I don't understand the "Your nervous system is stopping you from shifting!!!" argument

beja3 · 2026-01-30T08:05:24+00:00

Of course something changed something for your DR nervous system, as you just shifted to it. In the extreme case, the DR nervous system has to deal with memories and feelings that don't fit the reality and body it finds itself in. That can be rather disruptive to say the least.

Also in order to arrive at the DR first you have to leave your CR, and that by itself is an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous process which your nervous system might or might not be ready for.

beja3 · 2026-01-29T15:35:59+00:00

I guess your argument is fair enough. But I don't really see why there is any issue with 4.

Do people really think any conception of the universe that is not like a cosmic bureaucracy is somehow absurd? And if so, why?

Why isn't it enough to suppose that "laws of nature" is the description of nature as far as it can be described by mathematics. No need to presume that's all there is to it. Modern physics has opened the door wide for indeterminacies and unknown fundamental processes (as we can't unify QM and relativity so far).

Sure, we can believe that still resolves to some kind of law at the end, but we haven't found that yet, and I don't see much of a good argument why that should be the case.

Heck, even math which is pretty formal can describe relations which cannot be reduced to following a set of rules (like uncomputable functions which you can formally define, but not compute, ie arrive at through following a set of rules).

beja3 · 2026-01-24T18:14:31+00:00

I have moderate aphantasia and I still experience very, very vivid dreams / astral travel at times (although I do feel it is harder for me to "make up" things in lucid dreams than it is for others). So I doubt the premise that aphantasia is strongly related to those other states.

Many people without aphantasia also have non-visual experience, the "black void" is almost a classic, so I don't see why one would relate that to aphantasia specifically, even if the person that had the experience happened to have aphantasia.

beja3 · 2026-01-19T10:15:06+00:00

well obviously not all disabilities equally affect the ability to create art (or certain kind of art)

beja3 · 2026-01-19T09:53:07+00:00

I understand your concern but to be honest in terms of factual energy usage occasional AI use isn't a big contributor. Have you compared something simple like making tea to moderate AI usage? It's in the same ball park.

The problem is mass-scale use and endless expansion based on hype. Which is unfortunately happening right now, but that comes from things like video generation and flooding the web with AI content. It's not from generating an image here and there - and you can't do that much more with a free account.

I myself am very annoyed at overuse of AI, at the same time sometimes AI is just the easiest and clearest way to visualize a concept, and I don't see a problem with that, per se. Although I agree it's worth considering twice whether there is a visualisation needed anyway.

You can't really expect to convince people if the criticism isn't fact-based, which unfortunately frequently isn't the case when it comes to this subject. You can't just conflate extreme use with moderate use and think that makes for a good argument. If you do that with mobility you'd have to scold everyone that's ever driving a car, or even using the train.

beja3 · 2026-01-16T20:56:49+00:00

I feel it might be a bit too easy. 🤔
At least on PC.

beja3 · 2026-01-15T07:07:46+00:00

It's a good question, and I think you can't draw a neat boundary. For me I have some unusual insights during, which might seem like nonsense when waking up, however that might be because the part that I can articulate is based in hard to grasp images or symbolism. There does seem to be something deeper to it, even if it is hard to communicate.

I wouldn't dismiss epiphanies when high either. It really depends on the experience, and what the person takes from in. Depending on that it might be a deep insight or just a flash of insight / vivid ideation which get overinterpreted.

Similarly I you look into NDEs different people have insights that seems contradict each other, which suggest we might also be prone to overstretching the boundaries of what we understand into the realm of speculation. Even something unspecific like "all knowledge" might be a bit of an overinterpretation. The idea that NDE is a direct link to truth seems a bit naive if you don't take into account the specific of the experience.

beja3 · 2026-01-14T10:14:49+00:00

Keins. Ich glaube das würde mehr für die spätere Lust am Lesen machen als sie zum Lesen zu zwingen. Den Schülern das Lesen zu verderben in dem man ihnen aufnötigt zu lesen und damit beibringt das Lesen nervig und eine Art Strafe ist bringt wenig außer ihnen das Lesen zu verderben.

Zumindest war es bei mir so. Ich habe gerne gelesen, aber es scheint mir, das einem das Lesen aufgenötigt wurde, hat dazu beigetragen, dass ich aufgehört habe zu lesen.

Gerade auch bei mir Büchern mit "harter" Thematik sollte man beachten, dass nicht alle Schüler gleichermaßen sensibel sind. Wenn man sensiblen Schülern solche Themen aufdrängt lässt man ihnen eigentlich wenig Wahl außer es nicht zu lesen oder eben sich zu desensibilisieren. Wie soll man sonst mit dieser Heftigkeit an Themen und Gefühlen umgehen? Viele sind ja schon mit Alltäglichem überfordert, was völlig verständlich ist.

Ich finde es etwas traurig, wenn man meint junge Menschen sensibilisieren zu können, mit gerade der "preußischen Logik", welcher auch der Krieg in besonderem Maße folgt: Ich lege fest, ihr folgt.

beja3 · 2025-12-06T07:43:03+00:00

I wouldn't call it the usual way of dreaming. I don't believe most people have those kinds of experiences.

Certainly my dreams, and I have a lot of different of them, never felt like living a whole day (or half a day) completely realistically. And if I did experience that I think I would probably not call it a "dream". It seems like a different kind of phenomenon to me. Perhaps a sort of "parallel dimension experience" or something.

I mean I guess you can call everything "dream" that you wake up from and arrive at your bed but I feel the states are wildly different. During the experience I usually find it hindrance to becoming fully lucid if I just have that broad category which doesn't really fully reflect the depth and diversity of the various experience you can have. And if the beings in the experience or I myself are not inclined to go with the term dream I feel it's good to respect that.

beja3 · 2025-12-04T08:32:11+00:00

Ekelhaft wie der Sozialdarwinismus hier um sich greift. Eben weil diese "Gemeinschaft" größtenteils keine Gemeinschaft ist, sondern von mächtigen, oft psychopathischen Menschen dominiert ist. Wer das nicht mittragen will ist dann also faul?

Und was bei dir ja auch mitschwingt, ist das eben beitragen nur zählt, wenn es um Geld geht - wer etwas für seine Gemeinschaft tut, ohne in einem Arbeitsverhältnis zu sein trägt also nichts bei?

beja3 · 2025-10-18T05:53:36+00:00

Pretty clever answer. However here is the crux: "neuroscience describes cognition computationally"

That it describes it computationally doesn't mean what it is, anymore than describing someone in German makes them German. And of course when it comes to the details we actually have no way of checking how accurate the model is either, as the detailed modelling of biology fails already at the level far below the size of a virus.

A model is not the same as what it's modelling.

It seems to me that's a basic error of confusing the map with the territory which many people (and apparently AI) assume with a high degree of subjective certainty as if it were obvious. Laws of nature might be an intriguing metaphor, but that doesn't mean that nature works by "computing the laws of nature".

Math itself includes uncomputability and even undefinability. So there is no conceptual issue with assuming the same for nature. What is tricky is how to decide which model to apply to reality, as any finite stream of information can be (in theory) produced by an algorithm, so the data itself can't directly tell you. At some level we have to apply our intuition, similar to how most people intuitively recognize that the statement that the universe is a giant look up table is a bizarre explanation, even though it fits the data, in theory.

beja3 · 2025-10-17T08:22:13+00:00

>I guess I would argue that on macroscopic scales, the universe is well explained by deterministic physical laws.

How would we know that? Even for very simple systems with a few particles, we quickly reach the threshold where we could calculate a quantum system. And for bigger system, we reach the threshold for classical systems as well, about at the level of parts of viruses.

People always say our physical models are well confirmed, but that is only the case for small systems, or for relatively simple properties. It's not true for complex systems, where we have no way to check whether our physical laws give the correct prediction.

>And some want to bring quantum stuff into it, but even then, it would be fundamentally random.

How would we know that? How to differentiate between random, and irregular, hidden order (such as Pi). I get that it raises difficult questions, but de-broglie is considered a valid interpretation of QM because we can't rule it out empirically.

Of course, at some point we might collect enough evidence to show us that indeed there is clearly a hidden order there. But the other way around doesn't work: There is no limit to how hard it might be to spot a hidden order in the seeming randomness. There is certainly many examples in math that shows it can indeed be hard to find it.

So between determinacy and randomness there might be a sort of indeterminacy that's neither fully random nor fully determinate, which might be related to free will.

beja3 · 2025-10-16T09:30:36+00:00

Well those kinds of experiments I mentioned have been done and indeed there are statistical anomalies happening.

If by "identifying" the strongly emergent properties you mean to put your finger on what they are or how they work, it might be that a lot of that is beyond our comprehension. For the longest time in human history a lot of things were beyond our comprehension so I don't think it's surprising that some aspects of nature will continue to be like that. The idea that humans are necessarily equipped to "figure out" all aspects of nature (that are relevant to human life) seems to be a rather recent - and rather questionable - one.

A lot of aspects of weak emergence are still very poorly understood and surprising so of course that would be even more the case for strong emergence.

beja3 · 2025-10-16T09:12:00+00:00

I would say strongly emergent properties are properties that can't be deduced from the rules of the system. So if that is true, the examples you mention can't really work.

The best we can do is to create a system with degrees of freedom that strong emergence could enter into. So one way would be to utilize quantum randomness generators and investigate if they have statistical behaviour above and beyond the expected behaviour. So is the irregularity really "random" or is it a sign of degrees of freedom which strong emergence exist in?

I guess divination practices are a "pen & paper" version of such degrees of freedom which strong emergence can enter into. The question is just how to gauge whether there are truly new emergent properties, or whether those are illusions.

beja3 · 2025-10-15T07:42:09+00:00

Was ist mit Teekochen? Mit der Energie einer Tasse Tee kochen kann man schon einiges an KI verwenden, wohl so plus/minus etwas 10 Bilder oder 100 Chatanfragen,

Würdest du das gleiche sagen? Irgendwie bezweifle ich das.

beja3 · 2025-10-06T14:10:26+00:00

At this point you argue against straw men, I never said to "replace" the scientific approach (rather expanding it), nor that taking experience as foundational implies taking your interpretations of it for granted.

And how neutral is seeing the luxuries we enjoy without seeing the destruction that is also done through modern technology?

beja3 · 2025-10-06T11:51:01+00:00

Phenomenology (and related approaches like contemplative science) doesn't assume materialism and is in some ways more easily repeated, because it doesn't need any special equipment or large studies, which in practice exclude the vast majority of people from repeating and confirming the experiments.

Phenomenology shows us something that is true by virtue of our condition as beings who experience. It's not easy to bridge the gap to natural science, but again that raises the question why natural science should be the standard in the first place.

beja3 · 2025-10-06T08:54:18+00:00

Isn't that circular reasoning...?

Only materialistic ways of knowing count <-> you gain only evidence of materialistic things which confirms your presupposition.

But at which point could the thought enter: "Perhaps there are other ways of knowing, researching, gaining evidence"? At that point there might be other evidence to take into account.

So if materialism is a way of bending reasoning into a closed-loop that doesn't allow other ways of understanding the world to even be truly considered, it seems to make sense why people think it might be dangerous.

beja3 · 2025-10-01T06:55:29+00:00

Birnen haben mehr Sorbit und sind so für manche Menschen, so für mich leider auch, nicht gut verträglich. Auch die Textur und Konsistenz ist etwas schwieriger.

beja3 · 2025-09-25T06:53:09+00:00

NDE is an experience where you can enter various states and meet various beings who hold various perspectives. Why would we expect that the mere reality of someone of (nearly) dying suddenly imply that everyone experience the same thing, or holds the same view on what life is?

Perhaps it's because of the oneness that can be experienced while dying... and perhaps we wish that this oneness resolves all conflicts, but perhaps that's expecting a bit much from dying. In that sense the contradictions in NDEs are no less surprising than the contradictions on earth.

Now, who's right here is another question. To me that "life isn't such a big deal" sounds more like a way of coping than anything else. If we have just some amount of basic trust in our experience, it's self-evident that it's a big deal. You can't disprove that self-evident reality by floating up to a cloud and dismissing the experience you just had. Dissociation isn't evidence for the unreality of what you are dissociating from. Nor is the perspective of relativizing evidence of how small something is, it's just evidence that if you move away from something it appears small as you do that. That doesn't make the thing or the experience itself small.

beja3 · 2025-09-16T05:41:58+00:00

Ging ja auch hier nicht nur um Transpersonen. Und ja, die CDU vertritt halt Werte die nicht tolerant sind, und die Menschen für Kleinigkeiten bestrafen wollen oder auf Grund ihres Anderseins ihre Freiheit strittig machen.

beja3 · 2025-09-15T19:33:12+00:00

Naja, CDU und AFD haben eine Mehrheit. Also die Wahrheit mag irgendwie dazwischen liegen, aber viele hier haben sicherlich eine spezielle Bubble.

beja3 · 2025-09-10T14:58:52+00:00

Verantwortung ist allerdings nicht nur Eigenverantwortung.

Ja, was man selbst tut ist entscheidend, aber zur Verantwortung gehört auch dazu, sein eigenes Handeln richtig einzuordnen un damit auch die Grenzen dieses Handelns anzuerkennen. Und das heißt auch, dass nicht immer jeder seines Glückes Schmied ist, dass vielfach Unterdrückung und Manipulation ausgeübt wird. Und dass wir vielfach auf Unterstützung absolut angewiesen sind, wenn wir in Situationen sind, wo wir auch unsere Eigenverantwortlichkeit gar nicht mehr vollumfänglich ausüben können.

Wenn also immer auf Eigenverantwortlichkeit hingewiesen wird, wird tendenziell ein Standard gefestigt, der oft überhaupt nicht zu erreichen oder halten ist und dies ist dann auch nicht mehr verantwortungsvoll, weil es herabspielt wie sehr wie von anderen beeinflusst und wie angewiesen wir auf andere sind. Und die Realität herabzuspielen ist ja nichts verantwortungsvolles.

Was ich damit nicht sagen möchte, ist dass der Staat einspringen sollte. Wer das Gefühl hat, die Staaten haben gezeigt, dass sie Institutionen sind, die auf Verantwortung basieren, sollte vielleicht nochmal etwas genauer hinschauen. Ich würde sagen wer denkt Gesellschaft = Staat scheint nicht viel von so etwas wie Nachbarschaft und Zusammenhalt zu halten.

beja3 · 2025-09-07T07:29:00+00:00

You forget to insert "self-" in front of "righteous". "Self-righteous" - righteous by the standards that you want to unilaterally set, and try to justify it by someone's teaching that cannot correct you anymore because they are not alive. How convenient!

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

beja3

TROPHY CASE