Carl-Richard

I don't want to say "I told you so", but that was the truth you thought you wanted. It's not easy. Transcending the mind is nothing short of losing your mind. And we're in the same boat. There is a reason I stopped doing meditation and psychedelics.

@UnbornTao I'll echo Kuhn. Thank you!

At the top, I said it's usually like that, but not always. I should've maybe reiterated "usually" with every introduction to the next system, e.g. "When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will eventually usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:" For example, a naive skeptic doesn't necessarily have to evolve into a (naive) pragmatist. They can just become a more reserved skeptic (which in a sense is a budding pragmatist). You could think of a skeptic and a pragmatist as relativists with just opposing levels of inclusivity, i.e. "excluding almost all knowledge claims" vs. "including almost all knowledge claims", and different justifications for that inclusivity (certainty vs. utility). The pragmatist is a level up (at least in the eyes of a metatheorist) in the sense that they can include skepticism within themselves, while the skeptic will shy away from that tendency. The naivety is mostly about how much you stumble in the attitude or approach to each framework (e.g. being too extreme, lacking nuance, using it as an ideological weapon etc.). You can observe naive skepticism a lot on this forum, e.g. every time somebody uses non-duality to steamroll any type of discussion. The implication is always "this doesn't matter — just awaken". That is what is naive. It ignores a huge part the "meaning" aspect of spiritual growth (the "means" to grow), e.g. a nuanced approach to epistemology.

You forgot about some of the pitfalls, which is the point of calling it "naive x". For example, a realist doesn't have to be a naive realist. It's the difference between something like a 14 year old militant atheist and John Vervaeke (although his worldview is also much more complex than that).

Naivety is both.

I eat half a kiwi almost every day, seriously.

I'm experimenting

No problem https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

@Jannes This is against forum guidelines.

? Now I'm curious

That is overdose territory. You won't have to worry about that ?

They're pretty fresh ?

Have the people at the Asking Anything youtube channel reached out to you for an AMA? I saw they have a section for you in their Discord, and they've had people like Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup on there. https://youtube.com/c/AskingAnything

It would be nice if we were that transparent to ourself

That depends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_microbiota

If you take a huge bunch of just one type of bacteria, they'll sometimes outcompete other types of beneficial bacteria. It's a bit like introducing an invasive species to an ecosystem.

I've never listened to it seriously before, just as a meme. I listen to music for the cool sounds ?

?

What about something a bit more practical?

I started oral antibiotics yesterday as I've had a bacterial infection in my scalp that worsened while being in a warmer country. I could certainly feel it impacting my energy levels the first day taking them. It's such a shame, because I've recently become more aware of the importance of the microbiome for things like cognition and well-being, and I'm probably giving myself a really bad case of nocebo ?

Music was my daily meditation before I knew what meditation was.

The judgement that "it seems like it does" if it passes the Turing test assumes that language is a sufficient measurement for when we can no longer tell the difference. That is what the Turing test is about: linguistic outputs. My neighbor does a lot more things than simply producing linguistic outputs on a computer screen. Turing-proof AI and my neighbor are very different; worlds apart. Maybe an AI will become just like my neighbor one day (metabolism and everything), but as things currently stand, we're far away from that.

You're assuming that there is such a thing as personality types and projecting it onto the model. Big 5 is a dispositional trait model, not a type model. It doesn't deal with strong either/or dichotomies. You're simply given a score on a few universal traits, meaning that if your score on agreeableness is 50%, then that is everything you need to know.

That's a big "if", and that was not what was meant by probability in this case (plausible/reasonable is a better word). In the scenario that was given, you can never know what actually happened. Given that constraint, which one is the most plausible explanation? I think you actually value finding out the most plausible explanation, so you can't say it doesn't matter at all. You can only say it doesn't matter as much as actually knowing the answer.

Why do I feel so hit? ? Btw, since you know stuff, do you know about any cyclical theories of the history of philosophy or world history? I heard the philosopher guy who talked to Destiny recently mentioning his "theory" in passing ("there are three main positions in philosophy: supernaturalism, naturalism and postmodernism, and when one gets too dominant, the other two team up to attack that one, and so the cycle continues"), and it peaked my interest.