What's Your Spawn Count?

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Sadhguru's effect on people = has no physical explanation

Based on his claims about being able to go many days without thinking a single thought, Sadhguru most probably lives with his Default Mode Network (DMN) mostly shut off, and people who come near him will empathically pick up on his state, and likewise their DMN will probably shut off as well. In this case, you would've explained Sadhguru's effect on people by referring to a neural correlate (the DMN), which is what you would call a physical explanation. 

Before you doubt the specificity of such a phenomena, remember that humans are highly capable of attuning to other people's mental states. If someone is angry or sad around you, you'll be able to pick up on that and synchronize your emotions with them (you'll get angry or sad). That specific emotion looks like something in the brain.

Only two days ago, during lunch at our school, there was organized a highly emotional talk about the ongoing issues in Iran. I didn't attend the talk. When the people who attended the talk entered the classroom and started talking, it only took about 5 seconds before I started to feel how upset they were (in fact, most of the students decided to attend an activist demonstration in the city the day after).

Edited October 23, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Fair enough.  But it's important not to confuse the effects with the causes.  People may have the effects of a soul without souls actually being real or a fundamental part of reality.  The collective unconscious could've easily generated the effect of souls just like in the past people prayed to the "sun god" and it actually worked, and the sun god perhaps even literally manifested in the flesh when enough people believed in him.  But that's still different from the laws of physics which are harder to change, and so the sun god wasn't "actually" real, just like reincarnation might not be real and only something we create temporarily.  Or souls could be real, and be a fundamental part of the fabric of this limited reality like the laws of physics, but still not real when you zoom out to the full extent of God.

As far as I'm concerned, past life memories, souls, the collective unconscious, the sun god and even the laws of physics, are all things we create temporarily (every time you think, i.e. in the form of a thought). I'm a pragmatist. It's all just useful fictions. I don't bother with making realist claims like "the soul is an actual object in reality". I just think that the soul concept is useful for explaining highly consistent and thorough accounts of past lives.

By the way, if you're indeed more of a realist than a pragmatist, I think this might be one reason why we talk past each other on things like MBTI and SD, or everything really. For example, I don't treat the brain as a kind of "base reality" (or that there even is such a thing), which is why I won't so readily tie something like "memory" to it in the way you seem to do. I don't treat it any more special than any other scientific mode of inquiry (e.g. a survey). It might be more reliable than other things, but that's about it.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[thisintegrated]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

As far as I'm concerned, past life memories, souls, the collective unconscious, the sun god and even the laws of physics, are all things we create temporarily (every time you think, i.e. in the form of a thought). I'm a pragmatist. It's all just useful fictions. I don't bother with making realist claims like "the soul is an actual object in reality". I just think that the soul concept is useful for explaining highly consistent and thorough accounts of past lives.

Except hierarchies are real, and everything isn't at the same scale/level.  Hierarchies are found everywhere in our world, and in the greater infinity as well.  Our world isn't unique.  One human isn't worth one cat, and one "cosmic mouse" isn't worth one human.  And there are many levels beyond the mouse as well.  These things may be "imaginary" but that doesn't make them any less real.  We exist within these hierarchies.

 

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm a pragmatist

..lolwut

* dethrones @Carl-Richard *

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

By the way, if you're indeed more of a realist than a pragmatist, I think this might be one reason why we talk past each other on things like MBTI and SD (or everything really). For example, I don't treat the brain as a kind of "base reality" (or that there even is such a thing), which is why I won't so readily tie something like "memory" to it in the way you seem to do. I don't treat it any more special than any other scientific mode of inquiry (e.g. a survey). It might be more reliable than other things, but that's about it.

What exactly do you mean by realist vs pragmatist?  Both are somewhat pragmatic and realistic.  Realists are generally conservative/reductionistic people, basically INTJs.  Pragmatists are just people who pay no mind to convention/precedent/tradition and solve problems the "best", most expedient way possible, but the most efficient approach is usually the Ni/reductionistic approach, so they end up being almost the same thing..

[Carl-Richard]

22 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

 

* dethrones @Carl-Richard *

 

What exactly do you mean by realist vs pragmatist?  Both are somewhat pragmatic and realistic.  Realists are generally conservative/reductionistic people, basically INTJs.  Pragmatists are just people who pay no mind to convention/precedent/tradition and solve problems the "best", most expedient way possible, but the most efficient approach is usually the Ni/reductionistic approach, so they end up being almost the same thing..

Haha it's as if you couldn't affirm my edit in the other thread in any better way.

I'm talking on a very fundamental level of how you relate to knowledge in general (epistemology). When I as a pragmatist look at a concept like the soul, I look at what it means, and then I use it to describe and explain things related to it. That is as far as I feel I need to go. If I can use a concept to describe and explain the things I want, then the job is done.

However, a realist will in addition to that ascribe some sense of permanence or "out-there-ness" to it. So a soul will not just be a useful concept for making sense of things, but it will also be a thing that exists out there independent of our sensemaking.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm an absolute pragmatist or absolute anti-realist in all possible aspects. For example, I think that consciousness is real independent of our sensemaking. I'm then also defining sensemaking as our capability for abstract thought. In other words, consciousness comes prior to and makes possible our sensemaking (it's very literally the space between and the container of our thoughts).

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[thisintegrated]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Haha it's as if you couldn't affirm my edit in the other thread in any better way.

I'm talking on a very fundamental level of how you relate to knowledge in general (epistemology). When I as a pragmatist look at a concept like a soul, I look at what it means, and then I use it to describe and explain things related to it. That is as far as I feel I need to go. If I can use a concept to describe and explain things I want, then the job is done.

However, a realist will in addition to that ascribe some sense of permanence or "out-there-ness" to it. So a soul will not just be a useful concept for making sense of things, but it will also be a thing that exists out there independent of our sensemaking. Now, I'm not saying that I'm an absolute pragmatist or absolute anti-realist in all possible aspects. For example, I think that consciousness is real independent of our sensemaking. I'm then also defining sensemaking as our capability for abstract thought. In other words, consciousness comes prior to and makes possible our sensemaking (it's very literally the space between and the container of our thoughts).

Well I'm not a materialist, if that's what you're suggesting.  I don't believe there's a literal physical world that we live in, it's all imaginary.  But the imaginary world has rules and logic that allow it to exist naturally without being intentionally programmed/designed or anything.  The mechanisms/logic behind our world aren't isolated, and what we see is just one part of the interconnected multiverse.  It sounds to me like you believe there's separation, and that there's no logical system behind it all, that the earth isn't round and all that exists is your experience.  But that's an overly Leonian/reductionistic misguided perspective.  Life on earth exists because theoretically if the big bang could have happened and could've produced life then that's what we could be experiencing, and so that's why we are experiencing it.  Not because we curated this life, but because it already existed naturally without anyone doing anything.  Because it's self-sustaining and efficient.  That's what makes it "real".  It's natural and "could" exist independently of us.  And that being the case, it needs supporting logic beyond what we directly experience, and the things beyond our direct experience are numerous.  There's already things like gravity and planet orbits, but with time we'll likely discover new influences beyond what we notice currently at a human level, and they'll be as real as gravity.  If souls and other dimensions turn out to be as real as gravity, then I think you can consider them real "things" and not just conceptual.

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Well I'm not a materialist, if that's what you're suggesting.  I don't believe there's a literal physical world that we live in, it's all imaginary. 

Believing in a soul is not a very materialistic standpoint, so no. I'm more getting the sense that you think the soul actually precedes the act of speaking about it. It's there as if it's a physical thing, but it of course transcends atoms and molecules and all that. There are actually souls out there.

 

8 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

But the imaginary world has rules and logic that allow it to exist naturally without being intentionally programmed/designed or anything.  The mechanisms/logic behind our world aren't isolated, and what we see is just one part of the interconnected multiverse.  It sounds to me like you believe there's separation, and that there's no logical system behind it all, that the earth isn't round and all that exists is your experience.  But that's an overly Leonian/reductionistic misguided perspective. 

I'm just saying we're the ones articulating the rules in our limited way using our primate intellect and our mammalian sense organs, and that works fine for doing certain things, and that is all we should expect it to do. Rules, logic, mechanisms, are man-made concepts. It's something we do.

 

11 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Life on earth exists because theoretically if the big bang could have happened and could've produced life then that's what we could be experiencing, and so that's why we are experiencing it.  Not because we curated this life, but because it already existed naturally without anyone doing anything.  Because it's self-sustaining and efficient.  That's what makes it "real".  It's natural and "could" exist independently of us.  And that being the case, it needs supporting logic beyond what we directly experience, and the things beyond our direct experience are numerous.  There's already things like gravity and planet orbits, but with time we'll likely discover new influences beyond what we notice currently at a human level, and they'll be as real as gravity.  If souls and other dimensions turn out to be as real as gravity, then I think you can consider them real "things" and not just conceptual.

Primate go talk-talk

[thisintegrated]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm just saying we're the ones articulating the rules in our limited way using our primate intellect and our mammalian sense organs, and that works fine for doing certain things, and that is all we should expect it to do. Rules, logic, mechanisms, are man-made concepts. It's something we do.

I very extremely strongly disagree.  Without logic and universal laws, we'd have to constantly be putting in effort to generate every aspect of reality.  We'd have to generate the effects of gravity and everything ourselves and somehow all agree on every little physics calculation.  

 

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Primate go talk-talk

Primate not compute talk-talk?  Talk-talk too big for primate brain.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Believing in a soul is not a very materialistic standpoint, so no. I'm more getting the sense that you think the soul actually precedes the act of speaking about it. It's there as if it's a physical thing, but it of course transcends atoms and molecules and all that. There are actually souls out there.

Uhm, well, in whatever reality you're in everything appears physical.  In dreams everything is physical, and from dreams the physical feels non-physical.  So if the soul is non-physical, it will feel physical if you manage to leave the physical and enter The Realm Of The Soul.

[Proserpina]

I would say I have low spawn count (fool archetype) but I can tap into a high spawn count under pressure.  I’ve also done a lot of development work on myself to hopefully off set my low spawn count that is genetic.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Proserpina

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I very extremely strongly disagree.  Without logic and universal laws, we'd have to constantly be putting in effort to generate every aspect of reality.  We'd have to generate the effects of gravity and everything ourselves and somehow all agree on every little physics calculation.  

Whether or not there exists something like an orderedness to reality independent of our sensemaking is kinda vague and trivial. What I'm saying is that to articulate exactly what that order entails does depend on our sensemaking.

"Logic" or "laws" is also just one way of making sense of it, and the logic and laws you're able to articulate depends on your cognitive structures, and these are not universal. They're specific to humans who underwent evolution on planet Earth and the cultural evolution of the last 30 000 years. If you were a lizard who evolved inside a cave without a visual system, or a hyperdimensional alien who is not constrained by space or time, you'll come to very different conclusions than humans.

The realist tendency is a survival mechanism that reduces complexity and speeds up mental processing. Believing that there is such thing a thing as a physical particle out there in something we call space and which changes its states through something we call time, is an useful intuition given to us through culture and evolution. But look at say quantum mechanics: is light a particle or a wave? How can something be two things? It starts to betray our realist intuitions. The pragmatist impulse is to say that the particle model is one model, and the wave model is another model, and they're simply different ways of making sense of a phenomena.

As for QM, somebody recently won a nobel prize for their 40 years of work on quantum entanglement, which disproves the idea that particles have standalone existence (properties that exist independent of measurement) and that actions in the universe are constrained by locality (the speed of light). Einstein didn't want to accept these possibilities because they are so counterintuitive. So again, you see how the rules that we're willing to apply to reality are strongly tied to our cultural and evolutionary intuitions.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Now, I'm not saying that I'm an absolute pragmatist or absolute anti-realist in all possible aspects. For example, I think that consciousness is real independent of our sensemaking. I'm then also defining sensemaking as our capability for abstract thought. In other words, consciousness comes prior to and makes possible our sensemaking (it's very literally the space between and the container of our thoughts).

It's a bit tricky, because talking about consciousness is of course sensemaking. When I say consciousness precedes our sensemaking, I'm referring to the knowing of consciousness prior to thought. Also, thought itself is also embedded in lower structures like emotions, perceptions and knowing itself, so you can easily deconstruct the sensemaking concept that way, but again, as a pragmatist, infinitely inclusive concepts aren't very useful.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a bit tricky, because talking about consciousness is of course sensemaking. When I say consciousness precedes our sensemaking, I'm referring to the knowing of consciousness prior to thought.

Did you just reply to yourself bro?

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Did you just reply to yourself bro?

I kept replying to myself in my head, so I thought I would do it in real life as well  

[Inliytened1]

11 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Well I'm not a materialist, if that's what you're suggesting.  I don't believe there's a literal physical world that we live in, it's all imaginary.  But the imaginary world has rules and logic that allow it to exist naturally without being intentionally programmed/designed or anything.  The mechanisms/logic behind our world aren't isolated, and what we see is just one part of the interconnected multiverse.  It sounds to me like you believe there's separation, and that there's no logical system behind it all, that the earth isn't round and all that exists is your experience.  But that's an overly Leonian/reductionistic misguided perspective.  Life on earth exists because theoretically if the big bang could have happened and could've produced life then that's what we could be experiencing, and so that's why we are experiencing it.  Not because we curated this life, but because it already existed naturally without anyone doing anything.  Because it's self-sustaining and efficient.  That's what makes it "real".  It's natural and "could" exist independently of us.  And that being the case, it needs supporting logic beyond what we directly experience, and the things beyond our direct experience are numerous.  There's already things like gravity and planet orbits, but with time we'll likely discover new influences beyond what we notice currently at a human level, and they'll be as real as gravity.  If souls and other dimensions turn out to be as real as gravity, then I think you can consider them real "things" and not just conceptual.

You are imagining everything right now because you are Infinity.  It's exactly like a video game, except it doesn't need to be stored in memory or on the back end.  It exists nowhere- It's magic.  And you as both the designer and the player had to figure out how to hide it from yourself so you can enjoy the game.  This wasn't that difficult.  It manifests on the fly and is stored nowhere. You are a wizard of the highest order.

[Hojo]

Whatever your favourite number is thats your respawn count. Mine is 3 halfway done my infinity 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a bit tricky, because talking about consciousness is of course sensemaking. When I say consciousness precedes our sensemaking, I'm referring to the knowing of consciousness prior to thought. Also, thought itself is also embedded in lower structures like emotions, perceptions and knowing itself, so you can easily deconstruct the sensemaking concept that way, but again, as a pragmatist, infinitely inclusive concepts aren't very useful.

Counter-counter message (I swear I have to stop doing high-intensity cardio because it makes me mentally unstable ): 

I think it's better to maybe use a wider definition of sensemaking, e.g. "all attempts towards knowledge, understanding and being"; firstly, because it just makes more sense, and secondly, it better illustrates how I'm not a pure anti-realist. Despite this wide definition, I still think the primacy of consciousness is unavoidable: consciousness is still 'the case' independent of anything else. But again, things like souls, brains and physics, depend on us who are making sense of it.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Primate not compute talk-talk?  Talk-talk too big for primate brain.

 

It's ooonly talk.

(btw, the way the lyrics were written may satisfy your Ti )

Edited October 24, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Did you just reply to yourself bro?

Always has 

Edited October 24, 2022 by Leo Gura

[AtheisticNonduality]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Always has 

Could you put me in contact with this smeller? I wanna compare myself to you in terms of respawns.

[Danioover9000]

@JosephKnecht

On 2022-10-20 at 11:02 AM, JosephKnecht said:

Some background: https://www.actualized.org/insights/whats-your-spawn-count

Can we get the 'psychic' to join the forum? 

I am sure the community can learn something from his perspective. 

Apparently, Leo's spawn count is over 1,000,000.

That is more than his subscribers count. Coincidence?  

   It's probably another example of a psychic tailoring their message to Leo, oh he's a game designer, let me shape my metaphor to match his worldview or parts of it that hopefully connects. 

[Thought Art]

For some reason and I don’t know why yet this spawn thing seems very silly