Carl-Richard

Depends who you ask. If you ask Freud, it's about everything

That was kinda the point. Chill man. Don't have to get emotional . I'll give you some stats: 100% of all statistics capture ~0% of reality.

The energy stuff comes from decreased levels of prolactin (anti-dopamine).

The statement was clear: "human behavior is 93% predictable". I called bullshit because the study obviously covers only a microscopic aspect of human behavior. The statement is clickbait and doesn't accurately represent the findings. It should instead say that only "some" human behavior is 93% predictable. If you want to predict human behavior, everything humans do is relevant. "Irrelevant" human behavior is still human behavior.

How is it irrelevant? You can't be a human without these things. How is it not a part of human behavior?

Atleast that is how it feels from my perspective when I enter a state of no mind. It feels like death.

You can't predict infinity.

Things are all good until somebody feels like saying something is bad. Good is the default state.

If you define "human behavior" to be 0.0001% of what it means to be human, then sure, have your 93%.

Predict my next sentence. Predict my eye movements. Predict my bowel movements. Predict when one of the oxygen molecules in my lungs are being dislodged from a hemoglobin molecule. Predict the next new technology. Predict when the next car crash will happen. Predict who is the next person to die on earth.

Unless it feels like you're literally dying every moment of your existence, there is a good chance you're not awake.

Bullshit.

You have to admit that what you're saying is only a matter of perspective.

Absoluteness denotes that there is no opposite. It's all good.

What is a mystical experience?

You must have been tormented with existential questions for your entire life before you're able to accept that possibility.

I'll echo my sentiment that it's a good introduction to SD, even if it's a bit inaccurate in places. It's accessible, well-made, and to the point. It will probably bring more people over to Leo's videos, so I don't really see any downsides to that. If there was one thing that could be made more clear is how the model oscillates between individualistic and collectivistic stages and how this is uniquely expressed through each stage. However, I could see how adding too much complicated lingo could subtract from the accessibility aspect. Man I just had a wild thought: what if a YouTuber with the production style of someone like CGP Grey or CrashCourse made a SD introduction video? Ah gawwwd?

Sit with your eyes closed and feel.

Intermittent fasting, restricting masturbation, getting enough sleep, meditation.

I apologize for my formulation being overly complicated. Let me try again: You're scratching at something that appears to be a paradox and a self-contradiction, but that is only from the perspective of the mind, because the mind only sees relativity. The point I'm getting at is that the world is simultaneously rich in differences while at the same time being all the same. It all depends on which perspective you take (the relative and the absolute). The absolute is only accessible through direct experience.

What is the quality of those hallucinations?

Principle is survival.

Stop hurting yourself. Relax. Give up.

I think everyone has a whacky phase where you're getting accustomed to the new reality. How whacky depends on your prior cognitive development. If you're Tier 1 when stumbling across awakening, you want to share your insights to everyone without understanding that people 1. don't care and 2. think you're crazy.

Got a little bit of the same vibes. Green is misunderstood in general. The video works well as a general introduction to the model. You shouldn't expect a detailed walkthrough from a 25 minute video.