Carl-Richard

I was specifically thinking about the format of taking a piece of content you have not watched yet, especially an interview, where you have also have essentially zero background knowledge of the person involved, and watching the interview from start to finish and severely picking it apart along the way and presenting it under the guise of "this person is being debunked". This is painfully obvious with Dave. It's his shtick. And it's extremely susceptible and effective for creating an inaccurate narrative, because it's such a limited representation of the person but yet so rife for giving an opposing take. It's of course especially pernicious when you add the humoristic commentator snark and hyper-reductionistic picking apart like Dave does where he is unaware of like 5 layers context and decides to focus in on something wholly inconsequential like the definition of a single word (which Dave only has one of for each word, because he views everything through the paradigm of modern physics), making claims like "hueee, he doesn't know what the word means, this is basic 5th grade physics, he has no idea what he is talking about". But even if you're not blessed with Dave's hyper-reductionist context-blindness, again, the format itself is like a random number generator for biased thinking. It constrains your cognition and attention to this very limited and linear format. When engaging in it (which we all do by watching videos), it shouldn't be presented as a final analysis on a person, which is generally what debunking videos do. Again, the real way to "debunk" a person is to take in their whole character through repeated exposure, many contexts and over long periods. You won't really find a video titled "partial debunking video from my unknowledgeable perspective". That would be a reaction video. It's not like a Destiny stream where he will say "well, that sounds fucked, but I will wait for more information before making up my mind".

Why does God in itself need to be limited to what is going on "on the scenes"? Does God in itself need to be limited by limited appearances? Why would infinity in itself need to be limited? Why does God in itself need to limit itself to what is happening "currently"? Is God limited by time? Is time (change, past vs future) absolute or relative? What is "the scenes"? You mention the human ego. You call it a "backstory", a story, a fiction to explain the relative world. What does this relative fiction have to do with God in itself which is absolute? How is the human ego and its limited and relative fictions somehow intrinsic to God? In summary, and I will reiterate: how is necessarily linking solipsism to God not to conflate the relative with the absolute? Feel free to describe more in detail "the scenes". What is its structure, etc. (and yes, structure is also relative).

Please elaborate on that.

Is God dreaming up things that you as a limited homosapien ape on planet Earth currently are not able to see with his naked eyes?

Day 4 of @Razard86 not answering my question

Or Cosmic solipsism. But many people don't understand it that way, hence the topic.

I have experienced no other, but there was also no me.

I watched some of his "debunking" of Chris Langan being interviewed by Michael Knowles. Besides making me want to facepalm myself into the afterlife, it made me have an idea of making a "debunking the debunkers" concept where I would watch through the entire thing unedited and comment on it, because I just found so many things to say about it. But then I figured that I would just buy into the whole debunking format and poison my mind (and my audience, fictive audience) that way. There are just so many in-built structural problems with it that caters to one's biases (generally a lack of attentional scope) that is essentially unethical in itself. The way you really debunk a person is by intently listening to their perspective, ideally because you're interested, and multiple times and from multiple angles, and then form a holistic image of them in your mind and see if it resonates or not. Essentially, get to know them. But that doesn't make for good entertainment, maybe a good essay. Then I thought maybe engaging with the debunking concept with the semi-ironic tone I had in mind could help show the absurdity of the format in itself. But for someone who only consumes information through that format, they would not pick up on it and instead need it spelled out in, well, an essay. Which is kinda what this is, so "you're welcome" (mmm-it's a rant). Meh, I feel like giving these people zero time.

I understand why Nilsi thought you said he was talking gibberish and not what actually you meant to say. It was something about the formulation, I had to double check myself 😄 I think one can do both (meaty and bare bones) depending on what is appropriate for the situation and as long as one is able to go from one to the other on request. Providing a lot of references does give a certain gravitas to what you're talking about ("convergence"), and often it gives added nuance. But of course, it does become confusing when done excessively, so then you have to know your audience and be choosy unless you want to spend a lot of time explaining yourself ("eating the meat" 🥴). Ah, the virtue of balance 😌

I read through some of the posts and it's scary to see how pervasive and relentless misinformation can be and how it starts with a single spark and echoes through the entire sphere by all these talking heads thinking they're driven by truth.

I have compiled a list of techniques for providing relief during spiritual emergencies, based on personal experience. The items in the list are ranked in order of significance. You should also obviously discontinue any form of spiritual practice when using these techniques: Again, based on my experience (although it could be different for you), be very careful asking AI for "tips on providing relief for oneself during a spiritual emergency"; it seems quite clueless on this. Other than what it says about engaging in spiritual practices, it has some useful tips. There are other real sources on providing relief during spiritual emergencies that mention some of the same advice I give. Maybe you can look more into those.

I added an extra 50-ish grams of lean meat to my daily intake over the course of this year as I had increased my workout volume by 50% and I noticed I needed more fuel. Then I recently cut back to 30 grams because I was getting fat and slow, and now a month or so later, I'm feeling better AND bigger. Any increase in intake has to be minimal and proportional to your progress and workout volume, protein or not.

A big thing psychedelics do is they reveal what is true about yourself and what your strengths and values really are. If you are unhappy about something in your life, and those things were largely set in motion or settled before you started taking psychedelics, that could indicate some re-evaluation is in order. What do you really value? What are you really good at? What do you really want to do? Now, of course this has to be balanced with your sense and a holistic real-life view, but still, a re-evaluation might be in order. If you do that in the personal domain and make the changes and still realize that something isn't right, maybe you need to work in the transpersonal domain (transcending the self).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do you have to smoke? Do you have to trip? What are you doing with your life outside smoking and tripping? Could you focus on doing that without smoking or tripping?

And now for my dangerously sharp reductionist razor that hurts only by looking at it: so Nietzsche essentially realized that the map is not the territory, and that instead of retreating back into the comfort of the map, he abandoned map-making/reading altogether? I feel like I'm @thisintegrated talking to myself in an alternate universe. Now, what does this have to do with solipsism being a result of individualism and urban structures again? 🤔

Day 2 of @Razard86 not answering my question 😴

I didn't ask ChatGPT about anything? 🤔

That's one possibility I've thought about, but it sounds like really tough. My main strategy must ideally be something that doesn't require too much energy. It's the same with handing out flyers by hand, I've figured I can only do that so many times a week. Oh well, thanks for the advice anyway 🙂 Let me know what you think about something I will send you in the PMs.

It's both cowardice and courage for different reasons. It's not one or the other. It's cowardice because you're trying to escape the pain of life, but it's also courageous because it's painful to do so. Immature statements tend to be black and white statements, pretending to be absolute when they are in fact not

If you focus on transcending without including, you might find that you only wanted to transcend because you didn't include. And you might find that actually transcending is not going your way either, and that you have to include at least something in order to transcend. So in this way, the personal development aspect of spirituality merges with the transpersonal aspect. It's actually the same project. It's usually only taken for granted, or in the case of the Puer Aeternus, neglected:

AI will be the end of us all 🙈 I only had a vague understanding of IFS from before, and now I spent 1 minute reading through the wikipedia, and this is my understanding: In IFS, the mind is conceptualized as many sub-personalities acting together like in a family relationship and quite logically uses lessons from systemic family therapy to inform that understanding. In other words, the "family" in this case is "internal" to the person (and is a "system"; a relationship between parts). Go to wikipedia or other "real" sources for facts and theories. AI will rot your mind and enable your biases.

I can like community and nature while also acknowledging the points of postmodernism. Isn't that what they call "postmodern Neo-Marxist" (or eco-terrorist) 😆? Ironically, I'm going to ask for the opposite with respect to meat on the bones. You're way beyond me right now. You're doing the Peterson; many references, fewer points (which is beautiful, when you understand it). Can I get just the outline, the bare bones?

I asked my advisor about this back when we started and he said I shouldn't worry about it (yet). It was only when we started talking about a specific type of research design for the brain measurements (posttest-only measurements) that I was suggested by another advisor to look into a more stratified form of sampling, but we probably won't do that anyway. I guess those are great for more normal advertising, but one problem with "advertising" research studies is that the messaging (as I've gleened from the general ethical milieu in research) cannot be too edgy or provoking. It has to have a relatively innocent, formal and neutral emotional tone, so that people do not feel "pressured" or "manipulated" into it. Also, in the general text of the materials, one should probably limit the use of exclaimation points or strong calls to action like "sign up today!". For titles especially, I think things like humor, wordplay and playing on absurdity is generally as far as you can go (for example, I saw a title of a poster at my campus that read "can we borrow your brain?", which was sort of funny). I'm using Canva It's pretty cool. I'm doing that with the designated poster pillars and public poster boards in our city and on campuses (hanging them up anywhere else is considered littering; Norway — the last Soviet state). I also got one of my family members to use their office as distribution outlets for flyers and hanging up posters there (and I can get one more, which I will save for when we advertise brain measurements). I've thought about setting up a booth once. Do you have any real experience with this or is it just an idea you had? My current poster/flyer has a sentence about how their participation could "contribute to a wave of new treatment methods for people with various psychiatric illnesses" (which is actually what my advisor said) and that "these methods could be used to help people in their local community" (which is a trick I got from some professor on YouTube talking about recruiting; highlight how it benefits them locally, not just some abstract ideal like furthering knowledge). It's also implied that they will learn these methods for themselves when participating in the study, which is of course a direct benefit to them (granted they are efficacious at all). I sense we are derailing the thread, so maybe only one last response (or drag it to PMs)

@Razard86 "I answer all the questions. Nobody answers as many questions as I do. If it's anybody who doesn't answer questions, it's you."