Carl-Richard

I think what he is talking about is the good old Advaita trap., a.k.a confusing the absolute and the relative

You were born with an inquisitive mind that needs meaning and purpose, so you have to learn how to deal with that. Some people just have less going on up there so they don't seem as affected by it. But you'll also notice how easily riled up they can get over nothing in particular. There are pros and cons of being a meathead.

Eric Weinstein also has his own wiki with a lot of contributions to systems thinking: https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Main_Page

Good example of why ENFP and INFJ are considered a best match; the dance of divergent and convergent intuition (Ne and Ni). Ne takes one topic and connects it with other topics in a movement of expansion, and Ni takes those topics and strings them all together into a narrative. Then Ne uses that as a springboard to other subjects and the cycle continues. This is the essence of the dialectical movement (constructive and complementary discourse): divergence and convergence, elaboration and condensation, analysis and synthesis, fragmentation and integration.

Keywords: facets, aspects, center of gravity, continuum. Stage Orange isn't exclusively defined by atheism. Atheism/theism is just one facet that can be arrived at through different pathways (Red can also be atheistic). It can be affected by other facets like cognition, spirituality, aesthetics, morality etc. For example, your friend might have Orange cognition and morality along with some aspects of Blue/Red spirituality and aesthetics. People adopt beliefs and identities all the time that seem to deviate from their center of gravity (nobody is just one stage but instead a shaded continuum). For example, there is currently an Orange fad about simulation theory: the idea that the universe was created by immensely powerful beings outside of our world. Sounds eerily similar to traditional monotheism don't you think? There is an obvious monotheistic aesthetic to the theory, but it's nested within a techno-materialist metaphysics (which arguably makes no difference when you're already conceding to the creator aspect). There are many examples of Christian apologists with a deeper knowledge of philosophy and logic than most atheistic philosophers (stronger Orange cognition but maybe more Blue spirituality/morality). Look up the debate with Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Harris abandoned the debate format midway and derailed the discussion into a pathos-fueled activist tirade. Not very "science, facts and logic" of him

If I managed to predict exactly when my microwave is done 86% of the time, that doesn't tell me anything about my predictions about aliens. Even if I made predictions about aliens with 86% accuracy, the problem of induction states that a prediction can never tell you anything certain about the future. Current predictions don't tell you anything certain about future predictions.

He wasn't killed. He was put in "formal jail", which entailed him staying at a friend's house in Rome. It was technically Copernicus who brought up the possibility of heliocentricism, but Galileo created the telescope and made some observations, then did some calculations using Kepler's equations to provide some evidence for the theory. Regardless, it's true that if we were to apply a consistent definition of pseudoscience, the church at the time (the original scientific institution) were actually more scientifically rigorous than Galileo. He had been making unfounded claims about the rotation of the Earth and the nature of comets (wrong in both cases), and despite pushback, he said heliocentrism is the true model. The reason Copernicus didn't get in trouble is because he never claimed something without evidence (like "my theory is the true one"). The church were initially not too pessimistic about a heliocentric theory, but the way Galileo treated his critics and competing theorists (who were all scientists) is in many ways to blame for why he was jailed. This is obviously not to say that he deserved what was coming to him. It's a point to show how stupid the term pseudoscience is.

The problem of induction my friend.

Red herring. Look at the title "conscious society".

"Canine teeth" is an anatomical feature. It's present across different mammalian species.

There is a formal definition of pseudoscience according to philosophy of science. You have something called "the demarcation criterion" which is used to define what science is and what it isn't (pseudoscience). The term pseudoscience is primarily used to refer to subjects that fall outside the demarcation criterion and that somehow competes with or challenges something that falls inside that criterion. Feyerabend's point was that the demarcation criterion is meaningless because 1. it has always been subject to change and 2. no scientists actually follow the criterion, especially not the revolutionary ones (like mentioned earlier about the Copernican revolution). For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the neopositivist movement in Vienna established the verificationist doctrine as their demarcation criterion. Karl Popper (Feyerabend's academic advisor) criticized the limits of verificationism and established falsificationism as the new criterion, which is where most scientists are at currently. Feyerabend then criticized falsificationism and discarded the demarcation criterion entirely, and people like Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, who can be considered modern revolutionary theorists within physics, have expressed an affinity for this view.

Seems like you're just using as a derogatory term.

What do you mean? Is this the start of yet another solipsism thread? What's next — veganism as we're on the topic of animals? "Buckle up and strap in for our latest rendition of the eco-fascist/solipsist-nihilist/neo-spiritualist crossover! All you need is a stable internet service and some ill-defined sparetime! This is an experience you will not regret having for the 5th time this week!"

Say hello to my little friend: Paul Feyerabend (and his "epistemological anarchism"). He is a legendary philosopher of science who makes convincing arguments for why there is no such thing as pseudoscience: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

What happens if you flex the same muscle over and over? It grows. Even when you're not working out, your muscles are still there — they don't just disappear. Flexing the muscle don't just have an effect on you while working out, but it also makes you stronger in everyday life. What if meditation works the same way? What if you can build such a strong meditation muscle that you start noticing a difference in everyday life? That is infact exactly how it is. Does that mean you must learn to flex your muscles really hard every moment of your day? No. You'll just exhaust yourself that way, and more importantly, your muscles will not have any time to grow. There has to be a balance between work and rest. You'll feel a little stronger every day if you keep a consistent practice and give yourself time to rest.

This level of discourse is an indicator of when a topic has run its course. Guess we have to wait a couple of days for the next vegan debate thread to pop up

Regarding arguments for evolutionary adaptation and structural compatibility, there are arguments on both sides, but I believe it mostly rules in favor of plants. That is however somewhat a separate issue to what leads to the best health or longevity. Evolution could technically produce a so-called death receptor that when bound to a specific transmitter substance terminates the life of that organism. That doesn't mean we ought to feed that receptor to obtain optimal bodily functioning. It's therefore not so simple to draw a 1-to-1 relationship between a structural adaptation and things like health and longevity.

Have you watched Interstellar? ? Why are you assigning our limited Einsteinian models and human scarcity mindset to beings you haven't met? If they have the resources to observe us from afar, what is stopping them from also observing us up close? All of this could be irrelevant, because if we assume that cultural evolution is correlated with technological evolution, who is to say that these beings don't have the 5-dimensional alien-equivalent of Tier 2 cognition? How would you begin to go about predicting their intentions, let alone explaining anything about them?

Perspective is about making distinctions within a system of nested hierarchical order. It's not about making less distinctions but more nuanced ones. Tier 2 is when the "nestedness" becomes more apparent: that "you" and the world is a result of several steps of a evolutionary progress in several dimensions, where each dimension "nests" and "borns" the higher one through constructive modification. You'll then recognize these steps in other people and use that to understand yourself and the world better. So yes, you can always learn something from someone lower on the spiral than yourself, because your own spiral still contains those elements within it so to speak, and they're currently more immersed in it than yourself, and that can help you to address some of your own blindspots. When the approach is love and understanding rather than fear and hate, any interaction becomes like scientific research. It will almost always benefit you in some way or another, because the only agenda is inclusivity.

Yes, they have less psychological suffering, more peace, presence, less mental anguish, but they are not enlightened. As far as we know, they don't have awakenings, their state doesn't change, and there is no spiritual progression. Maybe this will be studied in the future and we'll have maps for animal spirituality as well. However, our current maps of enlightenment are limited to humans, and I haven't heard of anyone who was born enlightened. Even if it was technically possible to be born enlightened, it would just be too extremely rare to matter to anyone. There are always exceptions to a rule, but the utility of the rule isn't defined by its exceptions. I think the progression component is a pretty useful way of defining enlightenment. The very reason why it's such a hot issue in the first place is because it's a sought-after thing that very few people have accomplished. In that sense, enlightenment isn't as much of a quality as an activity. However, you can also make qualitative definitions of enlightenment that would still exclude animals, namely the idea that it's synonymous with what I like to call "non-dual baseline awareness", where "non-dual baseline" is defined by a lack of self-referential thoughts ~95% of the time (5% attributable to hypoglycemia). Now, the crucial point is that what I just mentioned only applies to humans. I will explain why that is: Firstly, the concept of "baseline" implies that the potential for self-referential thoughts is always there (the underlying mental faculties never disappeared), and sometimes they may even reappear from time to time. Secondly, many self-proclaimed enlightened humans (who I believe to fall under the aforementioned criteria) still claim to be able to deploy thought as a means to an end ("non-self-referential thought"). In other words, enlightenment in this case would be "non-dual baseline awareness" + "the ability to think in order to plan or solve problems". So for an animal to be enlightened in this case, they would need to 1. have no self-referential thoughts and 2. have an ability to think (which isn't so clear). If you instead say that they're just innately unable to form any thoughts at all, that would distinguish them from all other "formally recognized" enlightened beings. Then you have special cases where some enlightened people claim to have lost all forms of thought all together. Now, does that make them an animal? Well, even if they lack the subjective experience of solving problems using mental representations (through visual imagery or internalized verbal reasoning), they still display the same abilities as someone who does that. In other words, they can still pass as someone who is able to think to solve problems. Then the definition becomes more or less tautological in respect to the question: no self-referential thoughts + display of human behavior, i.e. only humans can be enlightened In summary, it's most useful in my opinion to define enlightenment or an enlightened being as "a selfless, thinking being" (or atleast one that displays the behavior of such a being), the qualities of which is partially accessible on a continuum facilitated by spiritual practice, eventually reaching a maximum and stabilizing around a baseline. I also want to make it clear that I've been mostly referring to the most basic type of enlightenment in various maps ("600s" — Ramaji; "Valley of unity" — Sufism; "the Absolute within the Relative" — Five Ranks of Tozan; "Sixth Zen Bull" — 10 Zen Ox herding pictures; "4th Stage" — Patanjali' Yoga Sutras; "4th stage" (Sattvapati) — Advaita Vedanta. https://www.realizedbygrace.org/levels-of-consciousness?lightbox=dataItem-jlvwww23. However, the no-thought state mentioned in the 6th paragraph is usually considered a much later stage depending on the map.

Enlightenment implies that there has been a journey from darkness and into the light. If you've always been in the light, there is no such thing as enlightenment. Compare it with the hero's journey: the animal has never had to travel through the dark abyss of human suffering, overcome it and return to the village. You're not a hero for just living in the village. It's the journey that makes you a hero.

? Before you play devil's advocate, try to show that you're not the devil ?

Are you comparing satsangs with one on one sessions?

As compared to who?