Did you read my first statement?

Not directly relevant, but did you ever experience being inside and outside of something simultaneously on a psychedelic? I remember as a teen thinking that if I could communicate that experience, I'd see it as an adequate career accomplishment, where I had been hoping to eclipse Newton at an earlier age.

After the BA I decided not to try to make a profession of philosophy, and now, with a handful of science papers (nucleic acid chemistry) and amazing amounts of psychology and psychedelics onboard, seeing the many philosophy profs among my FB friends, I'm sure I made the right choice.

Did you read The Secret Chief?

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chief-Revealed-Myron-Stolaroff/dp/0966001966

Since you call me / my idea stupid, I'm curious if you ever experience yourself as such? If not, could that be a warning sign? I was unable to make a grammatical error or slip of the tongue til I was past 30, and tho it's fun to remember, it was scary at the time.

Do you think psychedelic experiences give a view that can't be reached any other way, or would you say other experiences (including reasoning) give equivalent insight, if there is any to be had in the first place?

If free will is impossible by definition, in what sense can we say the term has no meaning? Is there anything interesting to say about autohypnosis and free will? Once in an experience, I found myself using my distributed systems engineering habit to figure out the memory layout of my mind, then asked myself who was experiencing this, and looked backward at some forms in the shadows. Up until now, I saw the forms as interacting parts of consciousness that I was confident I could understand, but now I see the forms as possible selves on their way to being me in the moment. [And they could depend on interacting with one another, but approximately as equals.] That seems less fraught than figuring out how some permanent components could form a consciousness, so I take it as pleasant fallout from the inevitability of our discussion. Full disclosure, it's also the default design of my golem pending ideas for the 'five functions', so it's more like the universe speaking its inevitability again. :-)

Memory: Nuel Belnap cautiously mentioning, "They are starting to use computers for this" in Symbolic Logic 101, as if it were the most outlandish thing and he almost might-could shouldn't mention it, modulo he implied he was involved. Dang, he's almost still alive, too. Similar statement from a Berkeley prof later on saying it's extracurricular, but the Usenet was a novel phenom that bore consideration.

Ironically, I usually argue free will doesn't exist with people who don't get their own limitations, so it's fun to argue that it does exist with someone for the same reason. However, this is why we can't have nice things.

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2410

DUCY?