Carl-Richard

Well ain't that stupid?

If you want a really good example of Se, look up TrainwrecksTv. He is a really great storyteller because of how he fills it to the brim with descriptions of external details. It almost feels like you were there.

I don't know where to post this, but it's about "kriyas" (sponatenous movements caused by kundalini energy). This singer is what you could consider a one in a million natural talent, but what I'm interested about is her hand movements. It reminds me very much of kriyas in the sense that they're fast-paced, smooth and erratic all at the same time. Might she have an awakened kundalini? I tend to get a really a substantial "contact high" so to speak from listening to her. Maybe she was born with it as well (could explain her unique talent and personality). I know of one other person who claims he was born with an awakened kundalini (Jan Esmann), and he is a professional hyperrealist painter, extremely talented.

Weed causes brain damage Q.E.D

Fuck it, I made my own chart with those numbers: Close enough

None of the images are linked to the original source, but you can search through Google Scholar and find similar studies with similar numbers. This one seems the most promising: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.4219/jsge-2004-449?casa_token=FP3maiTlUFgAAAAA:0KhGSw94xqC7yCiHXfB8VM2wOMBw2CZ3ldRVrv39q4rlebQw7LgupoOFquFPmMq9yj_75uumTgc The ratios in this table seem to roughly fit the chart after you divide them by a factor of 2. For example, INTP = (12.05/3.54)/2 = 1.70. The person who made the chart may have done that for aesthetic reasons. The numbers might have also been adjusted slightly if the chart comes from a later study (or a completely different one), which might explain why INTP ratio is 1.76 and not 1.70 in the chart. I can't find a table for that though.

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