Carl-Richard

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    16,218

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Carl-Richard

  2. Posted

    8 hours ago, samijiben said:

    Carl-Vinson

    That's a new one.

    Yup. Quitting weed is not just quitting a bad habit. It's quitting a lifestyle. It's altering your personality. Even if you only smoke once a week or once a month, that shit stays in your system for at least a week and passively works on your brain.

  3. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    I bought some of Dr. Collins Biomin Restore without fluoride as recommended by Bryan Johnson. I was hesistant in buying it, considering hydroxyapatite nanoparticles sounds spooky. But I figured it's probably better than fluoride (for your brain, maybe not for your teeth). Then I realized one ingredient, titanium dioxide, is now banned in the EU since 2022 from foods and supplements, including toothpastes. It ironically also comes in the form of nanoparticles, and that's what is thought to be some of the reason why it is cytotoxic in vitro and labelled as a carcinogen. Funnily, my brother read the tube once and he blurted out "titanium dioxide?!" with a chuckle, probably because he works with titanium, but the implication was also "that surely can't be good for you...". And that was my feeling too. So I looked it up, and here we are.

    So does anybody have any alternative fluoride-free hydroxyapatite toothpastes they use without titanium dioxide? 😊 Or do you guys in the US not care about EU regulations? 😆

  4. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    I just had a realization with ChatGPT:

    If you ever use ChatGPT to troubleshoot softwares that you enter code in like MATLAB but where you also tend to use GUIs, just ask it to literally solve your problem. Don't ask it (unless that is your main problem) if you need to e.g. update your software or how to make the software find the correct file or library or how to get a program that isn't running to run so that you can do the thing yourself the proper way. Just "I have this problem and I need this to happen instead. Plz fix". And it will just hack the program for you.

    All I needed was essentially a color to change on some visual model because the GUI had some bug that didn't let me change the color, and I tried to go through so many hoops together with GPT to fix that bug, but when I simply said "I want this color to be this", it just gave me a few lines of code and boom. (It was a little more complicated than that; through some trial and error, I found out I had to change the very bottom of a color spectrum to another color. But still, this was after presenting my problem directly).

  5. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    On 9.6.2025 at 3:20 AM, integral said:

    In general our culture believes everything is in your head and if you have any problems on some drug it was just all in your head, you just didn't know how to relax.

    It's actually ridiculous how prevalent "it's all in your head" is as a heuristic for people. Even my mother who is a doctor, when I say I feel different after taking a multivitamin (and many other things), she has this knee-jerk response of "yeah, the placebo effect is real". And I'll have to say like "ok, if you're deficient in vitamin D, will you not feel that?".

    Also, even if something is "all in your head", it doesn't actually matter. If something has an effect you can notice, then that is incredible and should be celebrated. Secondly, literally everything is "in your head"; the placebo effect is constant. Even if you take a drug like heroin, you don't know how much of it is in your head and how much of it is "real".

    Certainly with drugs or vitamins, the correct assumption is that it has a real effect and a placebo effect, but you just don't know how much of which. Besides, SSRIs are only 2% better than placebo, so so much for "real" effects.

    So "it's placebo" is not really a good reason for doing anything, maybe unless you're a cancer patient who needs brain surgery and not apple juice.

  7. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    On 23.4.2025 at 4:11 PM, Basman said:

    Maybe I'm just shit at smoking but I never get really high from weed those rare times I'm offered a joint except the first time I smoked it. Perhaps I'm just built sober because I've had next to no drugs growing up or dependencies and cravings as an adult, even coffee. I'm very glad that I grew up sober.

    There's probably a strong genetic correlation relative to how you respond to weed. A lot of people seem to smoke once in a while and are fine just as there are a bunch of people that drink without abusing it. There seems to be a correlation with a lack of ambition and smoking weed but it could be that people who aren't ambitious tend to gravitate towards it (as ambition itself might be genetic to a certain extent).

    People who don't smoke and get offered a joint are notoriously bad at getting high. It's mainly a mechanical skill problem of inhaling it. That's why I didn't think I got high the first time I tried it. There is also pharmacological sensitization that occurs after repeated use (your body becomes more efficient at responding to it), but I don't think matters a lot if you just inhale enough.

    I've gone from smoking weed multiple times a day without getting any "effect" from it (but I was of course perpetually high but adapted to it), and then I've also gone straight into ego death from it. It depends very much on your life situation, psychological and physical health, regularity of use, other psychedelic use, meditation ability, etc.

  13. Posted

    6 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

    Pardon my fringe derivationally morphological adjectivization.

    You'd think, deconstruction would go towards 0,
    yet it's a flame converting ignorance into awareness,
    physicality into mentally accessible experience,
    the awareness of memory and imagination.

    What I'm trying to say is that deconstruction is synergetic,
    when you take something apart and put it back together again,
    it's not just 1+1=2; 2-1=1, you have the additional awareness
    of its parts, a knowledge you previously lacked.

    And that makes it feel like there is no deconstruction,
    and what we really had was construction all along,
    a construction of discernable differences at lower scales,
    beneath the perception of whichever was deconstructed.

    You need something to hold yourself responsible to how you communicate if you want to be understood by others.

  14. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Hojo said:

    @Carl-Richard That cause the physicist is counting on there being outside of what he is seeing right? The physicist can't say thats happening because it breaks his theories.

    In a sense he's looking at the double slit experiment objectively and saying no. Thats madness.

    I don't think that's the reason. Photons travelling through a slit just has little to do with eyes focusing on an object.

  15. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    28 minutes ago, Hojo said:

    @Natasha Tori Maru I have 0 understanding about anything. My brain works in images flashing in my mind and I try to decipher them. When I read something I don't even know what I just read as my mind does not compartmentalize things. I'll read and stare and a picture will come into my imagination and then words come.

    In my original post I was asking a question about whether this is true or not cause I don't know and science never explains it in normal videos. And if you cant explain like im 5 then I won't understand cause I have never read a book in my life. I failed high-school.

    But I am hyper logical. I don't want so many words and theories dancing around in my logic. If I look and or read something and no reaction happens in my imagination then I discard it.

    If you explained the double slit as there is a man standing looking through a hole and there was light shining through that one hole. And then he turned his head and then the light went through all the holes then I would understand.

    But there are 15 million words I don't understand in books thats why I don't read them I don't need these made up words in my head. Scientist have to pretend to be smart so they make up a bunch of stupid words to sound like they are better.

    Its easier to understand pictures for me.

    If you can explain it to a 5 year old that means you understand. If you cant then you are hiding behind words.

    Ok. Your topic makes sense if you treat everything you're saying as a metaphor. In a sense, focusing on an object is kinda like looking at a photon; it's concrete, discrete, obvious, while the background that is out of focus is kinda like a wave; amorphous, opaque, indistinct. But if you ask a physicist if focusing on an object can be explained by the double-slit experiment, he would disagree.

  16. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    14 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

    That's why you don't focus only on the breath, but the gaps in between them also. That way your attention is constant. In the gap, you exist;)

    But I've tried! 😭 but 😴😴😴

    Unironic best advice: if you can fall asleep during meditation, you didn't sleep enough. In fact, trying to actively fall asleep (or pretending like you're in deep sleep) during meditation is a good practice.

  18. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    7 hours ago, Eskilon said:

    No, you keep the silence even if they ask. Like when someone asked Buddha if god exists, he didn't answered and kept to himself.

    Breh, teachers have tried that and they keep asking. Again, if you understand that the spiritual path starts in form, you won't have this aversion to engaging with form, like speaking, instructing, pointing, conceptualizing. Shutting up and disaffirming pointers has its place, but it cannot be done absolutely, it's actually impossible unless you want to be essentially a rock that sits there and doesn't react to anything that happens around it.

  19. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    3 hours ago, Eskilon said:

    Well buddha did create frameworks like the Noble Eightfold Path and talked about suffering and so on. But generally he didn't talk what God is, what Truth is, what these meta-things is.

    I don't see a significant difference in the meta-ness of God, Truth and Suffering (or Emptiness).

     

    3 hours ago, Eskilon said:

    We need not pollute the seekers minds with what appears to him as only concepts #OnlyMethods #StopPollutingSeekersMind #DoTheWork

    Then you shut up. But then the seeker keeps asking. Then you speak.

     

    3 hours ago, Eskilon said:

    Mantras can also make you sleepy and decrease your attention. When you are repeating stuff it becomes like a lullaby -- you are getting ready to sleep, becoming hypnotized. Which is the exact opposite of what you want in meditation -- you want more consciousness not less. 

    Focusing on your breath can also make you sleepy. The slow, repetitive motions, like a calm sea washing into shore.

    By the way, I generally haven't done much mantra meditation. I prefer my mind to reveal itself in quiet.

  21. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

    @Carl-Richard Deconstruction of reality necessitates constructing conscious awareness of the
    dynamics underlying past deconstructions to preventing a return to unaware construction,
    what we're really doing by deconstruction is a multiplicative creation of mental discernment,
    as the gathering of abstractions that underly, simplify and bind the multiplicity of experience.

    We become aware of the background script, turning it into a superposition we can consciously dismiss.

    You gotta learn to talk with concepts not words.

  22. Posted

    A very powerful pointer I got from Leo is "you are creating everything". It sort of flips deconstruction on its head: instead of trying to deconstruct the ways which you compulsively and indeliberately construct reality, you take full ownership of the construction, you make it intentional and conscious, you identify with it in its entirity. And that's really the goal of deconstruction, to come to a place where you're constructing everything intentionally.

  24. Posted

    3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

    When I listen to him, I see an intelligent seducer who masters the concepts of enlightenment like many other Indians, who knows how to move in a fluid and relaxed way, charismatic and essentially false. I see all his energy focused in getting power, like a snake that hypnotizes its prey to obtain its energy from it

    Do you generally identify Shakti in people?

  25. Posted

    17 hours ago, Eskilon said:

    I didn't mean it like that. The seeker must believe that the formless exist, it involves faith. Or he can be agnostic about it and simply don't say anything about it but remain open -- not believing nor disbelieving. 

    I just have problems with you saying " Spiritual practice is about linking form to the formless" the word linking here assumes that one knows what is linking what and what that means. The seeker doesn't know that, but he listens and stay open-minded because he is commited to know. This is one of the reasons Buddha avoided saying what happens when you reach nibbana -- it will only pollute the seeker's mind and slow his process. 

    A true mature realized spiritual teacher gives only methods, without polluting the seeker's minds with expectations, notions, concepts, rewards and such. That teacher won't say that Brahman is, what formless is, what Love is; he will give you methods and remain in silence about it -- even though he himself has experienced those things.

    I'm simply clarifying how meditation is something you apparently do as a human being but the result is beyond being human. If that's poisoning the seekers mind, so be it. All teachings do that. The teachings point and then you do the deconstruction. That's why Zen is so shifty in its pointers, because they want you to do deconstruction while dropping the pointers.

    Here is notion, a concept, an expectation, a reward:

    “I teach one thing and one thing only: suffering and the end of suffering.”

    — The Buddha, Samyutta Nikāya 22.86