Carl-Richard

Not long ago, I started to realize how much having the right knowledge matters for how people perceive you with respect to intelligence. And it really opened my eyes about what might be possible to achieve if you simply pursue something. College professors have a lot of knowledge that make them seem smart, but they might not have that much higher IQ than somebody else. Trump has a relatively high IQ but dogshit political knowledge. And he needs to have a high IQ to be able to spew that much bullshit that quickly 😆

This is how we solve your problem: Please describe in minimum 10 sentences what your idea of existence is. Here are some questions to help: what is existence? How does it differ from other similar concepts? How does existence relate to the body? Go.

I'm not asking you. It's a rhetorical question. I'm saying the fact that bodies die means your belief in the immortality of the body is wrong.

Then why the fuck does your body die?

Show me a physical body that has existed forever.

Ironically, you would have the benefit of jumping into our train wreck of a discussion on metaphysics in the other thread that got derailed. But I'll save you the hassle and just give you the summary: You can have the idea of something (the "what"), or the structure of something (the "how"), or you can have it manifested in physical form (the "where"). For example, you can have the idea of a body, or the structural blueprint of a body, or an actual body in human flesh right in front of you that you can see and touch. Now, you could indeed say that the idea of a body, or even the structural blueprint of a body, is eternal. It's beyond space and time. It's only when you manifest it in the flesh, in physical stuff, that it becomes not eternal. So the idea of the body, or the structural blueprint (the immaterial form of the body), is eternal, but the physical manifestation of it is not. Makes sense?

Formlessness is eternal. Form is not. You're just wrong.

Then why do bodies die? You know people die, right?

My guy, your body is not immortal. What is so hard to understand about this?

Your human form is not all of existence.

Your human form has not always existed.

Form is created.

When Langan says "physical reality", he means the spatio-temporal aspect of reality. It's what a set of observers would roughly agree is present, for example a chair in a room. He is not a physicalist. He does not place spatio-temporal entities (e.g. atoms or quantum interactions) at the bottom of reality. What's inside of reality? Is math real?

Honestly, just reading some bullet points on tips for academic writing could be sufficient. Our professor gave us this amazing list. I would have to fire it into Google Translate through.

Yeh. Speaking of clarifying, I just severely clarified the monstrosity of a post from earlier. I decided to conclude that Wilber's Four Quadrants probably could stretch down into the micro level (e.g. atoms), which made mapping it on to the tripartite structure much more straightforward. After all, the Interior-Individual quadrant clearly stretches down to individual perceptions and sensations, so why not the other quadrants as well?

You dared standing up to Jordan Peterson interviewing himself on his own podcast? 😯 Jking. I understand it's strictly speaking a tangent to the topic (whatever can be said for a topic consisting of a one-sentence question with an obvious answer), but.. the guy literally talked about structure vs. content 🤔 But sure, I can create another topic if I get the urge to dump more paragraphs. However, imagine somebody posting the topic "does Peter Ralston watch Leo?" and watch it devolve into a discussion on solipsism 😆

That's pretty funny. I don't know. I'm just finding different words for the same thing. It's great though. I'm taught to write very conservatively in terms of using one word for each concept throughout a text, but I think I'm more made for this. It's JP's style of thinking. When verbal abilities or right-brain dominates and overpowers the purely logical or left-brain. And I haven't even begun practicing Image Streaming yet What's a currently existing metapsychological paradigm? "Nietzschean" reminds me of "Nisse" in my language. It's a sort of gnome 🧑‍🎄

I think John puts it perfectly here. He said it's not about the "what" but the "how" (the 4P model). And I think that makes sense, non-trivially: Again, I would have to review it more, but indeed it seems to deal with how cognitive agents relate to things in the world, i.e. relationships between things, parts; the "how". The tricky thing of course is that the 4P's are in themselves "whats", the parts in the relationships being described are themselves "whats". Nevertheless, the focus is on the "how". Or in John's language: it's what's relevant 😜

I can't remember exactly how it goes. I'll review it and see how it fits.

I take omniscience to mean God knowing everything in the universe, which is identical with being everything in the universe. If the knowing is identical to the being, then the knowing is simply a "what" ("it is what it is").

It's pretty impenetrable. Too many model words, being trigger-happy with semi-colons. But I think trying to reduce it down too much kinda goes against the purpose of the post, which is to draw many connections between different ways of saying essentially the same thing. If I had just wanted to communicate the crux of the issue, I would have just said "content, structure, and their physical manifestations".

I can't stop myself, but the three O's (omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence) also seem to reflect the metaphysical tripartite structure (I'll name it the "MTS"). Omniscience is the knowing (of all) of being; the contents, the "what". Omnipotence is the shaping (of all) of reality; the structure, the "how". Omnipresence is the spatio-temporal manifestation (of all) of reality; the physical correlates, the "where". And here is more: ontology is concerned with the "what" ("what is reality?"). Science is concerned with the "how" ("how does reality act or behave?"); causal relationships, correlative relationships, relationships between parts, structure. Applied sciences like technology and engineering is more concerned with the "where" (how does science get implemented in the physical world?). Now, there are of course overlaps: a lot of science is deeply concerned with physical processes, and proponents of science might even place these processes as the ontological primitive (physicalism). However, idealistically, or most fundamentally, these splits lean more to one of the sides than the others. You might also feel Wilber's Four Quadrants sneaking up as an alternative. Now, the way it's usually used, it seems more like a meta-theory for existing human knowledge than a metaphysical model. It's very concerned about the macro level (e.g. describing human worldviews, cultures and systems). But we could assume that it extends down to the micro level as well (e.g. atoms, atom-atom relationships). If we assume that, then the "what" and the "how" could be argued to fall under Interior (mind), as they are contrasted to "where" which definitely falls under Exterior (physical). Of course, materialists won't be happy with that, but at the same time, even they would probably have the intuition that something like math ("how") or Redness ("what") is not merely physical. Also, the "what" and the "how" could fall under Individual and Collective respectively (but not both). A "what" necessarily describes one thing (Individual), and a "how" necessarily describes relationships between two or more things (Collective). Maybe it would be interesting to make a Four Quadrants -esque meta-theory specifically for metaphysical models (which might have been done already by people like David Chalmers; "meta-metaphysics").

Every hormone in the body has many metabolic pathways, signalling pathways and target organs that vary depending on the individual. For example, you could be converting more of the testosterone to DHT or other metabolites than normal. You could have stronger signalling through some pathways than normal. And your target organs could have a higher sensitivity to testosterone than normal. All in all, one measure like the serum concentration of one hormone gives a very limited picture. Besides, he said his testosterone was 295 (presumably ng/dL). That's 5-33 times the normal range for women. Even if you're on the low side of the normal range for men, you're still on the normal range for men. The differences within the normal range are not that significant, especially when accounting for other factors. And of course, there are factors that contribute to masculinity other than hormones. Your overall brain structure is determined by various genes and environmental factors other than those responsible for hormones. And that's not going into the psychological side of things.

🥴

Ask it about the prefrontal cortex and other cortical structures.