Carl-Richard

The ego sees what it wants to see

The "classical psychedelic receptor" (5HT2A) is involved in the stress response, so the experience is always going to be energetic in some way. Kinda, but not really. The most low energy way would be meditation, but the awakening experience itself is high energy (but not in an unsustainable/stressful way, so you shouldn't actually worry about it). The activation levels experienced during meditation can be visualized like an U-curve. When you first sit down, your energy levels tend to drop. Then, the longer you sit, the more rested you get and the more energy you can expend, and also you might have an awakening experience which actually releases tons of energetic chemicals (endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, etc.). It's primarily the CB1 signalling caused by THC which makes cannabis "psychedelic". So strains with less THC essentially just means strains with less psychedelic effect. And like 5HT2A, CB1 signalling is involved in the stress response (in fact, CB1 interacts with 5HT2A signalling).

Yeah. But curing aging is a big thing. I think absolute immortality, i.e. when even infinity itself cannot stop you, requires omnipotence. Then we're truly in spiritual territory to say the least. Just imagine if 10 million years in the future, you run into an inter-galactic, hyper-intelligent, sociopath asshole who constructs a machine that keeps all the atoms in your body away from each other using some force field, or he locks them inside an unbreakable box in liquid form, or he throws them into a black hole. Even if you had the medical capabilities to rejoin each individual atom back together into your physical form, that helps very little if they're being kept forcefully isolated from each other. These are the things we have to start considering

But non-duality awakening was only one example (I edited the post now to make it a little more clear). The general definition of awakening (or spiritual transformation) still fits I think.

Awakening is a radical and often sudden change in how you experience the world on a moment-to-moment level. The type of awakening which is probably most referenced is awakening to Oneness or non-duality, which coincides with the loss of self-referential thinking and experience of self in space and time, reflected in the deactivation of the Default Mode Network (DMN). Spiritual transformation is when the awakening creates a lasting but incomplete change where some parts of yourself will never be the same. Your first awakening tends to coincide with a spiritual transformation. For non-duality spiritual transformations, this coincides with a lasting relative deactivation of the DMN. Enlightenment is when the awakened state becomes your new baseline, i.e. what you operate from most of the time (~90% of the time). After many awakenings in different ways and contexts, the tower topples over and flips. And for non-duality enlightenment, this coincides with a lasting and more significant deactivation of the DMN. Your enlightened state might refine over time in subtle ways, maybe filling in the remaining 10% and for non-duality enlightenment maybe eliminating self-referential thinking altogether, or through more embodied manifestations (in the case of non-duality: purifying egoic responses/behavioral patterns, contractions, "defilements"). I used awakening to non-duality to illustrate each term, but you can substitute it with any type of awakening; awakening to God, Love, even intellectual awakenings; but of course, the terms are less commonly used in this way. An example of an intellectually focused (or moral) spiritual transformation I had was the transition from a hedonistic to a eudaimonic value system.

Why do that? Just eat more food lol How is it too much fuel? Are you running out of money? How much more food are you really eating?

There are times where I'll have thoughts where I imagine some place, and it brings up a very specific type of place which seems like it's a real place, but I can't confirm ever having been there. Or there will be times where I imagine events that I couldn't possibly have experienced (like being killed in a particular way), and I'll create a surprisingly vivid image of it in my mind, as if I'm recalling a memory. Trivially, we know that previous experiences influence imagination, and likewise, imagining a specific scenario will draw on specific previous experiences. If I were to imagine being killed in a grotesque way (e.g. in war-like scenario), the most relevant memory for that would of course be experiencing being killed in that grotesque way. And considering the potential amount of previous lifetimes and the probability of having experienced such a death at least once, it seems likely that these experiences could've informed the imagination given the existence of past-lives.

You found a positive thought and turned it into a negative one. You turned "hope" into "comforting falsehoods which pump up my ego". This is a pattern your mind seems to engage in very often. Try to become aware of that. Why does it sound too good to be true? Is that statement based on an objective fact, or is it based on a subjective feeling? Does merely the fact that it's a positive thing mean it's too good to be true? Is anything positive too good for you? Do you see how unfortunate this thinking is? It's called hopelessness. Again, try to become aware of this type of thinking. As for "comforting falsehoods pumping up your ego", that is what hopelessness is (just like any other form of thinking). It's just one way your mind tries to cope with a situation, and for some reason, you learned to get stuck there. It's possible to unlearn it and to allow hope to exist. And it starts by becoming aware of what you're doing.

Maybe not 100% immortality, but close to it. And I'm talking about physical immortality (this current body). Curing aging is probably theoretically possible. You might not be able to stop being smooshed by a 10 ton boulder or an asteroid, but I think regenerative medicine could become really powerful as well. We could be on the verge of a paradigm shift in fields like synthetic biology or medicine in general (cracking the morphogenetic code or discovering the next "antibiotics").

@nuwu I said you're free to talk the way you like. Just don't expect people to understand you very well. Let's move on.

Probably. Will we destroy ourselves before that? Maybe.

Beautiful 🤩 You're free to do whatever you like (within reason of course). I think the point has been made "clearly" at this point and we don't have to keep talking about it (it was tangential to the original topic anyways, my apologies).

Clear and concise might I add I think I made that case. But I think some of Peterson's communication problems can be worked on without losing that entire connection and which would be a net positive. It's also An Antidote to Chaos 🤓 Wtf 😂 And you give me the vibe of the piss fetish people who sit in pools of piss in public and let the academic piss of history rain down on you 😂

I think I've made your case for you in my previous post quite well judging by what I gleened from that. You can of course choose to generally lean in an authentic inward-focused way of communicating, but it doesn't hurt to work on your weaknesses a little bit, especially when humans and AIs alike are screaming about them. And at some level, you are obligated to do that. You are in a space with other people and there are guidelines for quality posting: https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/ (By the way, I'm not saying you're at the level of getting banned, but it's something to have in mind).

Maybe that is why some people come here (or why you come here ), but be careful with projecting that too much 😅 I see many people trying their best to communicate effectively along the maxims I provided. I can maybe see that, but also, on the contrary, I think the "expression without content" is actually sometimes an authentic expression, and that it often takes deliberate effort and practice to step out of that and more into effective communication. That was at least the case for me to a large extent. And I see this dynamic in particularly Jordan Peterson. He explicitly answered "that is not my problem" to Alex O'Connor's question if he understood how people might misunderstand him due to the way he speaks. He seems to value his authentic expression over what others seem to call clarity, and maybe even quite deliberately. After all, this "artistic" approach to verbal communication has some positive elements to it in that it engages and enthralls the listener, and it makes the listening experience an aesthetic experience as well as an intellectual experience, and in a sense it adds depth or provides ease of access in a counterintuitive way beyond mere concepts (the word I'm looking for might simply be "charisma"; that is, if I were to be concise. But should I be? 😉). Maybe it also allows your mind to go in places where it doesn't usually go and to connect different concepts more easily. Authentic inspiration is powerful, even though it can be murky and imprecise. So maybe there are situations where you should deliberately avoid venturing into the realm of crystal clear communication and keep your listeners at the edge of their seat (and your mind at the edge of its capacity). But that said, there is a difference between doing that deliberately and doing that unintentionally. It's at least an invaluable skill to learn (effective communication), if not pursue passionately, not primarily for other's sake, but for your own sake. Communication is just thinking out loud. Even if you're letting some part of yourself die in the process of becoming clearer, maybe it's worth it.

I'm arguing that we're trying to communicate (I'm not being deliberately obtuse by the way). I wasn't asking why you think people come here. I was asking how you think people would communicate in this place most effectively. I think the maxims I provided apply perfectly. If not, what would be your maxims?

I would argue this is a common social situation. We're chatting. But let's assume it's not: how do you think we would achieve effective communication in this situation?

Hey, I finally found an AI answer I agree with: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Explain-this-text-d0WMuoy5QquJZ.wbtp5wug; https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Rate-the-communicative-7QVPg1KvQnSMtgPfgfKC7g @nuwu Here is some general advice: Grice’s Maxims of Conversation Maxim of relation Be relevant to the aim of the conversation! Maxim of quantity Be as informative as required (but not more)! Maxim of manner Be clear! Maxim of quality Be truthful!

@Nilsi I feel like a worker in an asylum.

@Reciprocality Do you understand this?

Psychoactive ≠ psychedelic though 🤔

We also have to remember that from a theoretical standpoint, your working memory is not just this narrow thing that your mind sometimes engages in. It's more like the very platform where conscious cognitive operations are performed. So from a theoretical standpoint and using a rational argument, increasing the capacity, speed and flexibility of your working memory (i.e. training it), will increase your IQ, as IQ is a time-limited test with multiple different tasks with increasing cognitive load. The point about doing empirical studies is to find out if our theoretical intuitions are somehow completely incorrect, as well as the quantitative aspects of our intuitions (i.e. the exact numbers of how much the training would influence IQ). So in short, we would expect brain training to increase IQ. The empirical questions are mostly about the details. Let's also look at the general concept of brain training. Doing anything at all (compared to doing nothing) is known to increase your IQ: reading, writing, playing videogames, talking. We know that various forms of childhood neglect destroys IQ. There have been studies of monks who have meditated in caves their whole lives who have an IQ of around 70. So most things in life can be considered brain training. The question is just if you're already doing these things, what more can you do to increase it further? Are there more efficient methods than others? That is where games like N-Back come in. This also feeds into your point about trying different brain training games. If you're already doing some form of efficient brain training, doing a different type on top of that will probably start to have diminishing returns (like I've pointed out in a previous post with the overlap between different IQ boosting activities). That doesn't mean you shouldn't do them, but if you're maxing out your fatigue quota on one efficient brain training game, you probably won't gain much by trying out another. The question is of course which game is the most efficient and if there are synergistic effects by trying multiple games, but even then, it's probably only minute differences. It's probably more important to focus on maximizing the way you play your chosen game (strategies, time of day, posture, etc.); "do it well". It's a wild example, but just look at Tyler1 reaching 1960 elo in Chess in 9 months by just using one opening (and a really bad one; "the Cow"). That said, I might check out some of the games you mentioned just for curiosity's sake.

I don't like Quad because I feel it induces a kind of ADHD-like state. I will notice that I try to switch my focus between different stimuli types quite rapidly in order to get an even score on all stimuli types, and the manner in which I switch seems impulsive and unstructured. With Dual, you're much more able to keep a steady focus, both because there are fewer stimuli types and because visual and auditory stimuli can be processed in parallel quite well. You're also probably more able to develop a structured strategy with fewer stimuli types, which streamlines your progress. Have you seen any progress in your in-game performance (have you advanced through any N-Back levels)? Have you developed an in-game strategy? Are you taking adequate breaks to deal with fatigue (both within each session and between sessions)? Consistency is important for growth, but rest is just as important.

I would too actually ;D When the cultural average is materialist-reductionist, almost any step away from that will bring you closer to mysticism, certainly when it's towards a holistic perspective. It's just that the strong equal sign is a bit much.

I bet you think turquoise = mysticism Tier 2 cognition is honestly not that rare once you look in the right places. On a global average, sure, it's rare.