Carl-Richard

They saw him whacking tables and walking past a person shoulder to shoulder without hurting him. Their instincts told them he wasn't an immediate threat to them, just the tables. Had they instead seen him running towards them with a wild-eyed stare and also seen him running after other people, they would have ran the hell out.

Idk. Bernardo Kastrup also talks about being "possessed" by a daemon. Maybe it's just something you start believing when you consume too much philosophy 😂

Heh maybe 🫠 This is the last picture I took (two days ago): I have been consistent at it (25 mins in-game time every other day), but I probably haven't been progressing as much this year, but I think I'll start progressing again now (I had to extend my thesis delivery date lol; let's just say doing 70 pre-post fNIRS measurements on my own is a bit much, and that's only the beginning of the story 😂). I want to hit over 80% on 7-Back so I can get registered on the hiscores for 7-Back (and then I would be pretty highly ranked at least on Brainscale.net; rank 82 on all-time highscores, rank 2 weekly, as of today). I also want to see if replacing half of my sprint days with 4 x 4 intervals ("the Norwegian method", ironic name 🤪) could be beneficial. I tried some when I hurt my toe last week (literally thought I broke it and went for an x-ray, but I'm made of steel), and I could see it having some beneficial effects on cognition that sprints don't give. It's also probably slightly less fatigue-inducing and also healthier long-term (VO2 max, resting heart rate, etc.). I was about to make a topic on how Sadhguru and Bryan Johnson have converged on low heart rate being a panacea measurement for health and longevity.

If I may ask, what help were you seeking that required a diagnosis?

When I take an IQ test, I will hang it on my wall, next to my height, penile length and biceps circumference (all below average) 🙂

Meshuggah - "Disenchantment" from the album "Catch 33" (2005). Metal strikes again 😝

😂😂 That's so funny.

Each horizontal line represents the ontological primitive of the respective view. The point is that solipsism (the kind that wants to exclude the existence of "other perspectives"), is Maya. It presupposes "illusion", space and time, distinctions, separation. It is not the same as taking Consciousness as the ontological primitive (for Consciousness is beyond space and time, beyond distinctions): Thanks in advance for complimenting my superior artistic taste.

Maya is made of contrast. Consciousness is beyond Maya (but also envelops Maya; think of a big man giving a small lady a hug, ok that's weird). Consciousness is One. It precedes "twoness" which is what contrast assumes. I still feel like we're just playing word games here: we have just different words for the same things. This is where I have to use non-dual speak: nobody "becomes aware" of their unlimited nature. They just remember. Their unlimited nature is awareness itself, but it tends to be obscured by identification with Maya when you're embodied as a human with concerns, desires, wants.

Yes. What people don't seem to understand is that "your perspective" is a dream character looking out at the world. It's not infinite, it's not absolute. The infinite and absolute is beyond your perspective, beyond all perspectives. It reaches in and contains your perspective, but that doesn't exclude other perspectives from being possible or real. It's like saying two clowns can't fit in a clown car because reality is infinite and only one clown truly exists. It's completely incoherent. There are other ways to argue for solipsism that are more coherent (but which I still don't find very palatable for other reasons), but this ain't it.

For the solipsists: doesn't it feel a little destabilizing to know that merely five and a half years ago (and probably more recently as well), you would've been completely deluded about solipsism, according to Leo? And if we assume that you are thinking for yourself, that by apparently some odd fluke, a huge chunk of you seem to agree with the current Leo and not the former? And then, notice the amount of comments in the 2019 thread that agreed with the former Leo and not the current Leo. If you are indeed thinking for yourself and "staying true to your experience", shouldn't this make you feel a little uneasy?

So you are playing a word game: you're simply re-defining what idealists call "consciousness" as "the limitless" and "localized identity within consciousness" as "consciousness". That's simply a word game. But it's at least good that you're making the distinction between an infinite existential ground (God's mind) and finite psychological structures (individual persons' minds). Not many people seem to be able to do that here and hence fall into solipsism, mixing the finite and the infinite.

Don't make the mistake of quoting something Leo has said in the past 😛:

Your post was "I have meditated" and "consciousness is localized". I had already responded to the latter, so I responded to the former. In my view, you're simply re-defining what I define as "consciousness" as "the limitless". The limitless can be known, you can become conscious of it; you already are conscious of it, you just forgot. You forgot through the process of localizing yourself as a separate locus of consciousness, a limited identity, what you define as "consciousness". If you think the limitless can be known by direct acquaintance, then it's consciousness and you're simply playing word games by giving it another name. If you don't think it can be known through direct acquaintance, you're a materialist or a dual aspect monist or something like that (where the bottom layer of reality cannot be known through direct acquaintance).

You can do meditation for 20 years and not get much results, just like you can do philosophy for 20 years and believe in solipsism.

😂 I wish I had read these philosophers so I knew exactly what you're pointing at. It does seem like it could make sense, I'm just unfamiliar with the concepts. I thought about including this but I would've been to long, and I wasn't sure how to formulate it. But that seems to make sense.

I didn't ask you about whether you have meditated for many years or your "level of awakeness". You brought that up.

Explain how "your eyes are you in 2D" in a way that is not beyond Terrence Howard levels of incoherent and I'll give you 100 dollars.

Yeah.

I'm a solo-clown-ist: I don't believe you can fit two clowns in a clown car. Why? Because I just drew that arbitrary distinction. That's what solipsism looks like to me. If I believe that I'm infinite consciousness dreaming up reality, I wouldn't use that to draw very particular conclusions about the finite. The infinite is infinite, that's it. And if I want to make statements about the finite, I would do that based on other finite things, like observation, intuition, logic, rationality. And then I would concede that I'm stepping out of the infinite in order to make statements about the finite (for the sake of understanding the finite). And when I do that, stopping at my own eyes also seems odd.

I'm just saying what I think. I could be mistaken.

I can also be dreaming that I'm on a vacation with my GF (imaginary of course) and we go to one of those tourist places where you can see through binoculars. Then when I see through them, my GF asks "what do you see?". And I answer: "mountains, birds, and also the Empire State building". Then when my GF sees through them, I ask her what does she see. She answers "I see mountains, birds and, yes, there is the Empire State building". Now, was I dreaming all that as infinite consciousness? Sure. Was it only me who saw the Empire State building? No. Was it only me who experienced the Empire State building? Probably no. If this is the case, it's very weird to say "other people don't experience anything" (which I don't know if you've noticed, people like to say). You can say it's all dreamed up, but that the dream should stop at my eyes, that's just odd.

How can you move in 2D space if consciousness is always in the same spot? Take some vitamins or something.

I don't think you do.