Carl-Richard

Yes. Homosexuality went against the behavioral expectations of society for a long time. Society validates it by definition. You're acting like there is this objective measurement. There is no such thing. You said it's a "made-up thing by modern society" in order to dismiss it by some objective criteria, but the only thing you did was affirm its definition. Then why are you talking about psychiatry? You might want to rewatch the JP video you linked.

It's a wide definition which works for this argument. Functionality and distress are behaviors. I said "a certain expectation", so not all behaviors.

@Razard86 A lot of this boils down to, again, your style of communicating (which I've commented on before), which is to deconstruct concepts as a way to make a point, rather than keeping the concepts intact while establishing degrees of nuance. Mental illness is something society labels you with when you fall outside certain behavioral expectations. Kids who have trouble paying attention in school can get slapped with the ADHD label. People who, in your framing, have trouble overcoming fears, can get slapped with the depressive or psychotic labels. You can comment on whether these labels reflect something wrong with society (e.g. the school system), rather than the people, without abandoning mental illness as a concept. The concept exists, the diagnoses exist; the question is just about to which degree they're useful or not.

What about schizophrenia?

Do you feel like they're forcing you?

@Razard86 @Kksd74628 The disagreements around meditation vs. psychedelics is whether it leads to enlightenment or not, not whether it's beneficial.

Bahahaha

I think everybody knows about that lesson to some degree. In my experience, it's too strong to make me want to eat anything that deviates from that impulse, and I think everybody can discover that potential within themselves.

49:43 - 58:20

Those are mostly New Age spirituality things. What about good old self-development? Max out all the Maslowian levels.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeHAOEQsFAA/ The graphic isn't from a scientific study. It was merely improvised based on a few sentences in a Dutch Vice article. The original thread should've been locked for being a misleading low quality post

@Opulence ???

Yeah, I forgot to add that nature hikes should ideally happen in an area you're familiar with. Don't just go into some random patch of forest unless you have experience doing that. Stick to hiking trails that are not too busy.

Your "conscious" or articulated mind is. There are also "unconscious" or inarticulated aspects of the mind, i.e. thoughts that have yet to be ("preconscious"), or structures that will never arise in the form of a conscious thought, but which nevertheless have an effect on your mind ("the Unconscious", karma etc.). If you prefer, the Unconscious can be stretched out to include all of the universe; transpersonal aspects, not just personal aspects. In that case, by some nondual poetic beauty, the Unconscious becomes synonymous with the mystical conception of "Consciousness", or "phenomenal consciousness" in philosophical terms.

It's possible to get to a place where you prefer eating healthy, not mainly because of some long-term health outcome, but because you appreciate how healthy food makes you feel on a bodily level. I call this Intrinsic Health.

Go for a hike in nature. You want to have as few restrictions on your free movement as possible. I would only trip inside if all the other people in the house are 100% in on it.

Aesthetically/poetically or analytically/intellectually? Until then, this is my entry (for both) ^

... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/ Intentionality explains why you can't read my thoughts, or feel what I'm feeling, or see what I'm seeing. These are the contents of the personal mind; perception and cognition. Under metaphysical idealism, the personal mind also occurs within the larger transpersonal mind ("Consciousness"), which is what I'm calling "phenomenal consciousness". In a more metaphorical language: the personal mind is one of the ways that God hides from itself in order to explore the limited world of form.

Do you have a theory? The good musicians I know are a mixed bag.

Haha thanks That was the intention. Somebody called it a kiwi, and I can't unsee it ? I eat kiwi almost every day and the grocery store I go to is also called Kiwi ?

Yes, but which point are you making? He described an experience which I've had hundreds of times while completely sober and perfectly functional. Am I just psychotic? ?

Again, this would be to conflate phenomenal consciousness with intentionality. Under metaphysical idealism (your framework), these two concepts are very different. Whether AI possesses inner mental states or not is a question about intentionality, not phenomenal consciousness.

@TheAlchemist Now combine that with my post ?

It's hard to appreciate how big the universe is and how vast a grain of sand is. Infinity flows both ways.

Epistemic — relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation. Naivety — innocence or unsophistication. Pitfall — a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty. Here is my rendition of the most common approaches to knowledge and their pitfalls. Usually, one leads to the next: Naive realism takes things at face value believes in one's conditioning lack of introspection It's the default mode for most people and is the most naive framework. It tries to label the world accurately, but it fails to become aware of its own constructions. These people think that their view of the world is like looking through a clear glass window, and that people who disagree with their view is either stupid or insane. When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism: Naive skepticism skeptical of most claims to knowledge extremely self-critical hyper-exclusive relativism The naive skeptic is skeptical of all labelling of reality and is pulled down by cynicism and unconstructive behavior. They discard everything that isn't patently self-evident. An example is a person who goes into a philosophy seminar and asks "how do you know that?" until they get kicked out. Seeing through naive skepticism will usually lead you to pragmatism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive pragmatism: Naive pragmatism "everything goes" lack of criticism hyper-inclusive relativism There is an openness to all views, but there is a lack of structure or hierarchy, and it therefore struggles to prioritize different claims to knowledge. For example, it will easily place an equal sign between pseudoscience and science (e.g. "astrology = physics"). Seeing through naive pragmatism will usually lead you to metatheorism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive metatheorism: Naive metatheorism takes a wide perspective has a systematic approach to knowledge becomes lost in its own grand theories subtle realism The naive metatheorist is open, critical and also realistic, and tries to synthesize a coherent system which integrates many types of knowledge. The pitfall happens when one becomes a bit too optimistic about the universality of one's theories. You start believing that because a theory is "meta" and is able to zoom out across large perspectives (cross-paradigmatic, cross-cultural etc.), it somehow escapes or transcends the limitations of your own cultural and paradigmatic conditioning (i.e. the things that made you arrive at those conclusions in the first place). An example is believing Spiral Dynamics to be the infallible word of God. That is of course a bit naive, and the way out is to counter that impulse with the earlier lessons of skepticism, and remind yourself that the better the model, the easier it is to get lost in one's own constructions. Who is not naive in any way? One who has experienced all of these pitfalls first-hand, but who doesn't let that fact curb their ever-expanding thirst for knowledge, and who doesn't pretend that naivety is something one can ever transcend. Did anything I just wrote sound familiar to you? Be honest