Carl-Richard

Have you ever competed in a sport?

I don't claim to know either way.

Mindfuckery of Leo. What some people call solipsism, is actually non-duality. What some people call solipsism, is actually a pseudo-materialistic snowflake ideology.

There is no problem collapsing the absolute/relative distinction as long as you don't also weirdly use that move to make very specific statements about the relative, which is what the solipsists here seem to be doing with the "no other mind-body complexes have finite experiences" claim (heavily paraphrasing). But I'm being a broken clock here.

Thoughts arise from attachments and "shoulds". Sit in meditation, identify what those shoulds are and if they are necessary or if there is a better alternative for each (it's often the most obvious thing and something you are actively trying to resist or ignore). Feel the emotions they are bringing up, feel where they are in the body (the throat, the heart, the stomach, the face, the head), and when you have decided that they are not necessary, let go. Accept, tell yourself that it's ok. If you want to be completely free of thoughts, you have to eventually let go of all attachments and realize that nothing that ever happens "should" happen or is necessary to happen and that you want to relinquish all control over anything in your life. You're fine with whatever that happens or can happen. You are completely open and free and embracing of what reality is and will be and has ever been. This is Enlightenment.

Yes, but becoming aware of it like you have now helps a lot. However, the placebo effects really happens all the time in all situations, so trying to single it out when it happens or when it doesn't happen is really not that useful. You just have to live with it really but also learn to feel the true physiological effects of food (e.g. my neck sometimes tightens up in a weird way if I eat pizza that has a lot of dough in it). Also, really all the times I eat bad food, it's because I chose to be in that situation and I was aware of what was going to happen, and then I'm more accepting of it. However, I tend to just eat fruit afterwards and it gets better. Dietary fiber and phytochemicals are so incredibly good for you, it's a shame people don't eat more of them.

Do you take anything else as well?

Also, my now new signature Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ² makes pseudo-mathematical sense. See if you can figure it out.

The best.

I'm not denying that weed can be used spiritually, am I? I'm saying that in practice, it rarely is.

The reality is that there are much better substances for "spiritual"/shamanic once-in-a-blue-moon use. They're called serotonergic psychedelics. Maybe weed can throw some tricks that serotonergics can't, but serotonergics can certainly throw tricks that weed can't (assuming you're not shooting yourself in the dome with K2 spice or something).

Turning the movie to 4k UHD when the movie is self-deception, self-bias, of course that happens. You gotta turn off the movie and stare at the blank screen, and even then, the after-image of the movie is still burned into your retina.

I'm not a solipsist.

I know exactly what kind of things is said in the video. It's in principle a good idea but in practicality a cope for people who use weed more than they would celebrate, to strive for something better (while continuing using it regularly as a hedonic tool).

Nobody uses weed that way though.

People think solipsism is such a hard pill to swallow (I'm not a solipsist btw), but I think people underestimate the harrowing reality of pure non-doership. But people never talk about that because it's harder to fake.

This forum is going through a phase now 😂

We had a TV show called "Mesternes Mester" (The Master of Masters) where old national athletes from different disciplines and genders competed against each other in different challenges. In some of the challenges, the men were given a handicap (e.g. something to do with weight) because they were men. I did not like this concept when I was 14 and I'm not sure if I like it now. Once you make the rules too tailored to the specific context (overfitting), it loses the feeling of competition. The competition assumes that the stated rules are the same for all, or else it's an exercise.

Great. Then you also agree that to call a culture of wokeness "paradigm lock" is a bastardization of the concept. Wokeness is not a way of doing science that needs to be upheaved by a revolution which leads to vast changes in the field and unlocks new discoveries that were previously not possible in principle. It's indeed just a culture or sociology that impacts "normal science".

None of it had anything had to do with Kuhn, more than anything scientific having anything to do with Kuhn. You can apply a meta-lens to everything all the time but it lacks substance. The video I linked was two scientists fighting over whether the current state of physics is good or whether things are getting stale and a revolution is in hand and that some are preventing this from happening and the history behind things becoming stale, etc. That's Kuhnian "substance".

I think you name-dropped Kuhn because you view everything through that lens because it's easy to dismiss perspectives not based on substance / specific points but "lowness of perspective".

So normal science? Not very revolutionary, tooth and claw (maybe that was Feyerabend not Kuhn)? Don't see the Kuhnian relevance. Just comments on left-rightism, scientific literacy, fallacious argumentation.

I watched the entire video and nothing made me think of Kuhn. This video made me think of Kuhn:

@SwiftQuill What specific claims in the video do you have problems with?

@Rigel Yes. It sort of assumes you have the basics. Just like you can't practice writing an essay for an exam if you can't write.