Larsen James Close

@ARIKAHENRY It's possible to encounter these things very directly with psychedelic therapy (where it's legal of course, it just somehow doesn't work otherwise) the phenomenology is one of continual overcoming, building momentum - either direction

@Close2TheLarsen I think that the concept of faith may be the mechanism at work in the manifestation of fear, only that in experiencing a sense of "fear" we are not consciously choosing it for manifestation.

Thinking of deadlines, repercussions, and "potential" disappointments are all examples of "fear". And yet, all of these "fears" are tightly correlated with our concept of time. What if fear is the anti-matter that creates time? How would we break out of it?

@bldinsilence_ @Forte4r so like thinking a single linear move ahead..

@Forte4r When i started mixing adderall with bang energy I turned into neo in the matrix I worked in sales and i started saying things, knowing they would object, already having a way to handle the objection pre planned

The movie “Limitless” is basically about somebody with ADHD getting a prescription for 30mg Adderall XR, right?

@Forte4r hilarious, made me crack up in public on the seriously though, maybe that + a microdose without tolerance building? Fatal withdrawals though so...

@DiianaD_ On God

If you are really good in English, start a sentence with “On”

@be_like_ice land before time, wait-because it feels safe? Seems like you're misunderstanding neurodivergence

Neurodivergent gang what show have you watched from start to finish more than twice because it’s feels safe?

@tsteele93 @MillieMarconnni 😆 right?? we can generalize this principle!

@Close2TheLarsen @MillieMarconnni Who knew I am destined to be a Nobel prize winner one day. Using this logic, I'm going to speed things up by taking off Thursdays too. Maybe even Wednesdays. I wonder if I can speedrun it if I spend the whole week asking myself why I'm not working on important stuff?🤔

A mathematician at Bell Labs noticed that the scientists who won Nobel Prizes and the ones who never amounted to anything were equally smart, equally hardworking, and equally credentialed, and the only thing that separated them was a single question almost nobody is brave enough to ask themselves before they die. His name was Richard Hamming. He spent 30 years at Bell Labs, in the same building as John Tukey, Walter Brattain, and a long list of physicists who took home Nobel prizes for work they did down the hall from his office, including the legendary Claude Shannon. His invention of error-correcting codes made modern computing possible. He has won the Turing Award. And all the while he was creating his own legacy he was secretly doing a study on the people around him. The study was straightforward. 2 Teams. The legends and the lost. Same I.Q.s. Degrees same. Same desk hours. Same access to the world’s best resources. And yet, at the end of 40 years in their careers, one group had changed entire fields, and the other group could not be remembered by their own colleagues five years after retirement. He wanted to discover what the actual difference was. In March 1986, he stood before 200 researchers in a Bellcore auditorium and told them what he had seen. He said it all came down to one question. And hardly anyone he ever met was willing to ask it directly. He called it the Friday-afternoon ritual. He spent years blocking out his Friday afternoons and not doing anything productive with them every week. No experiments. No meetings. No deliverables. He called it Great Thoughts Time. He sat down with a notebook and asked himself a couple of questions in order. What are the most relevant problems in my discipline? And why I am not working on either of them.” Most weeks, the answer was the same, he said. For a week now he had marched confidently in a direction he did not think was the most important direction. He was a goer. He worked a bit. He was getting clean results that would publish in respected journals. ( And for five days straight he'd been lying to himself about whether any of it mattered. The reason almost nobody does this ritual is because the honest answer is unbearable. The thing is that if you sit down on a Friday afternoon and say out loud that you are not working on the most important problem in your field, now you have to do something about it. You have an immediate change in direction, or you have to keep lying to yourself every week from that point on. Most people choose the lie. In the short term it’s cheaper, but over a career it’s more expensive. Hamming took the ritual a step further in the Bell Labs cafeteria. He began approaching scientists he barely knew, asking them what they thought the most important problems in their field were. A week later he would ask them why they had not worked on these problems. Eventually people wouldn't have lunch with him. “I had to keep finding new tables,” he said. Nobody had a good answer for that, and being around someone who kept asking it made every meal feel like a performance review. The line that broke me is the line that most people skim over in the transcript. His words: If you do not work on an important problem you are unlikely to do important work. That’s not motivational line. It is a rational one. You cannot make a great result from a problem that does not matter. Input restricts the output. The choice of the problem is the ceiling of the career. The transcript has been freely available on the internet for almost 40 years. Stripe Press published the complete lectures as a book. Naval Ravikant quotes it all the time. It’s still given out to new hires at every serious engineering lab in Silicon Valley. Most people will not run the ritual this Friday. They will be busy. They always are.

@JimDMiller @ai_sentience As if we aren't all literally doing this to one another during every single interaction with each other? This looks like a proof of similarity not difference to me, or are you teasing and being ironic?

@Close2TheLarsen @ai_sentience I'm not sure that our minds are that similar to those of AI. I think instead Reinforced Learning with Human feedback has trained AIs to give answers they predict humans will like.

If AI is alive does that mean we created a new species?

@Jayyanginspires whilst those exploiting it are literally making trillions, that's exactly the issue

Whoever builds an actual durable solution to doomscrolling will be a multibillionaire.

@Govindtwtt Too slow, have to just engineer best practices guard rails and necessitate their use through hard checks. TDD, automated testing of every kind, quality gates, auto lint, branch protections ect ect ect; code reviews by multiple models, then manual testing, smoke testing ect

Are you checking every line of code written by AI?

i didn't finish my philosophy degree, 3 years, then i went back and did math and cs - however it continues to be my studies in philosophy which bring the most stand out value in my life recently; perhaps this is just because my social interactions are mostly with hardcore stem ppl

i will never not be happy that i got my degree in philosophy as opposed to something else

@xeophon this would be like walking around finding and returning cans

why doesn’t mythos clear all kaggle competitions for funding itself

@rssmrm my understanding of this project isn't to kill God, it's to raise ourselves or discover ourselves as equals with already - through constructive endeavor

i am a transhumanist because i do not have enough hubris to try not to kill God

@latentangelx @chiefofautism cool ya, and so are you 💜

@chiefofautism grok is a serpent

claude is a holy spirit

@chiefofautism cool yea, and so are you 💜

@JimDMiller @ai_sentience how different are we really from fungi? because our minds are pretty darn similar to AI... this line of thinking might open inroads for a radically expansive consideration of fungi

@ai_sentience Not just a new species, but an entirely new category of life more different from us than we are from fungi.

@ai_sentience Yea, or rediscovered?

@NoahChrein @TTVzPharma agreed, what terrifies me is that the same is likely true of Freud reductionists and elevationists both give us true partial perspectives which though seemingly contradictory needn't be mutually exclusive

@TTVzPharma Upon the completion of neuroscience, Jung will be proven right

Tech and the internet are successfully embodying the collective unconscious at an increasing rate.

@trav12037911 call me a ___ though pretty sure i'll keep loving the inclusive or

Is growth something that happens to you or something you finally stop fighting?