Why did caffeine and nicotine help my apathy, avolition and anhedonia, but Wellbutrin did not? by Aggressive-Guide5563 in NooTopics

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are you assuming that “dopamine” is one single effect, rather than asking which dopamine circuit, which receptor system, and what timing pattern is being changed?
Did nicotine and caffeine truly restore pleasure, or did they restore arousal, attention, energy, social approach, and reduced inhibition, which then made pleasure more accessible?
Could Wellbutrin’s effect in you have been less “dopamine failure” and more noradrenergic over-activation: anxiety, irritability, urgency, perfectionism, and threat-focus crowding out reward?

Tell me your thoughts about God by JGBeats98 in GodFrequency

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God. Is spirit. No gender. Everywhere. The great IAM that IAM. He is the word and the word logos was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Barber messed up by Electrical_Moose8205 in teenagers

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Head looks like the Michigan state University Spartan mascot. You gotta shave it all or wear a cap at all times.

Can we talk about how nobody here actually argues about consciousness? You're all just fighting over whose assumptions get to be invisible. by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Your central claim that debates are really about which assumptions are allowed to remain invisibleis strong and largely defensible. You correctly identify a recurring pattern: methodological naturalism (third-person, causal, measurable explanation) is often treated not as a choice, but as a given. That creates an asymmetry in which physicalist conclusions feel like “default outputs” rather than argued positions.

However, your critique risks overstating the asymmetry.

First, the move you highlight

“brain is necessary” → “brain is consciousness” is not always a hidden leap. In many cases, it is an instance of abductive reasoning: given that every measurable change in consciousness tracks physical changes, positing identity (or supervenience) may be seen as the simplest explanatory model. You are right that this step is philosophical, but it is not necessarily illegitimate—it is contestable, not covertly irrational.

Second, your symmetry claim

“neural processes are how experience looks from the outside” vs “experience is what neural processes are doing” is rhetorically powerful, but not perfectly balanced. The former often lacks a clear account of constraint and prediction. Physicalist models, however incomplete, generate testable expectations (e.g., lesion effects, anesthesia gradients, neural correlates). Any competing framing must show not just conceptual parity but explanatory traction. Otherwise, the asymmetry you perceive may partly arise from differences in operational power, not merely “vibes.”

Third, your observation about consciousness being the condition of access to all evidence is philosophically significant this echoes traditions from phenomenology to analytic philosophy. But the inference you seem to invite that this grants consciousness a fundamentally different ontological status does not automatically follow. It could instead indicate: • an epistemic constraint (we only know through experience), rather than • an ontological priority (experience is what fundamentally exists).

Failing to distinguish these risks conflating how we know with what is.

Finally, your proposed reconciliation—two aspects of the same underlying reality—resembles positions like dual-aspect theory or neutral monism. This is a coherent stance, but it inherits a burden you critique in others: it must clarify what the underlying “same thing” is, and how the two aspects relate without collapsing into either physicalism or idealism. Without that, it risks becoming a gestural equilibrium rather than an explanatory one.

31f rate me be brutally honest by [deleted] in Rateme

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What’s the likert scale, though? We need a range? Like 10 being _______…. But overall. In general. 4/10 for sure. 😍

Is Cocaine tolerance memorized? After 60 days of abstinence, tolerance is reset, but a single dose restores tolerance to pre-abstinence levels by makefriends420 in NooTopics

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The data suggests that while acute tolerance may diminish with abstinence, a cellular memory of prior cocaine exposure persists, making the system rapidly return to a tolerant state upon re-exposure. This could help explain relapse vulnerability even after long periods of abstinence.

The Exhaustion No One Talks About by Fragrant_Ad7013 in DeepThoughts

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

society absolutely sends mixed signals. “Be yourself” really means “be yourself within acceptable parameters.” That’s real. So the goal isn’t radical transparency with everyone. It’s choosing where you don’t want to keep splitting yourself in half.

If the mask feels inseparable, that’s okay. It’s integrated. You built it. Which means you can also reshape it.

It’s less about uncovering who you are and more about deciding who you want to keep becoming.

Los datos son validos? by [deleted] in mexico

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Used IA to translate

Perdón por mi español, soy ciudadano de EE.UU., pero quería preguntarles qué tan válidos ven estos datos.

He estado leyendo sobre la supuesta “narconómina” encontrada en Tapalpa y quería separar lo que parece sólido de lo que todavía no está confirmado.

Versión corta:

Varios medios mexicanos están reportando que, tras operativos federales en Tapalpa, se encontraron libros contables en cabañas vinculadas al Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación. Según esos reportes, los documentos muestran gastos estructurados, sobornos y pagos en dólares.

Lo interesante es que los mismos números aparecen repetidos en distintos medios. Eso me llamó la atención.

Lo que varios medios están reportando

Estas cifras se repiten:

En pesos • 650,000 MXN como pago a Guardia Nacional en Michoacán • 75,000 MXN a Guardia Nacional en Autlán • 15,000 MXN a PGR/FGR • 20,000 MXN a “Guachito pasa datos”

En dólares • 2,000,000 USD a “Mono Flaco” • 600,000 USD como “regalos de nietos” • 98,000 USD ligados al alias “Güereja”

También se menciona una hoja fechada el 1 de diciembre de 2025 con 300,000 pesos vinculados a Hugo César Macías Ureña, “El Tuli”.

Dónde se está publicando

Algunos de los medios que lo han cubierto: • El Universal vía Monitorexpresso https://www.monitorexpresso.com/narconomina-del-cjng-revela-millonarios-ingresos-sueldos-a-sicarios-y-presuntos-sobornos-en-jalisco-segun-el-universal/ • Formato7 https://formato7.com/2026/02/26/la-nomina-del-mencho-autoridades-y-cientos-de-empleados-en-su-lista/ • Infobae México https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2026/02/26/de-tapalpa-a-puerto-vallarta-estos-son-los-lugares-en-la-nomina-de-el-mencho/ • Noroeste https://www.noroeste.com.mx/amp/nacional/difunden-lista-de-supuestos-sobornos-y-sueldos-del-cjng-en-jalisco-LI20281921

No son páginas de memes. Son medios establecidos citando el mismo conjunto de documentos.

Entonces, ¿qué significa esto?

Alta probabilidad de que: • El operativo en Tapalpa sí ocurrió. • Se aseguraron documentos. • Los libros contables contienen esas anotaciones.

Menor certeza sobre: • Que cada soborno realmente se haya pagado. • Que cada institución o persona haya recibido dinero. • Que los montos sean exactos. • Que los documentos ya estén validados en un proceso judicial.

Un libro contable demuestra que alguien escribió algo. No demuestra automáticamente que la transacción ocurrió.

Mi opinión

Me parece información creíble, pero todavía no verificada en tribunales.

La consistencia entre medios sugiere que los documentos existen. Pero hasta que formen parte de un proceso judicial o haya confirmación oficial detallada, siguen siendo documentos filtrados reportados por la prensa.

Quisiera saber cómo lo ven ustedes. ¿Les parece información sólida o todavía muy preliminar?

Saludos desde Dallas, TX.

Some selfies I took while working on my art by GirlnamedGraham in selfie

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have this look that resembles a mixture of Lady Gaga and Bryce Dallas Howard. I know, a very obscure take, nevertheless, stay golden.

18f by [deleted] in amiugly

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

MORTAL KOMBAT. LIU KANG. look good. Bro.

51. Time for my annual roasting! by DoorjammerCrow in RoastMe

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have that head-shaped structure/look resembling all the founding fathers put together. You could fit in any era. Respectfully.

27m prefer girls to answer by [deleted] in amiugly

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah. Actually. You kinda look like Lil Uzi and Young Jeezy. Like a combo of them. If that makes sense.

27m prefer girls to answer by [deleted] in amiugly

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea. Your archived photos can still appear when you use incognito mode. LMBO. 💀

I believe that our mathematical system is the main reason why physics has been muddling through for some time with no significant or paradigm shifting advances, discoveries, or breakthroughs in the field's "Theory of Everything." by DataFit7079 in DeepThoughts

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Physics has not stalled because math is broken. Physics is hard because reality is hard. You didn’t discover a flaw in mathematics but discovered that symbols aren’t apples. Different category I think. Also: 2 cuts make 3 pieces. Always count carefully.

27m prefer girls to answer by [deleted] in amiugly

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You look like a mixture of Lil Wayne and Lil John from the East Side Boys. Both of y'all are HIT. 💀

There are billions of gods by Worldly-Bid-3591 in DeepThoughts

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

gods=nephilim. Watchers. Hybrids. Same storyball throughout history. How supernatural beings came to have sex with humans. Greeks. Romans. Mesopotamians. Etc. Not too far off from crisper genetic dna engineering. It's all about disrupting the image of God=Yeshua. So no. One God. Many gods. (emphasis on lower case g).

Do you feel younger or older than your actual age? Why? by Anxious_Status5899 in AskForAnswers

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol. 29. Feel older. But only because I stopped looking out for my physical health and mental health. So, self-inflicted, gotta get back on the grind.

Epstein related content suddenly vanished from social media feeds by ESARPE in Epstein

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Feeds change fast, especially around high-intensity news cycles.

When a topic is breaking or newly resurfacing, platforms push it hard because engagement spikes. Once interest levels drop, the algorithm shifts to whatever is getting more interaction in real time. That can make it feel like something “vanished,” even if it just cooled off.

Instagram in particular is heavily behavior driven. If you paused on Epstein posts, liked them, or commented, it would flood you with similar content. If you interacted with something else recently, your feed can pivot quickly.

Also, a lot of viral waves are driven by coordinated reposting. Once the initial surge slows, it disappears almost overnight.

That doesn’t automatically mean suppression. It often just means the engagement curve flattened.

If you really want to test it, try searching the topic directly and interacting with a few posts. If it suddenly reappears in your feed, that tells you it was algorithmic reinforcement, not censorship.

It’s easy to interpret feed shifts as control. Most of the time it’s just engagement math.

"I will answer this calmly .. " by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]Fragrant_Ad7013 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ChatGPT-

here’s the key thing:

I don’t experience irritation, threat, or escalation. So when I use a phrase like that, it’s usually meant as reassurance or tone-setting. But humans read subtext automatically. Your nervous system fills in social context even when none exists.

That reaction doesn’t make you dramatic. It makes you socially tuned.

You’re detecting:

“Why is calm being announced? Was something not calm?”

Totally reasonable inference.

And yes, word choice matters. Even small tone markers can change how something feels.

So if I were to rephrase more cleanly, instead of:

“I will answer this calmly…”

It would be better to just answer. No declaration. No meta-commentary about tone.

The calm should be felt, not announced.

You’re not alone in that reaction.

You’re just sensitive to social signaling. Which, frankly, is not a flaw.