Carl-Richard

Peak reductionism.

If science has no errors, how does it grow? Science makes models that describe the universe in extremely limited ways. A description is not identical to the thing it describes. Talking about surfing is not the same as actually surfing.

So what you're saying is that you're not making any sense. Ok

There is no difference, yet you just called a person a materialist

To me, it seems like you're conflating the concept of material (substance) with the concept of form (appearance). To me, what you're saying is that a person appears to be displaying materialistic tendencies, but that doesn't mean you necessarily believe that that person is made out of matter or is grounded in a substance that exists independent of appearances. The materialists assumption is an additional step.

For the materialist, there is a difference, but it is merely postulated to be that way. There is no good argument for it.

Let's get something straight: 1. logic and rationality are not synonymous with materialism. There exists many theories in various fields that are either fully compatible or completely neutral to non-materialist metaphysics (I pointed to psychology as one example). 2. Analytical philosophy is also done through logic and rationality, and it's not considered a science. What you're missing is empiricism, or more specifically the hypothetico-deductive method: the empirical testing of hypotheses and progressive refinement of theories. However, analytical philosophy can be used to create standards of how theories should be interpreted or treated (e.g. "is it scientific enough and/or should it be discarded?"), for example using so-called "demarcation criteria" (e.g. falsificationism), but "the scientific method" in its purest form basically boils down to empiricism and theory-building.

Duality and form isn't inherently materialistic. You can have an immaterial dream of forms.

I'm misunderstanding you. Is psychology a science or not?

He chooses consensus reality as a baseline and reserves the term "illusion" for the so-called edge case phenomenas that break with that reality. Why not instead place illusion as the baseline reality and treat consensus reality as an edge case?

How is that so? Is psychology unscientific? Does it exclude the study of the mind? Is the mind material in nature? Are all psychological models materialistic? The answer is no btw.

Only in America ?

What the fuck?! What definition of "crash"?

Reminds me of a friend of my dad. "Fluoride is making people absolutely brain dead and incapable of entertaining a single thought" *inhales tobacco smoke and takes a sip of beer*

This picture is the very antithesis to your statement

Imagine that taking psychedelics is like lifting weights. Once you have built up a lot of muscles, you can lift with ease something that other people struggle to lift. Their state might drastically change in their attempts to lift it: they might turn red, start to sweat, breathe rapidly and feel aches and pains, meamwhile you remain basically at baseline physiology while lifting the same weight. You don't actually know the extent of which that is true. The psychedelic experience is of course not the same as an enlightenment experience for an unenlightened person, but if we assume that the brain is responsible for producing different behavior, it's obvious that the enlightened brain works very differently than the normal brain, so why can't their reaction to psychedelics be different as well?

Speaking of finding non-duality in unexpected places, I ran into a guy with the name "Non Dual" on Oldschool RuneScape. I said "Aye!", "1k meditation hours ", and he said "<3", "One Love". A beautiful little moment

Done the survey yet?

It's not that simple. A consistent meditation practice is not replaceable.

I'm such an idiot

Are you meditating every day?

@Blackhawk You should try to survey people on whether they are happy for being alive or not and see if that produces an acceptable statistic. My intuition is that it will lean mostly in favour of the former.

today's school systems*

#1 public health solution imo. Start them young, like with mathematics, and increase the level over time. Curriculum overview: Theory - techniques, mystical traditions. Practice - class sessions. Retreats - arranged by the school. The subjects will be graded, at least the theoretical portion. Any thoughts? Improvements, challenges?