Carl-Richard

Why does it have to be liquid? Eat some fruit.

Vitamin D deficiency literally kills your DNA.

Maybe you're an overmethylator. That could also possibly explain your sensitivity to weed. My problems above seemed to vanish by taking the multivitamin on an empty stomach before making my breakfast, and then taking the rest of the vitamins and minerals after eating the breakfast. I've also gotten my zinc bisglycinate now, but I haven't thought much about the difference it makes. I'm curious, what happens when you eat certain foods that naturally contain maybe 10x the amounts of the chemicals that you are reacting so strongly to? Here is a list compiled by ChatGPT-o3 (which, in my epistemic OCD, I used to show what is possible, not what is fact ):

Again, simply immediacy and convenience. If you like the picture and you want it and it's more convenient to pay 2 dollars than going through the effort of prompting an AI and printing out the picture, you'll buy it. Immediacy and convenience is actually arguably one of the main factors of commerce. If you wanted, you could make your own car, your own computer, grow your own vegetables, produce your own eggs, build your own house, etc., but that's usually not convenient when you can outsource that work to others with more resources and you just give them money instead. If you reframe maybe most of your expenditures as convenience-maxing (or time-saving) and also investment opportunities, you'll become much more rational about how you spend your money. With money, people tend to operate on traditional principles and heuristics like "save your money" and being frugal when the way they spend their time otherwise is directly antithetical to the goal of money. For example, many people choose walking for 30 minutes to avoid spending a few bucks on gas or renting an electric scooter. Those 30 minutes can be spent investing your time in something valueable with compounding effects or actually working. Traditional principles and heuristics are robust, but not very comprehensive or flexible. I've gained a lot by questioning how I'm used to spending my money or societal expectations around spending money. I spent 2k$ out of my own pocket on Meta ad campaigns recruiting people to my master's thesis project. "What?" you may ask, but I gained a spot on regional-national radio speaking about my project, I gained stellar data and immense sample sizes that are virtually unheard of in that setting (good for future career opportunitues and getting the work published), and I got my advisor interested in continuing working with me after the project. So that's definitely worth trying out. That was maybe a bit of a tangent, but nevertheless, never underestimate the power of going against the grain and questioning socially reinforced notions, be it selling people soda at the beach or AI images on the street (although honestly, there are probably better ways to spend your time unless you thoroughly enjoy it).

Solipsistic human centipede: Actualized.org.

It assumes an outdated view of cognition ("the symbol-processing perspective"), of cognition being like data stored on a computer which can be transmitted and uploaded in different formats. A more updated view is embodied cognition, of cognition being something that is embedded in the very substrates that seem to correlate with it. In other words, to see and think like a human (and a particular human — yourself), you must be embodied in that particular human form. But then you also have phenomena like astral projection and remote viewing and other non-physical forms of perception and cognition that go outside of merely human kinds of cognition. Even if your ego can't be uploaded mechanistically into a computer, you could step out of your ego and perceive the world outside of those constraints. Things like astral travel and remote viewing requires stilling of the mind and thus stilling of the ego to be performed in a controlled manner. But to counter all that again, there is nothing impossible in principle about reality creating a scenario where mind-uploading seems to be happening. We just don't have good evidence of it happening from our local human perspective. Given an infinite universe with infinite potential and infinite forms, nothing is really impossible. But you probably don't care about that and are more interested in upcoming technological inventions in the next 50 years, and then I say probably not.

Semantic confusion: thinking you've invented a new concept when you're just pointing out a particular example of it and giving it a new word.

Some people, particularly older people, are unaware of picture-generating AI. People also sell soda and fruit at the beach for profit. People pay for convenience and immediacy. Although in this case, many people would probably just pay because of pity (or to escape the situation if you're really predatory).

Infinity in all dimensions, Alien intelligence, hyper-dimensional DMT beings, yet also a flat hallucination localized to my physiological point of view. Truly marvelous mental gymnastics. You're assuming such depth of ontology, of things that are implicit and hidden, multiplistic and rich, yet you also collapse it all down to the flattest ontology of them all; only what is most explicit and obvious, limited and constrained. Why? We can have an infinity of universes with an infinite variety of qualities and things, yet only one person on Earth who experiences, only one perspective that exists. Good one. As if multiplying a perspective is not the most obvious thing you can do as a Creator. Just because your eyes are limited to 3D doesn't mean God is. God runs his simulation in 4D, 5D, 6D, playing Chess inside a microbe on your nutsack. Open your god damn mind, or just get it out of your ass.

(For context, this is arguably the best PKer in the game dying in a tournament because he couldn't handle the extremely laggy servers). 21:07 It's interesting how essentially the top PKer in the world is not the best because he can quickly adapt to new situations and for example change his PKing style to suit the lag (which he didn't but which you definitely could), but because he is so incredibly intuitively dialed in to the game when it works as it should. That's the difference between IQ and skill. IQ doesn't necessarily predict how well you do at a given activity or how deeply you master it, but it does predict how quickly you learn it. Oda is not known for his IQ but he is known for his immense skill, and this clip is a perfect illustration of that. It's also an illustration of how when you break flow and intuition, you break the highest expression of skill.

Just one problem: it will argue both for and against solipsism 🫢 Considering even the best LLMs routinely make mistakes, would you want misinformation to be spread in your name?

Working out implies not injuring yourself.

Actually, we have genes for that: it's called cancer. It's just not sustainable, on a finite organism with finite resources, on a finite planet with finite resources. Enviromentalism is baked into our genes also.

The God Gene, the one Richard Dawkins didn't write about when he was busy writing The God Delusion. Interesting how denying God also means you write books like The Selfish Gene? 🤔

I was going to mention "antagonistic pleiotropy", which is probably my favorite concept in biology: traits conferring fitness early in life decreasing fitness later in life. For example, testosterone being associated with performance and fertility while also reducing longevity. It also destroys people trying to argue for diets based on what our ancestors ate (because again, evolution doesn't care about longevity). I might have to burn through some gorilla karma before I get there myself. Maybe when I turn 30 or something.

If it's the case that working out less is more conducive to longevity but it leads to things like lesser bone density, lesser muscle mass, lesser VO2 max, lesser testosterone levels, lesser endogenous endorphins levels, etc., then you are trading health and wellness for longevity. Think about this: we are not wired for longevity. We are wired for sex and reproduction. What makes us feel good today, what makes us more healthy today, does not necessarily map on perfectly to living until you are 120. The super-athlete who works out 12 hours a day and focuses all of their life around that does not actually run themselves into the ground with too little restitution and too much fatigue. They have adapted to that life at that moment, they are functioning at the highest levels and they feel on top of the world. But the brightest stars burn the quickest as they say. They might develop health conditions down the line despite being the healthiest at their peak (if we define health as maximizing functioning in any given metric), not just in spite of their previous health but in fact because of it.

It was like I was experiencing grounding through my hand. My adrenaline and heart beats and exhausted energy all got sucked into the tree like it was channeling it into another dimension or into the ground and its roots. We should spend more time with trees.

I would say some form of resistance training 2-4 times a week and some high-intensity cardio training 1-2 times a week, but be mindful whether you're getting enough rest at higher frequencies. I've been doing resistance training 3.5x a week (every other day) and sprints (lately also rotated with 4x4 intervals) 1.75x a week (every 4th day) for 1.5 years now. I've realized I should probably cut down on some of the sprints/4x4 because I sometimes don't feel fully rested even after sleeping well. I will maybe try rotating between sprints/4x4 every 4 days and every 6 days ([1.75+1.17]/2 = 1.46x a week).

😂 That's literally what I thought or felt like. The few moments after sprinting (after the last set) is like a micro psychedelic trip. It's like your sensitivity to things is at a moderate dose of LSD. It's just that you don't have the luxury to sit down and relax but instead you're trying not to die.

How much is that? You can do a rough estimate by comparing the lifetime heartbeats between an average untrained person and a super-athlete (and remembering to factor in heart rate when working out). Yes, that's what I'm saying. Working out is wear and tear, just over a short period which causes an adaptive response. So you have to figure out the right balance between wear and tear and adaptive response. According to Mike Israetel, you get the most effects per time spent (important caveat) if you work out 2-4 days a week with maybe 45-minute sessions where you perform high-intensity resistance training with short breaks so that you also get integrated cardio. But you could definitely get more effects if you want to sacrifice more hours in the gym, but then you also of course lose those hours outside the gym, so from a purely "usable" longevity standpoint, it's maybe not worth it (but from a health and wellness standpoint, it could be worth it). Me personally, I work out for health and wellness (and because it's fun), mental functioning, and of course to look like I work out, and then longevity (maybe not the very last thing but somewhere later in the equation).

Time for AI to make autonomous personality trackers not based on self-report. Let's go.

Had I been talking hyper-intuitive shit to myself or my roommate or on this forum and she saw that, I would probably not have her hit me up (or who knows). I think it mattered a lot that I talked to the girl specifically (that's also what I thought immediately when it happened). And I know she wasn't just after talking hyper-intuitive shit (from my roommate 😉😆).

U talk to woman, woman want to talk to u (other women). I experienced this super strongly once. I was talking to this hyper-intuitive girl for 2 hours in the university cafeteria, and then some other girl my roommate had talked to wanted to hit me up (my roommate said she watched me talk in the cafeteria about hyper-intuitive shit, and she was apparently also hyper-intuitive and vibed from afar).

@NewKidOnTheBlock Bernardo Kastrup thinks single-celled organisms have a private conscious experience. It does sort of make sense when you see the analogy between the bodily boundary of its cell membrane and the apparent mind-body centeredness of our private experience. In his paradigm, upon dying, the cell's private consciousness re-associated with the larger mind, just like its body re-associated with the larger environment.

You're such a troll. There is no inside or outside. That's the overreach you're making. There is no subjective mental reality inside either. This is the lunacy of what is going on: "there is only what is", but then you also want to start making distinctions. There are no particular distinctions that follow from "there is only what is". You are making those distinctions based on something else, some other conviction or notion you have.