the individual and the extent of use (and context like recovery time), but it's easy to draw a direct link from porn consumption, masturbation and lower energy levels through the physical mechanisms mentioned above. And it works very much like drugs in that it is hyper-salient, it is low effort and you can access it and redose very easily, and accessing it doesn't require things that build resilience (e.g. like lifting weights, highly dopaminergic but builds resilience and has a wide range of cascading physiological effects), and instead, the downregulating effects lead to a spiralling of resilience, which is consistent with the definition of addiction leading to detrimental effects in your life.

Prove what? That it's harmful? Or not harmful? My position again is it depends, and it's not about "proving" in the factual sense ("it's x% harmful"). It's about seeing the range of possibilities that exist and that people seem to report. If you watch porn multiple times a day and you struggle to get work done, that would be a harm. If you watch porn once or twice a week and you feel perfectly fine and energized most of the time, that would be less of a harm. Same with impact on relationships, same with anything. "Burden of proof" is essentially a meaningless philosophical buzzword that people use to avoid having to talk (or talk themselves in circles) instead of honestly assessing what they think about an issue. The universe doesn't change its factual state just because you refuse to open your mouth. You're perfectly able to state how something is not harmful (or harmful) if it truly is that. It doesn't matter who "made a claim" first.

"Burden of proof" makes no sense if you simply care about what is real. Either porn is harmful or it isn't. Whether somebody makes a claim about it or not changes nothing about the fact of the matter.

But then you will long for the Stage Turquoise/Coral - or whatever funky pastel colored stage Ken Wilber shat out in his bowl this morning - woman. You will not outgrow dissatisfaction by being born in a different era, only by being born in a different karmic stage ;D

Interesting how a narcissist mind works.

I can get angry by inanimate objects seemingly obstructing my way. This is clearly a "must find contrarian example" style of engagement. Just keep it simple, say all maps are shit, but you don't need to criticize the utility of the maps on their own terms. If you are aware enough, you can perceive the event with such fidelity and understanding that it will not feel like an obstruction, that it is instead meant to be, and therefore you deal with it not with anger but with tranquility, joy. You can also catch the emotion before it reaches behavioral engagement, essentially choosing whether you want to get moved by the energy or extinguish it. These are all possibilities for why anger is not always happening in a possibly anger-inducing situation. But the function of the anger, when it arises, can definitely be understood and explained clearly, most of the time (as yes there are cases where you are unaware of the causes of anger, be it due to subconscious drives, memories, events or influences). Again, anger might be involved secondarily when you deal with things like having your autonomy not respected or threatened, which can cause all kinds of states like anxiety, fear, disappointment, but if you boil it down to its core biological root, obstruction of movement (in quite an immediate and spontaneous way) seems to be it. Anger is generally directed "at" something (unless you internalize it and direct it against yourself through mentalistic human neurosis of course). It clearly mobilizes you in a certain way unlike say anxiety or fear. And this I think is quite clear from all the usual examples where anger appears and not say anxiety or fear. I don't feel anxiety or fear if I bump into a thing in my room when trying to move quickly from A to B (unless I'm say about break something or something falls over). I feel ANGRY. On the other hand, I feel those things if I say hear an unexpected sound in the house if I'm home alone. Whatever made that sound could threaten my autonomy and make my life quite bad, and then appropriate emotions may arise for dealing with that, but in that case, anger doesn't seem to be needed just yet.

I mean he avoids the sun 😆 But yeah, Siim Land who has a less autistic protocol than him has much better biomarkers (although he is younger): You know so many of such claims are bullshit, right? Just quoting an Instagram won't do here.

I have a theory (not a conspiracy theory): the people who get strongly drawn to conspiracy theories are the same people who get drawn to supernatural ideas, like God creating the universe from their own predetermined plan (not simply evolving spontaneously through "natural law"). They are fine with explaining reality top down through an elaborate narrative. There is a seeming plan behind everything, behind world politics, behind alien invasions, behind wars, behind ancient history, and they all connect to a grand meta-narrative of control, of manufacturing, of conscious creating, rather than natural systems acting spontaneously. Those who criticize conspiracy theories point out how that level of organization, of top-down control, is unlikely if not impossible, because of the natural tendency towards spontaneous order and the infeasibility of controlling complex systems. In the "naturalist critique", everybody is a victim of systems, even the supposed people in power, while in the conspiracist's mind, the people in power are the controllers of the systems and the powerless are the victims. Whether one is more correct than the other is actually hard to say, and a naturalist that claims otherwise would then become a conspiracy theorist in their own right, thinking they have the level of insight and knowledge to be able to predict complex systems. As for myself, as a general predisposition, I've noticed I'm fine with either (naturalism or supernaturalism). While for example Bernardo Kastrup says he is strongly opposed to supernaturalism simply as a personal predisposition (which is why he says he sees no point in doing philosophy if nature is not simply naturalistic; no "God" at the top planning it all, intervening into nature and changing the natural course of things). But I would also challenge this idea of naturalism, that you could still try to deduce the "laws" behind God's planning so to speak, and it won't be a completely pointless endeavour, simply a more interesting one. Like trying to understand the psychology of God rather than the "physics" of God.

Then it would have to be "gratitude for the things that made me come to this point in my life", or else it's just pride with separate steps. If you put the focus on circumstances and how it was not you who created them, not even your own sense of motivation, drive, persistence, values, simply that these occurred in your life and you're grateful for them, then you're avoiding the "I am the thing" that underlies pride. I didn't choose feeling like I wanted to do x things. They simply occurred to me, and I did them because I wanted them. I had fundamentally no say, only in an illusory way. But I did do what I want, and doing what I want is important. I'm not removing the virtue of autonomy. Feeling like you're responsible in the moment is key for being an actor in the world. But dwelling on it in the past (or in the form of thoughts running parallel with the present), is ironically to give it away. But of course, if you feel like you didn't want to do anything of it but you still did it, be it of shame, guilt, despair, or because you had to do it for some reason or another, then pride is understandable because it's a step up on the "emotional scale". But if you did things out of joy, pride pulls you down.

The psychic strikes again @Ramasta9 Sorry to hear about that. I hope things work out.

It's quite literally the impeding of movement. Notice if you ever walk on the street and somebody stops right in front of you abruptly, it's so ingrained and spontaneous to get angry. The energy essentially says "move, get out of the way", it's energy that comes when you need to push through some boundary. Even tiny single-celled organisms probably have some kind of anger response. It's so deeply primal. And it doesn't necessarily involve a feeling of hurt. It's much more surface level, like a form of physiological activation. Feeling of hurt usually comes from something else, like shame, guilt, physical hurt, where anger might be involved as a secondary response (some men especially are unable to identify deeper emotions like shame, guilt, but instead only identify it as anger, which again is a primal and kind of physiological arousal). It's a very rudimentary form of emotion, that's what's meant by "lower". Same arguably with pride (despite humans making it complicated with all the mentalistic echoing back and forth). Why place anything in a hierarchy? Why describe anything as any limited thing? Why say anything is a certain way? I don't see why you would limit the problem to emotions or just hierarchical organization. Any type of organization has problems, isn't it?

There is seeing clearly, then there is fear, paranoia, narrative, belief. When everything is seen as a threat, even normal occurrences on the forum, that actually lowers your consciousness, it makes you less able to see clearly. Just like food, drugs, environment, toxins affect your ability to see clearly, so does your sensitivity to threats (real or imagined), and that varies between people. Pointing out how other people are not afraid, might not be due to insensitivity to what is real and objective, but simply insensitivity to threat (real or imagined). 9 years ago, I was in a cult that believed harmful psychic energies existed in all normal people, and even objects they have interracted with, and I felt this strongly. Then as the cult dissolved, I started questioning whether the harmful energies thing was even real (I was always questioning it, but the other people in the cult talking about it as if it was real affected me). And over time, it faded. And that was despite me becoming more "spiritually locked in". The common denominator for people who entertain harmful psychic energies, harmful frequencies from technology, toxins in the environment, in the food, etc., is high threat sensitivity (combined with openness to experience, or else you would not seek out alternative views). That is not to say all of it is illusion. But it can still explain the difference in views and why not everybody might buy into it, despite perhaps being just as "sensitive" as you. Yes, it's definitely possible that you will experience positive changes (and possibly negative changes, which you can play down) from long fasts and juice cleanses and questioning your food intake and environmental exposure, but it's also possible that many of these effects are exaggerated in your own experience (and through amplification through others' experiences). There could be a kernel of truth to everything, literally everything could be technically true, but your gauge of the effect could be completely off and exacerbated by again threat sensitivity and fear-based narratives which core biological function is to amplify things in your mind.

Meh.