Carl-Richard

Thanks — now I want a chart for that too

@integral I don't get the frustration. It's like you've been assigned to count fruits in a basket but you insist on calling it apples. That is besides the point my man

The study uses academic giftedness (they sampled the academic perfomance of students). It could be used as a rough measurement for intellectual giftedness.

@k0ver Dw, I could infer your experience from the first post. I get your point and I can see a similar progression in my own life. I had my Harris-Hitchens-Dawkins phase, McKenna-Sheldrake phase, Watts-Spira-Sadhguru phase, done psychedelics, fasting, diets, nofap, daily meditation, sober samadhi experiences etc. I can see how debates can help you along the way and how conversation adds a certain richness of language or a new dimension of information flow, but at the end of the day, when one reaches the "higher levels" (while knowing how obviously pompous that sounds), you either know what resonates or you don't. You intuitively know what you want to apply to your own life. You can watch 1000 hours of videos on the same topic, have tons of conversations and learn to capture all the different nuances in words, and that may serve you well, but you can do all that and still not manifest it in your life. There, the work is more often simple than not. A debate isn't necessarily going to help you with that. In that case, Leo's emphasis on diversity of content over plurality of formats can be understood as deliberate.

I ran into this graph again and found a great way to generalize the results in terms of cognitive functions: "intuitive aux>dom, introverted dom>aux and thinking functions are predictors of giftedness." You can essentially deduce the relative positions of each category (rationals, intuitives etc.) and most of the types from that statement alone

Exactly People who consume it frequently enough to worry about pesticides are virtually in all cases smoking it, atleast from time to time.

I find "pseudoscience" an endearing term at this point. Besides, you have "real" philosophers like Paul Feyerabend who've deconstructed the entire demarcation problem (effectively saying there is no such thing as science vs. pseudoscience).

@k0ver Look, I wouldn't mind seeing Leo in a conversation or debate. I would actually want to see that. But realize what Leo's job is. It's not about convincing nay-sayers. It's about helping out those who are already committed to this work. Him "ironing it out" is what the 3hr three-part videos are about. Sure, if he finds someone on the same wavelength, who aren't butthurt and only wants to settle some personal matters, maybe beautiful things can come out of it, but practically speaking, who would that be?

Then again, inhaling any form of burnt vegetable material will inevitably cause health problems. And before you tell me "oh but edibles aren't bad for your lungs", please show me a stoner who only uses edibles. You can't ?

Decriminalization is in many ways legalization without regulation (yes, I'm simplifying it, but it's still pretty stupid).

@k0ver I appreciate your response. As I've expressed in another thread, I'm not inherently opposed to people having conversations (or Leo for that matter). I might have labelled myself a bit too strongly: I gave one reason why debates tend not to work. It's always a number's game. They can work, but they're mostly futile. The extreme example I gave doesn't necessarily apply to all situations, but there is always a level of mechanical restraint inherent in conversation. In Leo's case, you have to realize that the videos where he is talking into a camera have a type of productive value in the sense that they're about new topics that he hasn't presented before. Him going into a debate would be most likely a rehashing of old points (in a new format, sure), so in this case, Leo argues it would be more productive to produce new videoes instead of debating. But is this absolutely the case? Is there zero productive value to exploring each point in depth and possibly clearing up misconceptions? Maybe not. However, is it worth it? That would be up to you to decide.

If this is possible, I don't need any more mindfucks for the rest of my life.

Psychopaths are born with certain predispositions that can either be aggravated or lessened through upbringing.

The way he speaks reminds me of a preacher who believes he is passing down the word of God. You really get the sense that this is what they believe world to be on the most fundamental level. Granted, he is speaking to a child as an educator trying to simplify something complex, so in that sense he is doing a good job (he has strong Fe), but this is also how he speaks in general.

@Zeitgeist Lol. That is some predictable utility right there Just a little clarification: when I say the variation is not limitless, I mean that in the way we perceive it via our measurements in this specific paradigm. Given an absolutely infinite universe, it is limitless — it's just that the measurements aren't.

I know the brain can't produce what I define as consciousness, because it exists prior to the brain. The brain, either as a mental concept or a sensory experience, always arises as an appearance within consciousness. This insight made me initially very skeptical of the brain in general, maybe to a fault, and made me want to minimize any type of mechanistic explanation of reality if it involved anything about neural activity. However, as I've been reading about cognitive psychology and neuroscience, I've been willing to refine my skepticism by conceding that it's possible to find evidence for some cases of causality between brain activity and much of our behavior and experiences. This is NOT the same as saying the brain is responsible for "everything" (as maybe a materialist would say). I'm talking about specific activity explaining specific functioning through a causal relationship (while using a reasonable definition of causality). The important distinction here lies in correlation vs. causation. Brain imaging techniques like fMRI and EEG are correlational methods and cannot establish a causal relationship. However, methods like TMS are theoretically able to find evidence for causality as you can directly stimulate activity and monitor the experiential/behavioral consequences. Here the problems boil down to practicalities, like how to accurately isolate specific activity/behavior. You also have so-called "double dissociation" cases when studying the effects of brain damage. A famous case is the discovery of Wernicke's and Broca's area. Wernicke's patient had damage in one area and had trouble with speech production (but could understand speech just fine) while Broca's patient had damage in another area and had trouble with language comprehension (but could produce speech, albeit incoherently). This seems to demonstrate that speech production and language comprehension are mediated separately by these two places. When you take a drug, like an anesthetic or a psychedelic, there obviously seems to be a predictable change in subjective experience and behavior. Surely, without going into details, this as well must count as a demonstration of causality, must it not? In short, my view is essentially that materialististic models about the brain aren't completely full of crap if we dare to look beyond the metaphysical confusion about consciousness and similar matters. Are there any important principles that could give some insight into this question? Where do you guys draw the line? Consciousness? Experiences? Behavior?

This is inaccurate. You can establish a symptomatic diagnostic criteria of depression and then see how regulating some aspects of serotonergic and dopaminergic activity is correlated with those symptoms. However, the "cause" of those symptoms is not necessarily the chemicals themselves. From this paradigm, you would instead say that depression stems from the inability to regulate one's own chemistry, and this is in virtually all cases mediated by some behavioral dysfunction, either as a result of trauma, neurotic patterns, poor life situation, or less commonly accepted by the mainstream; spiritual confusion. Any psychiatrist worth his salt will always make the patient try to fix any of the three aforementioned conditions before concluding that the cause is purely chemical. This is for example Jordan Peterson's reasoning for why he took anti-depressants his entire life despite believing his life was in relative order (not true now); he thought he had reduced it down to the chemicals. However, what I'm claiming is that JP is missing out on the last and arguably most crucial condition: spiritual growth. This is most likely why his system is dysregulated. It's not because of an inherent malfunction of something like gene transcription or transmitter function. Now, if spiritual practice hooks you up to a free and permanent stream of pleasant neurochemicals, how does this square with the idea that we're just biological machines? The relationship between the action of sitting and doing nothing and reaping the largest chemical reward that the system could ever capably produce seems ridiculously asymmetrical from a mechanical point of view. What is the explanation for why the machine can seemingly break its own source code like this? Maybe there are other models that can give much more intuitively sound and logically straightforward explanations of what we truly are: cognitive-spiritual beings.

@fox_unit Yup. Lack of self-awareness and projection is a staple in debunk psychology.

or like a children's drawing. The pen that draws is uncaused and the child's imagination infinite, but the drawing is simplified and limited. The child doesn't know about causality; only the stick figure thinks he does. The child knows pure creativity — that is all he needs in order to create

I like to think I'm onboard with this line of thinking, but I'm not sure if either 1. I keep forgetting about it or 2. if reading too much neuroscience is inherently poisoning my mind Your points about correlation being all there is has been my initial position for a while, but when I keep reading about the claims of causality, I start to wonder if maybe the distinction is useful (useful instead of "true", because like I said, I don't really believe in "true" causality). On the one hand, I believe I'm making these semi-nuanced distinctions about causality, but on the other hand, I think that maybe sometimes I can slip back into billard ball type thinking and start believing that the brain is actually causing stuff (hence being poisoned and hence my original question). So far I haven't been moved much away from embracing my old strategy, which is simply about being careful not to lose track of which paradigm is which (which again I'm suspecting becomes progressively harder the longer you immerse yourself in one), and that maybe over time, I will properly develop the sixth sense of system awareness . Anyways, thanks for the input

Maybe the problem lies in me letting the current scientific paradigm define what I perceive as reasonable and expecting there to be some resolution between two inherently incompatible paradigms. I mean... it's not at all reasonable from the perspective of infinite consciousness ?

Omg

It is, as are all distinctions. The question is about when or if it is ever warranted to distinguish between imaginary correlation and imaginary causation. It's true that predictability is a shaky concept. For instance, psychedelics used to have a very different effect on me a couple of years ago than today. If you were to take the neuroscientific perspective of causation, you would say that the drug predictably triggers the same receptors, leading to the same type of signalling cascades. If you were to explain the diversity of experience from this perspective, you would say that it's because the receptors are a part of larger variable system. But this variation is not limitless (if we're limiting ourselves to humans). After all, different people have a lot in common. I return to the word "reasonable". There seems to be a reasonable level of predictability. For instance, it wouldn't be reasonable to say that taking LSD turns you into a frog for the rest of your life, or that it is identical to the effects of something like Salvia Divinorum. In other words, the neuroscience seems reasonable to me; maybe not magically perfect (unlike reality), but just reasonable.

@Boethius Cool thanks Btw, I wasn't sure to post this in self-actualization or meditation/consciousness/spirtuality, because it clearly falls under "philosophy", but it also touches on all of those other topics ? Which is why I cheekily added "while using a reasonable definition of causation" at the end of the previous paragraph, with which I mean that in some ways I'm conceding to the materialists own definition or treatment of it. Let me also clarify again that consciousness as The Absolute is out of the picture (it's "uncaused"). I'm concerned about the "contents" of consciousness, of which the brain is included. I'm familiar with Hume's problem of induction and how causality is impossible to prove, but if we were to somewhat borrow Kant's critique: from a human perspective, causality seems to be a natural law, or atleast we treat it as such (not that materialists are transcendental idealists, but nevertheless, they seem to follow in the same footsteps, atleast out from how they treat it in language). If I only concerned myself with what is provided by my direct experience (beyond thought-laden perception), I would stop right at the very first paragraph, but here I am, talking about "the content of the dream" so to speak. I'm already aware of the silliness of it So in other words, granted the silliness of defining anything as causal, granted the reductionism and general lack of comprehensiveness of materialistic models, I do sympathize with pointing to the brain as a way to consistently predict some aspects of behavior or experience (as with any physiological apparatus) in ways that let's say exceeds the "common conception" of correlation and its limitations. You could say I'm trying to reconcile my "consciousness first" model with the question of "what does the materialists gain from making their distinction between causality and correlation, and can I have some of it?"

As I've been reading a little history of philosophy this year, I've concluded that I don't find it particularily helpful to apply Orange to pre-enlightenment societies. The time from classical antiquity throughout the middle ages was a messy mixture of theology and philosophy, mythic and rational thinking, concrete and formal operational cognition etc. There is a point in calling it the Dark Ages. I would say those 2000 years were a rough, complicated and slow transitionatory stage. If there really was any true Orange anywhere, it was very exclusive and not truly significant in the bigger picture. It's not this simple, but for instance, Stage Blue surely didn't reach its peak before the great empires fell and the nation states were established. That is just one example, but the point is that the seeds of Orange needed a vast selection of ideal conditions in order to bear fruit (as did any stage).