Carl-Richard

My boss. Jk. Nope.

How does that work? Does it get stuck in the receptor? What is the situation for THC in this case? It could give you an estimate depending on the situation. In my situation (the prank), I was only subjected to the drug once, meaning no cumulative build-up of tolerance, so you would expect the effect curve to correlate at least moderately with the half-time curve, unless, again, you want to provide contradicting information about that for THC specifically. You can talk about random mystery compounds and their counterintuitive properties until the sun goes down, but you can also just talk about THC. What properties does THC have that makes it lose its effects at the lower end of its half-life? As a general rule, half-life is a good estimate for duration of effect. Again, you would have to provide specific evidence to the contrary for the specific substance in question.

The half-life of THC itself is still minimum 20-24 hours. I didn't even think about the metabolite 11-OH-THC which is more psychoactive and has a half-life of minimum 9-27 hours.

Reminds me of when I was talking to this girl when I was 17 and I felt like I was afraid of making eye contact. So I started staring into their eyes like a creep 😂 So it's definitely possible to take a simple advice and not do it in style. But don't let that discourage you either. Sometimes you have to be a little uncomfortable to grow.

Sounds like you're describing a naive realist, or more generally an epistemically naive person, or more colloquially a simple person. You're Norwegian, right? Can you try to type your post in Norwegian for me? It's just to test if I can understand you better (Don't worry about breaking the forum guidelines at this particular occasion. I'll allow you one Norwegian post ). It seems maybe a bit unrelated, but this is a very clear and concise deconstruction of naive realism that I just came across (by the D-man himself):

Haha I predicted that was the case. But that sort of makes the rest of your post fall flat. You don't often visit surgeons: only 20.7% of doctor's visits are to surgical specialists according to a study of the US population.

How did she do that? YouTube revenue?

You always have to play the survival game. Your choice is how.

Where do you get these definitions? "Hypomania is a form of anxiety" seems to imply that it's a sub-category of anxiety, which it isn't. Hypomania describes extreme changes in mood, which may include anxiety, but also all other kinds of emotions and energy levels, like depression, sadness, joy, ecstasy. But sure, anxiety could be a common component, as anxiety disorders are the most prevalent of the DSM disorders. Compulsion is simply the feeling of the need to perform some action, and not doing so may lead to discomfort. My turn to drop an out-of-pocket one-liner: you're peculiar.

The DSM test you gave us said that "compulsive" and "hypomaniac" were my biggest traits. I don't know about "anxious"

I can choose to interpret a feeling I get as pure illusion. I've tried that, and it works. But you know what? I don't like it. It's intentional dissociation. You're intentionally numbing out your sensitivity, your alarm systems, your intuition, and by extention your sensemaking, overall intelligence and ability to orient yourself in the world. As a general strategy, it's not worth it imo. I'm otherwise very aware of how I interpret things. For example, I have learned to catch myself getting seduced by most people's neurotic tendencies, particularly my fellow students ("ahhh the subjects are so hard!", "we have to read so much!", "I'm so burnt out!"). I have to ask myself "do I actually agree with this, or am I just playing a social imitation game?" and then adjust accordingly ("no, I don't believe with that"). Another similar big seduction (also from fellow students) is externally motivated behavior (e.g. only reading subjects when you absolutely have to for a grade, or choosing to strategically read some subjects over others to maximize grades), which might seem like small things, but I'm highly internally motivated for my studies, which is an invaluable resource, so any social influences that might subtract from my intrinsic enjoyment of my studies I've started to look upon with great suspicion. However, when it's not something merely cognitive or conceptual but also involves sensory aspects, emotions and feelings, like feelings in the body or my overall assessment of my internal state, I've become highly suspicious of "doubting" these things. These things are irreplaceable tools that you need in order to be an embodied and grounded being in reality. You can choose to ignore how your foot feels when it hurts, but this decision can lead to disastrous consequences when taken to the extreme. That's just one example, but it applies to anything, even how you interact with other people.

If it's the second option, stoners should be jealous (meh, it's not like I had to lie down and eat two bags of chips and a pizza).

I did for my exam. ChatGPT lies.

I meant like measurable in the sense that there are actual THC molecules docking in my brain at a substantial amount or if the smell triggered some learned psychological response. I agree that the psychological response would have a measureable physiological side, but that is not the measurement I'm talking about. As for molecules docking at the nose, we know that the sense of smell only requires a few molecules to trigger an experience, so I would definitely imagine it's possible to smell weed long before you're getting high from it.

It definitely affected me. The question is if it's something objectively measurable or if it's all in my mind. That said, does it sound right to say "PTSD is all in your mind"? (Again, I'm not saying I have "actual" PTSD).

KKK is a perfect reflection of Christianity.

I think I know some 😉

While it's probably the most interesting conversations you can have, it's also probably the hardest conversations you can have, which is why almost nobody has them. Even when Schmactenberger is directly asked the question of how to implement his ideas in practice, he doesn't actually get to the point, or at least I can't remember ever seeing it. I'm thinking specifically about his conversation with McGilchrist and Vervaeke where he was directly asked that question. He seems stuck on defining the problem but not actually acting on it. And I don't blame him. I can't even imagine an attempted solution that is not microscopic in its impact without presupposing a level of coordination and integration between different systems that would automatically solve the very problems we're trying to fix (a perfectly internally coordinated and functional organism is not a house divided against itself).

You have a serious thing for beliefs 😆

Isn't the answer almost always not "not this" but "balance"? Give me one example of something leftists promote that conservatives do not promote at all. This sort of hearkens back to an earlier point I've made about how when you have a certain wideness of perspective, every conversation like this just becomes an exercise in rehearsing concrete examples of a phenomena, of refreshing your understanding of an already understood abstract concept. For example, merely mentioning things like "socialism", "drug legalization", "open boarders" is simply a way to cue our minds to the larger concept ("harmful", "going too far"), because in reality, we know that all these things largely depend on their degree of implementation, not whether or not they're implemented. Nobody really thinks government should have zero say in people's lives (unless you're a fool). Nobody really thinks drugs should be under either 0% legal control or 100% legal control (what does that even mean?). Nobody really thinks boarders should be either 100% open or 100% closed. That is not to say these conversations are useless. It's just interesting to point out how it's less about specific "policies" (the "whats") and more about how they're implemented (the "how much", "in what way", etc.), but that we still decide to mention specific "whats" to create a conversation. Maybe an interesting conversation could be to try to identify if there is a common pattern in degree of implementation that can be identified across different cases that leads to harm (a sort of systems thinking inquiry into the notion of balance itself). Or maybe even more interestingly, are there patterns of behavior or societal and psychological drivers that predictably lead to these failures in degree of implementation? Isn't that what Daniel Schmachtenberger and his ilk are doing with concepts like the Metacrisis, Moloch, Meaning crisis, Game 1 vs. 2? Isn't that what a lack of wisdom is (a lack of balance)? And how do you implement these concepts in practice and in a wise way? That's probably the most interesting conversation you can have.

He is young, passionate and aesthetically-oriented, not unlike many spiritual people, artists, etc. He just chose bodybuilding as his passion. When done to the extremes, it has certain trade-offs, like most things done to the extremes. I spent my late teens/early twenties frying my brain with weed (later replaced with meditation), sitting in the woods thinking about crazy stuff and listening to music, neglecting school, friends, etc. It's partially a part of being young, and some people are more extreme than others, and there might be some trauma and insecurities involved too. Still, despite the obvious trade-offs, you can still have a highly reasonable, insightful and inspired person underneath. Seeing the need for balance is something that comes with age.

@Wisebaxter He met her at a gaming-related thing, but I'm not sure if she was into smoking back then. She seemed like she didn't like to smoke that much the times we hung out. She was absolutely stupendously hot though 😤😮‍💨

My friend found one, or rather he created one. They broke up.

Some people just don't have a very active mind like that. But what I find interesting is what happens when you take somebody who has an active mind like that and then make them meditate and give them the right wisdom and tools to get their mind in a functional state. What does that produce and in what ways is it different from the "naturally" inactive mind? I think the answer is basically intelligence (or sheer information processing, sensitivity, intuition, conceptual thinking). Like Sadhguru says, your intelligence can either be working for you or against you. If you have a lot of intelligence but it's not working in your best self-interest, that is when you get extreme self-sabotage, neurosis, anxiety disorders, nihilism, etc. A rock doesn't have these problems, but it's also a rock. It can only roll downhill if something else lets it. And there you have an analogy for group-think, dogmatism. Also, a rock doesn't have "control", as illusory as that control is from an absolute perspective. In reality, control is as illusory as any appearance in reality, which is all appearances.. The problem is ironically enough only if you're controlled by it — if you're the rock rolling downhill to the conception of control.

I actually sort of understand what you mean. Still a bit abstract, but seemingly coherent 👍 Can you give one concrete example of living subjectively?