Carl-Richard

@Leo Gura How do you think it affected you?

The thing with criticizing whole paradigms like virology (or heliocentricism like Flat Earthers do) is that most professionals or scientists aren't actually trained in defending the historical arguments that made those paradigms into the mainstream paradigm. A skeptic can therefore come out from the conversation looking like they're on top when they actually know extremely little, only because the scientist they're debating knows nothing. The skeptic will not have countered the expertise of the expert, only sidestepped it, but he will be falsely perceived as having outdone the expert by the majority of the audience. If you actually want to challenge the validity of whole scientific paradigms, debate a philosopher of science or historian of science.

What you working on? When will you speak with him?

*Someone is curious to hear your opinion* "I DON'T LIKE YOU!" A bit unhinged, but ok ._.

You spent so much time writing all that, but you don't have time to write a little tl;dr?

My intention was to place a question mark behind it, but somehow I didn't. Sorry if it came off as rude. You don't have a tl;dr?

@lxlichael tl;dr

Selfishness -> bad coping strategies -> lack of resilience -> self-created suffering -> relational/collective manifestations of that. My classmate and roommate spent the whole of last year skipping classes and smoking weed, and now he hates the teacher that flunked him in one of his subjects. I was thinking about asking him whether he thinks that feeling (along with his other problems) is self-created? Because I could probably make him agree that he knows how to not smoke so much weed (he is able to take breaks), wake up on time, go to class, buy the books and read them, but that he simply chose not to. Then on the other hand, I was doing the exact same thing in high school, and I was suffering very much from things I didn't feel I could control, so I understand it, but then again, he is generally much more resilient than I was (he goes to parties and pulls girls all the time despite doing all these things). So to me, it feels like he chose to hate the teacher, and he is a smart and self-aware guy, so I even think he might agree. If that is the case, that is also bad (the fact that people can merely choose to do the bad thing).

Deadlifts.

Trillions of anaerobic organisms had to die 2 billion years ago for you to breathe

When your claim is essentially "the whole of science is wrong on this one", you have a massive burden of proof. A couple of YouTube videos ain't going to cut it. Also, if the whole of science, which is an international and multi-corporate enterprise with many independent moving parts, instead is coordinating to hide this supposedly obvious truth from all of us — then firstly, why would they do that? — and secondly, what kind of organ are they all answering to? Because to me, the necessary logical conclusion to all of this is some kind of secret world government conspiracy, which is just completely untenable.

Two songs that encapsulate the historical transition from Thrash Metal to "Djent": 1995: 1998: Since I grew up on Thrash Metal just like these guys (Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Pantera, etc.), I had the idea of going back and experiencing their discography from start to finish, so that I can track their progression from that more familiar style to their current more progressive style. I thought about doing this because I've actually had problems getting the point of their style, all until very recently. I also just found out that the lead guitarist Fredrik Thordendal is highly inspired by Allan Holdsworth, and now his guitar soloing style makes much more sense as well. Generally speaking, this little adventure of mine has raised my respect for the band to a completely new level. What I used to perceive as lazy gimmickry turns out to be absolute technical mastery and stylistic sophistication fed through an innovative vision. So yeah, if you have problems getting the point with some piece of music, track their musical inspirations down to their most familiar root and go from there. It's so worth it. 10/10

What if you're reading Hegel or Heidegger?

No. These guys were around 600-700 years before him. Thales is considered the first philosopher, and Parmenides is the non-duality guy.

How does terrain theory explain anti-biotics?

If you're doing something like mindfulness meditation (following your breath), then don't try to get rid of thoughts. Just follow the technique.

Don't make things personal.

You would start with the pre-socratics (some have a fascinating amount of non-duality in them).

Max being Max as usual. I didn't like how it ended at all. There are pros and cons to what makes him interesting. It did make me think that Nick is more like a nazi than I used to think though.

Consciousness never ceases to exist.

Language aside, and while again emphasizing that I'm talking about socializing with other intellectual perspectives (e.g. a famous philosopher) as opposed to more rudimentary perspectives (e.g. your friends), you'll certainly agree that there is a difference between generally relying on other people's ideas to guide your thought process vs. deriving your own. The former approach relies more on the amount of ideas you can gather and synthesize into a new perspective, while the latter relies more on your own intuitions and synthesis of these. Now, in order for you to lose intelligence through socializing with many different sources of ideas (the first strategy), you'll have to consider yourself more intelligent than the average source of these ideas. I think this is Leo's main assumption, and it's a big assumption. Conveniently for him though, he essentially defines intelligence as "the ultimate good", wherein he includes insights that are intrinsically tied to psychedelics and mysticism, which automatically places him on a pedestal compared to the average intellectual. From that perspective, Leo is essentially saying that "everybody except me is stupid", and he is right. However, if we were to walk back the definition of "intelligence" to the Western conception of "intellect" (conceptual thinking), then we would draw a more humble conclusion about the negative or positive effects of socializing with other intellectual perspectives. From this perspective, socializing with other intellectual perspectives won't necessarily make you stupid, but they're instead "fucking with your high" so to speak (pulling you away from the insights related to psychedelics and mysticism).

Leo says you should deconstruct the frames you've adopted through socialization and build your own from scratch. That is how you reach high levels of intelligence. But how do you know that your own frame is better than the ones before you? Is it that those frames were founded by people who didn't deconstruct their own frames and hence got stuck on false assumptions? But what if you through your own lack of socialization so to speak, underestimate other people's ability to deconstruct their own frames, and that in fact by tapping into these other frames, you're thousands of steps ahead of where you could ever be in one lifetime? Why place the epistemic mother lode inside one mind and not thousands? Is the claim maybe that by deconstructing your own frames, you fundamentally transform the inner workings of your mind? But still, why stick to constructing your own isolated frame, instead of manipulating multiple existing frames with this new-found power? What about the value of combining and contrasting already well-fleshed out perspectives?

That doesn't mean anything.