Carl-Richard

I like to think that I'm an INFP that learned to pretend like I'm an INTP. But my favorite subject in school since I was little is natural sciences, I specialized in physics and chemistry in high school, took a year of biology in university, and now I'm finishing a graduate degree in neuroscience (/psychology). I thought about studying chemistry at one point, then philosophy. If we trust ChatGPT, I should be INTP, no? But if you ask me what I would like to use my degree for, you would only think I'm INFP. Of course, on top of things not being black and white, people will have endless debates about how MBTI should be interpreted, and true MBTI geeks will truly arrest you any time you try to make some argument that is not grounded in cognitive functions (e.g Fi, Ti, Fi, Fe, etc.). Some old legend insisted I was an ENFP, not INFP (because I cite science and theories and statistics a lot, which is supposedly Te, and ENFP has tertiary Te).

This thread you just made is a pointer called "you are already there, you just forgot about it", and it's very effective (at least for me 😂). The truth is that as you say, we experience dissolution of the self very often (albeit in short bursts for most people), but we generally don't identify with the dissolutioned state, so it doesn't catch on, the ego rebuilds itself very quickly again. If you dissolve the ego so much that it becomes crystal clear that it's not who you are, and if you are constantly breaking and investigating the identification, at some point, you get a release and a switch happens and you realize "ah, it's me! It was always here, I just forgot!". And then you exist in that state for a while, but even then, the ego reconfigures itself after a while, but it becomes much easier to get back to that state (and the more you do it, the more it sticks, until eventually, you have to actually force yourself to not be there).

No, I'm asking 🤔

Why not o3? 😂 I fed your question to o3: https://chatgpt.com/share/6813ec45-0eac-8004-b6a2-61d9ecc7a57d

What type am I? 🤔

Which version? We should make it common practice to reference exactly what AI we're using.

When you read or work or do something intensely for a while (e.g. a few hours), you sometimes need to a take a little break, and after the break, you come back more fresh, your mind works better, you are more sensitive, and you can keep going. This is the same logic for having a weekend, but it's just a larger cycle, a larger time horizon (you work for say five days, then you rest for a few days). You also come back more fresh after the weekend, ready for more. This is the same logic for having a holiday, but again, a larger cycle (you work for most of the year and then take some weeks or months off). Likewise, you come back refreshed after the holiday, ready for more work. Now, the same logic applies for death, only a larger cycle (you work for a life, then you take a few years off). And likewise, you come back more fresh, ready for more work ☺️ What's more fresh, what mind is more clear, what sensitivity is greater, than a new mind and body?

Except ignorance exists. It's easy to go meta when your life is easy, when you're healthy, when you're rested and well-fed, when things are going mostly how you like them to go; when your mind is functioning and your heart is beating at a slow pace. It's not easy to go meta if you haven't slept for days, haven't eaten, you're working 16 hours a day, you don't like the work you're doing and you think it's not going to work out. And let's not talk about living in a warzone and the immense destabilizing and devitalizing effect it has on your psyche and how limited your scope of concern becomes when it's literally about life or death and constant threat of death.

It's not discipline if it's the only thing you want to do.

Firstly, get enough rest. Secondly, don't try to think of something funny to say, but rather when you think of something funny, say it. And if that's rare, then that's just how it is. Nobody is funny literally all the time. And you shouldn't feel pressure to be funny, because then, chances are, you won't be funny, because you're likely not having fun. Being funny is fundamentally about having fun. If that doesn't do it, maybe try to understand what makes something funny. Probably the best theory of humor is incongruence: for example, saying something very unexpected, but not in a way that is completely irrelevant to the conversation or incredibly peculiar (which would rather inspire fear or confusion), but something which sort of makes sense. Theo Von does this almost every time he opens his mouth. He is an endless source of funny unexpected utterances. Another theory of humor is that it's a way to express and release feelings of nervousness around a particular topic or situation. So you can try to talk about something that people are nervous about, e.g. a political situation, or something that is going wrong or might go wrong in the situation (for example, you're at a party and carrying a ton of drinks to deliver to your friends and you walk down a slippery patch of grass with another friend and you say "imagine if I slip now 😂"). Also, if you talk about something that people are nervous about but in a light and joking manner, that's a type of incongruence in itself which can be funny.

What?

But how can you know that you took pictures of a teapot and not that a ghost zapped that experience into your brain and you didn't actually take a picture of a teapot but a dinosaur that looks like a shlong? You never know 🤪

Yes. That which existed before you were born and that which will exist after you die. Things may change in reality, but something never changes. Be obsessed, unemployed and meditate for 1000 hours.

You are something else. What was there to answer? You just re-worded the example I gave of the car being stolen and cited some weird copy of Hume's problem of induction. It's only more "nothing can be absolute proven" business, which is what I'm trying to get you out of.

Yeah, duh. I want you to step out of your fixation on absolute proof for one moment and engage with relative reality, the vague and messy details of life. It's like you have invented your own version of the "spiritual" non-dual absolute-relative conflation / incessant tangents. Anytime somebody talks about something relative and messy, somebody always have to respond with "actually, nothing exists, nothing is happening, nobody is doing anything, y'all are engaging in fantasies, only the Absolute exists". You respond with "you can't absolutely prove anything! Descartes' demon, Hume's problem of induction, etc." Meanwhile, I'm like "can't we just talk about the relative for a while and not reflexively revert to the absolute literally all the time?" Tell me, if you can't absolute prove anything at all, why talk about it all the time? And why bring it up in response to a very particular topic when in fact it can be brought up as a response to any topic? And are you then actually engaging with the topic or are just throwing the discussion on a tangent towards your very specific interests?

You are acting like you don't care about probabilistic epistemology at all. But is this really true? Say if you want to quit smoking, do you need to absolutely prove that the method will absolutely help you quit smoking, or do you simply pick the one you think is most likely going to help? Do you know for an absolute fact that you will quit smoking when trying to quit, or do you simply place your bets? So I think you do care about probabilistic epistemology. So why not engage with me when I ask what you think is the most likely explanation for the boy's claimed memories?

I tried blasting it while doing my sprints and I got scared, wasn't in the mood to get my face bashed in. I'll try again another time 😆 I saw an interview with the lead guitarist and I really like his philosophy behind writing riffs: essentially try to make the most ridiculous sounds possible to the point that it becomes straight out funny and makes you laugh. It's probably something every metal guitarist has done at some point. Probably the Grammy nomination. I just love when the most transgressive forms of music of a given era blast people's faces off on a mainstream stage.

I thought you were done talking about trying to prove things for absolute certainty as if that is the only thing you can do when validating a claim. It's like I ask you how you think your car got stolen, and instead of saying that a thief likely stole it, you're like "but you can't know if a ghost actually zapped a memory into your brain about the car being stolen while actually it was never stolen, it was actually teleported out of existence by a second ghost and put on a different planet with dinosaurs that look like cocks, you never know!" It's really only interesting to think like that the first few times, but then you kinda grow out of it.

You ok?

One set per exercise, interesting. I've heard about Mike Mentzer's training approach but never tried it. There is a reason why Buges calls it "horsecocking some heavy ass loads"

Do you know of any athletes who train "slow and controlled"? Here are two who don't: You can lower your injury rate by not walking outside too. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a smart thing to do. *assumed same gains. Let's also not forget the myriad of methodological constraints of the actual studies that Mike Isratael cites for stitching together his training philosophy (e.g. using primarily inexperienced lifters, doing straight out dumb shit like training only one arm with one technique and then other arm with another technique, having a scientist stand over you and control every rep you do, etc.). It's also funny because I've heard critiques of Mike that his training philosophy is actually outside of his wheelhouse. He is a PhD in sports science, which when you are an undergrad, you learn a bit of everything, but when you go for a PhD, you have to specialize yourself in something, and allegedly, he decided to go the exercise physiology route rather than the kinesiology route. So him trying to teach the world about how to move during a lift while waving his scientific credentials around is misleading at best and problematic at worst. And ironically, someone who has a degree in kinesiology is Eric Bugenhagen. He might actually be more formally qualified than Mike in this area. But not higher than most other sports, so how high is it really? It's not easier, because it sucks. It's like role-playing an 80 year old grandma in the gym.

Not sure about the "language is just social science applied" one, but I can appreciate the reductionist snake ☺️

In this case, that seems unlikely, because then when verifying the boys claims with the forensic veracity they did, digging back in old library archives to find information about the guy, they would have probably discovered he was in fact his grandfather (unless his grandmother secretely slept with the guy, who most likely lived in a different state, and the official grandfather raised a child that was not his).

That which exists beyond space and time has existed forever and will always exist 🙂 Less often currently.

You identify as that which exists beyond all form, beyond all space and time.