Carl-Richard

But bliss is still you.

High information flow comes with the cost of low accessibility. So he is strategic in some ways but less in others.

Why do you think that?

Isn't LSD = heroin?

"There is only one you" yet he says it's not him.

Take the individual and trace their life back to when they were just a child. At which point along that line did they become a responsible adult deserving of judgement?

Firstly, causality is an iffy term in neuroscience. The term "neural correlates" is preferred. Even then, sure, it's not very straightforward. Regardless, the methodological issues around neuroscience and how it relates to more general epistemological problems (hard problem of consciousness, mind-matter causality, physical/non-physical interactions, qualia vs. brain states) is a separate issue. I was talking from within that framework, not from some meta-perspective. I think you misunderstand what I mean by top-down vs. bottom up. Let's take visual perception: light hits photosensitive pigments in the retina, they break and form a neurotransmitter that binds to a receptor. This creates an action potential that travels along afferent neurons that end up in the visual cortex which creates the experience of vision (very simplified). This explanation is reductionistic and "bottom-up" (from one type of receptor and to the brain). Your starting point is one unit and your end point is more complex. Notice how this single transmitter-receptor-nerve complex is similar to the "mystical experience = endogenous DMT" idea. After all, what is DMT but a neurotransmitter that binds to a receptor? Now, the top-down explanation explains the visual perception as not exclusively being a result of activity coming from the lower levels ("bottom"; transmitter-receptor-nerve) but that the information from the lower levels is somehow modified which then produce the finished product. In other words, you can't say that just this receptor or this nerve brought about the perception (one unit), but rather that it's a result of a large network of neural connections working together (many units), hence Default Mode Network. The top-down/bottom-up distinction is used in psychology to explain things like the impact of memory and individual experience on perception: context-dependent recognition of objects, monocular cues in depth perception etc.. You can also look at different cultures and predict perceptual differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müller-Lyer_illusion These effects are again explained using the top-down model. It's not like the amount of stimuli from the retina is somehow different across different cultures (which would instead warrant a bottom-up description). The differences are not found on the level of transmitter-receptor-nerve. My critique of the bottom-up model is primarily on the grounds of it being reductionistic and that it alone will most likely not lead to a comprehensive view of the phenomena. You'll either way gain more on taking a larger perspective. In other words, saying that mysticism = endogenous DMT is not necessarily a good model.

No.

Yesterday we had a guest lecturer, a psychosis specialist. To sum up, it was a psychotic person trying to teach a bunch of psychotic people about psychosis

This is so true. After all, my first post on this forum was about me freaking out after experiencing the dissolution of myself and asking for advice about how to make it stop, and while it wasn't my intention (atleast initially), these more intellectual ideas turned into a way of distracting myself from that

Yeah. I can't do much but be fascinated

What is so cool about Daniel is his strategic approach to language. He has incorporated so many systemic words into his vocabulary that he always speaks at a very high level of generalizability without losing information density. It's the art of making broad statements without becoming too vague. Infact, in a weird way you're being more accurate by using those types of generalizations, because it saves you from needing to perform long deductions where you otherwise increase the risk of running into more ambiguous words. Systemic words contain the crux of a wide range of concrete things. It doesn't make you immune to having to elaborate, but it's still a very effective way of communicating. Some of the terms make intuitive sense, but some are also taken from literature which can sometimes make it hard to follow. Here a few of examples from only a couple of Daniel's sentences: Game-theoretic, catastrophe weapons, planetary boundaries, confidence margin, generator functions, collective action problem, local optimums, global minimums, multi-polar traps, fully globalized exponential tech etc..

I wasn't asking about that. I was asking about what happens during death in the brain.

It's true that the common conception of drugs is generally characterized by a lack of ability to make useful distinctions. However, I would only support taking a more liberal stance if it comes from making better distinctions. With that said, the soft/hard dichotomy is fallacious for many reasons. There exists more accurate ways of looking at a drug. One way is the distinction between consciousness expanding drugs and consciousness decreasing drugs. I would evaluate this is by looking at the long-term benefits: does it lead to a long-term net increase or decrease in consciousness? Most psychedelics tend to fall into the first category. Virtually all other drugs tend fall in that last category. My definition of consciousness here is more strict than somebody who would maybe want to include something like stimulants in the first category, because while you can have great intellectual breakthroughs on them and become more productive for a certain period of time, the issues around dependency, neural downregulation, cognitive and emotional instability, lack of refinement, compulsive patterns and habits; all of this impacts the long-term value. What about grey areas like cannabis? There I would say it depends on the way it's used and who is using it. It can sometimes be used for growth, but once you've exhausted that potential, it can also be used to stagnate growth. But isn't it then also true that careful use of purely hedonic drugs can sometimes lead to long-term growth? Maybe, but again, generally the more hedonic a drug is, the larger the potential is for stagnation than for growth. The term hedonic can also be confusing, because aren't psychedelics potentially very pleasureable? Well, the key there is "potentially". Psychedelics don't promote a fixed input-output relationship between stimulus and response. Your pleasure on psychedelics is contingent on a large array of different conditions. While heroin makes you feel pleasure irrespective of whether your life is in rapture or your body is damaged, psychedelics will most likely amplify those things. This is exactly why psychedelics increase consciousness, because they make you more aware of nuances. Consciousness decreasing drugs instead act to neutralize nuances in some way or another. Psychedelics don't produce pleasure per se, but if you're inherently peaceful within yourself, psychedelics will expand that within you. If your trip becomes hard, it will try to show you how to further cultivate that inner peace within yourself, and that is what spirituality is about.

Is there even any proof that endogenous DMT or 5-MeO for that matter is involved in endogenous mystical experiences? The idea that these things must necessarily boil down to the docking of a specific neurotransmitter is a reductive bottom-up approach and is for the most part pure speculation. It's largely a result of the widespread belief of pharmacological determinism (the idea that one type of molecule is exclusively tied to one type of response) which has both cultural and medicinal implications. When perception is described in neuroscience, there is also something called top-down mechanisms: the idea that perceptions are constructed with the help of higher-order cortical functions instead of merely being a result of a straightforward 1-to-1 mapping of raw sensory information (bottom-up). In other words, mystical experiences could also be explained by looking at the brain as a whole rather than simply looking at one type of ligand-receptor activity. An example of this approach is the research done on the Default Mode Network.

I live in southern Norway and we've had tons of snow lately, but we ait

In terms of Big 5, high Extraversion, high Agreeableness, high Conscientiousness, and low Neuroticism is considered the leadertype while high E, low A, low C, high N is associated with risky sexual behavior (a.k.a bad boy). I'm like none of those

Do our brains really flood with DMT when we die?

Confusing the map with the territory is about confusing a symbol (a thing) for the thing it represents (another thing). A symbol is something that represents something other than itself. Models are in essence nothing but a collection of symbols. Maps are like that, and humans are map-makers. Thoughts are symbolic in nature. For example, you have a thought (a thing) about a cat (another thing). The relationship between the cat-thought and the cat is symbolic. The thought is like an image of the cat. The image is not the actual cat - it's an image. "Think and act outside models" is therefore not a very meaningful statement. You're already involved in the very act of modeling or map-making by interacting with the symbolic content of your thoughts. You drawing images of cats in your mind is similar to drawing images of cats on paper. This video is a perfect illustration of what we're talking about (it's so funny ): The confusion also lies in thinking that symbols somehow exist independently of map-makers (humans). That would be impossible. These are all maps. They were all made by someone. In this case, if something is made by someone, it cannot be the territory.

Apparently Ethan from h3h3 is ENTP so I wouldn't doubt it

I was going to say that lol

Spot on. Same mannerisms, same voice, same look, same layout, same humor, same clothes style, vapes

Stop fooling around and answer my question. What do you mean when you say "don't you think people know why they are there?"? How does that justify insulting a cancer patient? Get down from the clouds and get real lmao

I'm an anti-composer. I have probably around 1000 audio recordings of different guitar ideas stored on 5 different phones over 10 years which I've never touched