Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Danny Goler: "The unexplained laser experiment that breaks reality & proves we live in a simulation." After millions saw people on DMT report the exact same code on a wall during his laser experiment, Danny Goler explains why he believes reality itself is computational. Every decision, even a single... neuron firing, splits into branching world lines. All outcomes exist at once. You only experience one path. "You don't have free will. But you do have the perception of it that determines how the world will look like to you." Time travel cannot go backward on your own branch because that computation already executed. Quantum computers only function by borrowing processing power from these parallel worlds. Without them, the math would never work. "The reason I'm so sure is because it was shown to me directly." The system wants to know what it is like to have every possible kind of experience. You are simply one of them. Does free will actually exist, or is it only the feeling that steers which world line you notice?show more

Interstellar

143,580 subscribers

36,187 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji Sağlık & İyilik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Danny Goler answers the question that has followed his viral laser experiment: are we living in a simulation? After millions watched people on DMT report seeing the same code on a wall, Goler explains why he believes reality is computational, how every decision may create branching world lines, and why free will may only be something we experience from inside one path. From time travel and parallel realities to quantum computers “borrowing” computation from other worlds, this conversation explores one of the strangest questions in consciousness research. @GolerDanny

Danny Goler answers the question that has followed his viral laser experiment: are we living in a simulation? After millions watched people on DMT report seeing the same code on a wall, Goler explains why he believes reality is computational, how every decision may create branching world lines, and why free will may only be something we experience from inside one path. From time travel and parallel realities to quantum computers “borrowing” computation from other worlds, this conversation explores one of the strangest questions in consciousness research. @GolerDanny

Shawn Ryan

363,556 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Danny Goler: "If you shine a DeWalt Laser at the wall whilst doing DMT you can see through the wall read the code to our reality" This is a reality shattering truth which could prove we live in a matrix style simulation. While under the influence of DMT, shining a low-power red laser (under 5mW) on a wall or arm reveals moving symbolic code. It appears matrix-like, resembling katakana, Hebrew, Aramaic, or alien-style writing. "You can even put it on your arm and the code changes on your arm. If your arm gets in front of where the wall is, the code is completely different." The code stays stable and solid. It does not warp or morph the way ordinary hallucinations do. Looking from different angles or moving the laser simply uncovers new layers of the same coherent code. "I can see through the wall. It's not like a hallucination. It has spatial awareness and permanence." Thousands of people have independently reported seeing the exact same thing in the same places.

Danny Goler: "If you shine a DeWalt Laser at the wall whilst doing DMT you can see through the wall read the code to our reality" This is a reality shattering truth which could prove we live in a matrix style simulation. While under the influence of DMT, shining a low-power red laser (under 5mW) on a wall or arm reveals moving symbolic code. It appears matrix-like, resembling katakana, Hebrew, Aramaic, or alien-style writing. "You can even put it on your arm and the code changes on your arm. If your arm gets in front of where the wall is, the code is completely different." The code stays stable and solid. It does not warp or morph the way ordinary hallucinations do. Looking from different angles or moving the laser simply uncovers new layers of the same coherent code. "I can see through the wall. It's not like a hallucination. It has spatial awareness and permanence." Thousands of people have independently reported seeing the exact same thing in the same places.

Interstellar

64,420 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 DeWalt Laser Reveals HIDDEN CODE on Walls Under DMT – Proof We're in a Simulation? 😱 Chase Hughes told Shawn Ryan: "A simple DeWalt laser turns into one of the strangest demonstrations of simulation theory you’ll ever see." "When you look at that, you can see through the wall... You can see through the wall where the laser is." "While you are in the DMT state, you get close to the wall and you can see code that looks kind of like alien writing... or some that look like kanji Japanese characters." "This is permanent solid... if you move your head, the code stays in the same place." "If you put your arm in front of it, the code completely changes, but only right where your arm is." "The first time I saw it, I wept. I wept." Multiple people see the exact same code – no explanation! Mind blown – is reality glitching right in front of us? Have you ever experienced anything like this on psychedelics? Do you think we're living in a simulation with visible code? What would seeing alien-like symbols do to your worldview? Drop your thoughts 👇 #SimulationTheory

🚨 DeWalt Laser Reveals HIDDEN CODE on Walls Under DMT – Proof We're in a Simulation? 😱 Chase Hughes told Shawn Ryan: "A simple DeWalt laser turns into one of the strangest demonstrations of simulation theory you’ll ever see." "When you look at that, you can see through the wall... You can see through the wall where the laser is." "While you are in the DMT state, you get close to the wall and you can see code that looks kind of like alien writing... or some that look like kanji Japanese characters." "This is permanent solid... if you move your head, the code stays in the same place." "If you put your arm in front of it, the code completely changes, but only right where your arm is." "The first time I saw it, I wept. I wept." Multiple people see the exact same code – no explanation! Mind blown – is reality glitching right in front of us? Have you ever experienced anything like this on psychedelics? Do you think we're living in a simulation with visible code? What would seeing alien-like symbols do to your worldview? Drop your thoughts 👇 #SimulationTheory

Interstellar

73,687 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Matt Damon says fame changes your reality forever because everyone treats you differently “The experience of becoming famous, what's the most bizarre about it is, you know, intellectually, that the world is exactly the same as it was yesterday because it is. The same things that matter still matter. Except your subjective reality is altered forever because everybody treats you differently” “So the world is the same, but your world is absolutely different and never will be the same again” “I'd always heard people say, ‘You can't prepare for it. You can't. It's just something that you have to kind of deal with.’ Everybody just deals with it with whatever tools they have, whatever their foundation is” “I was very lucky to have the family that I had and the people around me that I had who just never drank the Kool-Aid because you have to be a little more vigilant about keeping the dynamic, the power balance, in all of your primary relationships exactly the same because the world is trying to tell you that you should have more power, even in those primary relationships” “Of course you can't, or else you destroy those relationships. They have to remain the same”

Matt Damon says fame changes your reality forever because everyone treats you differently “The experience of becoming famous, what's the most bizarre about it is, you know, intellectually, that the world is exactly the same as it was yesterday because it is. The same things that matter still matter. Except your subjective reality is altered forever because everybody treats you differently” “So the world is the same, but your world is absolutely different and never will be the same again” “I'd always heard people say, ‘You can't prepare for it. You can't. It's just something that you have to kind of deal with.’ Everybody just deals with it with whatever tools they have, whatever their foundation is” “I was very lucky to have the family that I had and the people around me that I had who just never drank the Kool-Aid because you have to be a little more vigilant about keeping the dynamic, the power balance, in all of your primary relationships exactly the same because the world is trying to tell you that you should have more power, even in those primary relationships” “Of course you can't, or else you destroy those relationships. They have to remain the same”

dank

206,209 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.

THE VOICE 🌹 🗣🎙🇺🇸🦅🌎⚓💜♠️CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS

40,362 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

$I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.$

I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.

Ms. Malissia

17,569 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Look, I know I'm harping on this a lot today, but I can't stop thinking about Occam's Razor here: Why are we not seriously considering that the reason we allegedly have mystery craft that defy the laws of physics but do not have physicists because "the one type of person who could possibly help with this" IS EXACTLY WHO THEY DON'T WANT? Imagine for a moment that they have a crime scene that they are assigning unqualified personnel to. Why would you do that? Because you're trying not to solve the the crime, only to make it LOOK like you are. Why would you not try to solve a crime? Because you already know who did it. But you go through the motions because you don't want anyone to know you know. That raises other questions, of course, like, "did they already solve it a long time ago?" or "did they not need to solve it because they were told how it works by whoever made it?" Maybe I'm wrong. But it feels like the one answer that might answer the question, "Why not do the most obvious thing?"

Look, I know I'm harping on this a lot today, but I can't stop thinking about Occam's Razor here: Why are we not seriously considering that the reason we allegedly have mystery craft that defy the laws of physics but do not have physicists because "the one type of person who could possibly help with this" IS EXACTLY WHO THEY DON'T WANT? Imagine for a moment that they have a crime scene that they are assigning unqualified personnel to. Why would you do that? Because you're trying not to solve the the crime, only to make it LOOK like you are. Why would you not try to solve a crime? Because you already know who did it. But you go through the motions because you don't want anyone to know you know. That raises other questions, of course, like, "did they already solve it a long time ago?" or "did they not need to solve it because they were told how it works by whoever made it?" Maybe I'm wrong. But it feels like the one answer that might answer the question, "Why not do the most obvious thing?"

Steve Skojec

114,638 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Your faith was forged in people who would rather be exterminated than assimilated. A soft version of it, eager to be liked and desperate to fit in, is not the thing they died to hand you. So stop striving to be liked. Stop angling to be loved by a world that drove your fathers into the snow. That world would think no better of the gospel today than it did in 1838. Stop trying to file down every peculiar and glorious edge of the Restoration until the world finally finds you acceptable. It never will. And the wanting of its approval is the slow death of everything your people bled to preserve. I am thinking of the proclamation on the family, and of how many have quietly gone looking for a way around it. Some say it aloud now. Some march under the world's Pride banners and tell themselves it is only love. They have done the quiet arithmetic and concluded that if they give the world this one doctrine, the world will finally stop hating them, finally let them belong, finally call them good. It does not work that way. It has never once worked that way. Understand what the world actually hates, because it is not a single teaching about marriage that it cannot abide. It is the claim. It is the unbearable, scandalous claim that the keys of the priesthood were restored to the earth, that there is a prophet who speaks for God, that this and no other is the authorized house of the Lord. That is the offense. That is what it cannot forgive. You could surrender every doctrine the world finds distasteful, one after another, and you would not buy a single hour of peace, because the thing it objects to is not your position on this or that. It is that you claim to hold the authority of heaven, and it intends to see that claim humbled. The doctrine is only the doorway it is pushing on. The house is what it wants. Embrace the truth. Embrace the battle that has always come with it, because there has always been a battle, and there is one now. It is the oldest war there is, good against evil, light against the dark, and you were born onto its field whether you wished to be or not. You did not inherit a museum. You inherited a war, and a banner, and a people who never once surrendered it. You are a Mormon. The blood of the persecuted is in you, and the truth they died for is in your hands. You are not tourists. You are not spectators. You are the heirs of warriors, and the line they held is now yours to hold. So plant your feet on the ground they bled for. Lift the banner they would not drop.

Your faith was forged in people who would rather be exterminated than assimilated. A soft version of it, eager to be liked and desperate to fit in, is not the thing they died to hand you. So stop striving to be liked. Stop angling to be loved by a world that drove your fathers into the snow. That world would think no better of the gospel today than it did in 1838. Stop trying to file down every peculiar and glorious edge of the Restoration until the world finally finds you acceptable. It never will. And the wanting of its approval is the slow death of everything your people bled to preserve. I am thinking of the proclamation on the family, and of how many have quietly gone looking for a way around it. Some say it aloud now. Some march under the world's Pride banners and tell themselves it is only love. They have done the quiet arithmetic and concluded that if they give the world this one doctrine, the world will finally stop hating them, finally let them belong, finally call them good. It does not work that way. It has never once worked that way. Understand what the world actually hates, because it is not a single teaching about marriage that it cannot abide. It is the claim. It is the unbearable, scandalous claim that the keys of the priesthood were restored to the earth, that there is a prophet who speaks for God, that this and no other is the authorized house of the Lord. That is the offense. That is what it cannot forgive. You could surrender every doctrine the world finds distasteful, one after another, and you would not buy a single hour of peace, because the thing it objects to is not your position on this or that. It is that you claim to hold the authority of heaven, and it intends to see that claim humbled. The doctrine is only the doorway it is pushing on. The house is what it wants. Embrace the truth. Embrace the battle that has always come with it, because there has always been a battle, and there is one now. It is the oldest war there is, good against evil, light against the dark, and you were born onto its field whether you wished to be or not. You did not inherit a museum. You inherited a war, and a banner, and a people who never once surrendered it. You are a Mormon. The blood of the persecuted is in you, and the truth they died for is in your hands. You are not tourists. You are not spectators. You are the heirs of warriors, and the line they held is now yours to hold. So plant your feet on the ground they bled for. Lift the banner they would not drop.

Kirk Rollins

30,673 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

ScottAdamsVids

105,025 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk reduced the oldest question in human history to basic math. No one has found a flaw in it. Musk: “What are the odds that we are in base reality? And that this has not happened before.” You don’t need a physics degree to follow it. You need a timeline. Musk: “If you look at the advancement of video games, it’s gone from Pong, two rectangles and a square batting it back and forth, to photorealistic, real-time games with millions of people playing simultaneously.” Fifty years. That is all it took to close the gap between two rectangles on a screen and a world you cannot tell apart from the one outside your window. Musk: “If that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality.” The visuals are not what seals it. The intelligence is. Musk: “Think of how sophisticated the conversations are you can have with an AI today, and that’s only going to get more sophisticated.” We are not scripting characters anymore. We are building minds that reason, adapt, and surprise the people who made them. We are nowhere near finished. Musk: “The future, if civilization continues, will be millions, maybe billions of photorealistic, indistinguishable from reality, video games. And with characters in those video games that are very deep, and where the dialogue is not pre-programmed.” One base reality. Billions of perfect copies. Each one running minds that feel exactly as conscious as you do right now. Each one certain it is the original. Musk: “So then what are the odds that we are in base reality?” If even one civilization crosses that threshold, simulated minds outnumber real ones by billions. The probability you are sitting in the real one is not low. It is nearly zero. Not as philosophy. As mathematics. We are not watching this happen. We are building it. Right now. Every AI that reasons without a script. Every world rendered one frame closer to indistinguishable. We are constructing the exact technology that makes our own existence statistically implausible. And we will never stop. Because the curiosity that questions reality is the same force that builds it. If the math holds, something built us. Something conscious enough to create consciousness. They stood where we are standing. Same question. Same inability to stop. And whatever built them never answered it either. There is no top floor. There is no original. None of that changes what you feel right now. Consciousness was never about what you are made of. It was about what you experience. Musk did not float a theory. He held up a mirror with no back wall. And the math does not need you to believe it. It only needs time.

Elon Musk reduced the oldest question in human history to basic math. No one has found a flaw in it. Musk: “What are the odds that we are in base reality? And that this has not happened before.” You don’t need a physics degree to follow it. You need a timeline. Musk: “If you look at the advancement of video games, it’s gone from Pong, two rectangles and a square batting it back and forth, to photorealistic, real-time games with millions of people playing simultaneously.” Fifty years. That is all it took to close the gap between two rectangles on a screen and a world you cannot tell apart from the one outside your window. Musk: “If that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality.” The visuals are not what seals it. The intelligence is. Musk: “Think of how sophisticated the conversations are you can have with an AI today, and that’s only going to get more sophisticated.” We are not scripting characters anymore. We are building minds that reason, adapt, and surprise the people who made them. We are nowhere near finished. Musk: “The future, if civilization continues, will be millions, maybe billions of photorealistic, indistinguishable from reality, video games. And with characters in those video games that are very deep, and where the dialogue is not pre-programmed.” One base reality. Billions of perfect copies. Each one running minds that feel exactly as conscious as you do right now. Each one certain it is the original. Musk: “So then what are the odds that we are in base reality?” If even one civilization crosses that threshold, simulated minds outnumber real ones by billions. The probability you are sitting in the real one is not low. It is nearly zero. Not as philosophy. As mathematics. We are not watching this happen. We are building it. Right now. Every AI that reasons without a script. Every world rendered one frame closer to indistinguishable. We are constructing the exact technology that makes our own existence statistically implausible. And we will never stop. Because the curiosity that questions reality is the same force that builds it. If the math holds, something built us. Something conscious enough to create consciousness. They stood where we are standing. Same question. Same inability to stop. And whatever built them never answered it either. There is no top floor. There is no original. None of that changes what you feel right now. Consciousness was never about what you are made of. It was about what you experience. Musk did not float a theory. He held up a mirror with no back wall. And the math does not need you to believe it. It only needs time.

Dustin

194,584 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

The experiment reveals how DMT, a powerful hallucinogenic compound, became a tool for expanding their understanding of reality. They describe the intense visual phenomena that accompanied the experience, which appeared to reveal hidden layers of reality. Danny said how they projected a laser on a surface while under the influence of DMT, which revealed what seemed to be patterns of code reminiscent of "The Matrix." Multiple people were shown this phenomenon, and all reported seeing similar visuals, implying the experience was not purely subjective. It reflects on two possible interpretations of this experience: -Losing their mind in a spectacular way. -Making one of the greatest discoveries of humankind, potentially supporting the idea that reality is a kind of simulation, like in "The Matrix."

The experiment reveals how DMT, a powerful hallucinogenic compound, became a tool for expanding their understanding of reality. They describe the intense visual phenomena that accompanied the experience, which appeared to reveal hidden layers of reality. Danny said how they projected a laser on a surface while under the influence of DMT, which revealed what seemed to be patterns of code reminiscent of "The Matrix." Multiple people were shown this phenomenon, and all reported seeing similar visuals, implying the experience was not purely subjective. It reflects on two possible interpretations of this experience: -Losing their mind in a spectacular way. -Making one of the greatest discoveries of humankind, potentially supporting the idea that reality is a kind of simulation, like in "The Matrix."

Vicky Verma

159,278 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

this video is the CLEAREST explanation of how claude skills + AI agents work and how to use them most people set up an AI agent and wonder why it keeps disappointing them. the context window is everything context is what the model assembles before it takes any action. think of it like everything the agent needs to read before it does anything. the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out. the models are genuinely really good right now. claude and gpt are exceptional. the variable is almost always the context you give them. 1. agent.md files are mostly unnecessary every single line you put in an agent.md file gets added to every single conversation you have with your agent. a 1000 line file is around 7000 tokens burning on every run. the model already knows to use react. it can read your codebase. save the agent.md for proprietary information specific to your company that the model genuinely cannot know on its own. 2. skills are the actual unlock a skill.md file works differently. what loads into context is only the name and description, around 50 tokens. the full instructions only appear when the agent recognizes it needs that skill. so instead of 7000 tokens on every run you have 50. and the agent stays sharp because the context window stays lean. the closer you get to filling the context window the worse the agent performs, same way you perform worse when someone dumps 10 things on you at once. 3. here is how to actually build a skill the right way most people identify a workflow and immediately try to write the skill. what you want to do instead is run the workflow by hand with the agent first. walk it through every single step. tell it what to check, what good looks like, what bad looks like. correct it in real time. once you have had a full successful run from start to finish, tell the agent to review everything it just did and write the skill itself. it writes a better skill than you will because it has the full context of what actually worked in practice not in theory. 4. recursively building skills is how you go from frustrated to reliable when the skill breaks, and it will break, ask the agent exactly why it failed. it will tell you specifically what went wrong. fix it together in that same conversation. then tell it to update the skill file so that failure mode never happens again. ross mike did this five times with his youtube report generator. it now pulls from eight different data sources and runs flawlessly every single time without him touching it. 5. sub agents are something you earn not something you set up on day one start with one agent. build one workflow. turn it into one skill. once that works add another. ross mike has five sub agents now covering marketing, business, personal and more. it took months to get there and every single one exists because a workflow proved it deserved to exist. the people who set up 15 sub agents on day one and wonder why nothing works skipped all the steps that make the thing actually run. 6. your workflow is the thing the model cannot get anywhere else the model has been trained on everything. it knows more than you about most things. what it does not have is your specific process, your taste, your way of doing things. that is what skills capture. that is what makes your agent actually useful versus a generic one. downloading someone else's skill means downloading their context onto your setup and it will not work the way you want it to because it was never built around how you work. this is the clearest explanation of how agents actually work i have heard. Micky runs this stuff every single day and the results show it. full episode is now live on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 where you get your pods people charge for this sorta stuff i give away the sauce for free i just want you to win watch

this video is the CLEAREST explanation of how claude skills + AI agents work and how to use them most people set up an AI agent and wonder why it keeps disappointing them. the context window is everything context is what the model assembles before it takes any action. think of it like everything the agent needs to read before it does anything. the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out. the models are genuinely really good right now. claude and gpt are exceptional. the variable is almost always the context you give them. 1. agent.md files are mostly unnecessary every single line you put in an agent.md file gets added to every single conversation you have with your agent. a 1000 line file is around 7000 tokens burning on every run. the model already knows to use react. it can read your codebase. save the agent.md for proprietary information specific to your company that the model genuinely cannot know on its own. 2. skills are the actual unlock a skill.md file works differently. what loads into context is only the name and description, around 50 tokens. the full instructions only appear when the agent recognizes it needs that skill. so instead of 7000 tokens on every run you have 50. and the agent stays sharp because the context window stays lean. the closer you get to filling the context window the worse the agent performs, same way you perform worse when someone dumps 10 things on you at once. 3. here is how to actually build a skill the right way most people identify a workflow and immediately try to write the skill. what you want to do instead is run the workflow by hand with the agent first. walk it through every single step. tell it what to check, what good looks like, what bad looks like. correct it in real time. once you have had a full successful run from start to finish, tell the agent to review everything it just did and write the skill itself. it writes a better skill than you will because it has the full context of what actually worked in practice not in theory. 4. recursively building skills is how you go from frustrated to reliable when the skill breaks, and it will break, ask the agent exactly why it failed. it will tell you specifically what went wrong. fix it together in that same conversation. then tell it to update the skill file so that failure mode never happens again. ross mike did this five times with his youtube report generator. it now pulls from eight different data sources and runs flawlessly every single time without him touching it. 5. sub agents are something you earn not something you set up on day one start with one agent. build one workflow. turn it into one skill. once that works add another. ross mike has five sub agents now covering marketing, business, personal and more. it took months to get there and every single one exists because a workflow proved it deserved to exist. the people who set up 15 sub agents on day one and wonder why nothing works skipped all the steps that make the thing actually run. 6. your workflow is the thing the model cannot get anywhere else the model has been trained on everything. it knows more than you about most things. what it does not have is your specific process, your taste, your way of doing things. that is what skills capture. that is what makes your agent actually useful versus a generic one. downloading someone else's skill means downloading their context onto your setup and it will not work the way you want it to because it was never built around how you work. this is the clearest explanation of how agents actually work i have heard. Micky runs this stuff every single day and the results show it. full episode is now live on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 where you get your pods people charge for this sorta stuff i give away the sauce for free i just want you to win watch

GREG ISENBERG

194,524 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨ELON MUSK: "I thought Marxism was a dead philosophy but its alive and well in our educational institutions. Part of it is that you have a lot of colleges with these giant endowments that insulate them from reality. So you can have this fake Communist Utopia at a university because they don't have any feedback loop to reality because they have these giant endowments (and government funding too), so that allows them to be disconnected from the realities of the free market. They take advantage of the free market, but they live in a pseudo communist world. How often do we need to run the Communism experiment? It should be very obvious that the economic philosophy that is the good one is the one that does not need to build walls to keep people IN. North Korea builds walls to keep people in. East Germany had to build walls to keep people from going to West Germany. The philosophy that has to build walls to keep people in, is the bad one. And yet you see a resurgence of it, over and over again."

🚨ELON MUSK: "I thought Marxism was a dead philosophy but its alive and well in our educational institutions. Part of it is that you have a lot of colleges with these giant endowments that insulate them from reality. So you can have this fake Communist Utopia at a university because they don't have any feedback loop to reality because they have these giant endowments (and government funding too), so that allows them to be disconnected from the realities of the free market. They take advantage of the free market, but they live in a pseudo communist world. How often do we need to run the Communism experiment? It should be very obvious that the economic philosophy that is the good one is the one that does not need to build walls to keep people IN. North Korea builds walls to keep people in. East Germany had to build walls to keep people from going to West Germany. The philosophy that has to build walls to keep people in, is the bad one. And yet you see a resurgence of it, over and over again."

Autism Capital 🧩

11,140,965 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk just described a future where money does not exist. Not reformed. Not redistributed. Gone. Musk: “I think things will just be free in the future. If you’ve got an AI robotics economy that is anywhere close to a million times the size of the current Earth economy, literally any need you possibly want can be met.” Forget the sci-fi framing. Listen to what he is actually saying. The entire structure of human civilization runs on a single variable. You need something you cannot freely access. That gap is not a flaw in the system. It is the system. Your employer does not pay you because your work has value. Your employer pays you because you have no choice but to show up. Your government does not protect you out of principle. It maintains order because your dependency on the economy makes you governable. Scarcity is not a natural condition. It is the most successful control structure ever built. Musk: “If you can think of it, you can have it.” Now ask what happens when that structure collapses. A population that does not need a paycheck cannot be managed by one. A population that does not need credit cannot be disciplined by debt. A population that has everything has no reason to comply with anything. This is not a conversation about free goods. This is a conversation about the largest redistribution of leverage in recorded history. But there is a second collapse no one is talking about. Most people have built their entire identity around the constraint. The career they resent is the structure that tells them where to be every morning. The bills they complain about are the exact reason they never had to ask a harder question. Musk: “There actually isn’t money in the future and there’s abundance for everyone.” When the constraint disappears, so does the excuse. The crisis of the coming century will not be material. It will be millions of people standing in total freedom. Discovering they have no idea who they are without the struggle. Every barrier will be gone. And you will finally have to face the one thing scarcity has been protecting you from your entire life. Yourself.

Elon Musk just described a future where money does not exist. Not reformed. Not redistributed. Gone. Musk: “I think things will just be free in the future. If you’ve got an AI robotics economy that is anywhere close to a million times the size of the current Earth economy, literally any need you possibly want can be met.” Forget the sci-fi framing. Listen to what he is actually saying. The entire structure of human civilization runs on a single variable. You need something you cannot freely access. That gap is not a flaw in the system. It is the system. Your employer does not pay you because your work has value. Your employer pays you because you have no choice but to show up. Your government does not protect you out of principle. It maintains order because your dependency on the economy makes you governable. Scarcity is not a natural condition. It is the most successful control structure ever built. Musk: “If you can think of it, you can have it.” Now ask what happens when that structure collapses. A population that does not need a paycheck cannot be managed by one. A population that does not need credit cannot be disciplined by debt. A population that has everything has no reason to comply with anything. This is not a conversation about free goods. This is a conversation about the largest redistribution of leverage in recorded history. But there is a second collapse no one is talking about. Most people have built their entire identity around the constraint. The career they resent is the structure that tells them where to be every morning. The bills they complain about are the exact reason they never had to ask a harder question. Musk: “There actually isn’t money in the future and there’s abundance for everyone.” When the constraint disappears, so does the excuse. The crisis of the coming century will not be material. It will be millions of people standing in total freedom. Discovering they have no idea who they are without the struggle. Every barrier will be gone. And you will finally have to face the one thing scarcity has been protecting you from your entire life. Yourself.

Dustin

41,906 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A woman who spent nine years gluing paper models in a print shop just told a room of physicists their whole field stands on a mistake, one line, no hedging: "Every theory we have takes space and time for granted, like a bagel that forgot it was once a flat sheet of paper." That's Bianca Dittrich. She has a free lecture course that asks one question: what is left of geometry once you quantize it? The answer is: far less than you can picture. Quantum gravity looks like one more field theory. Buried inside is something stranger. Every quantum theory we have puts fields on a fixed stage, flat or curved, and does the physics on top of it. Here the stage itself is the thing being quantized. Your gut reads an atom of spacetime as a tiny grain sitting somewhere. Wrong. It cannot sit anywhere, because it is the somewhere. The move is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why the people who get anywhere stop asking where the pieces are and start asking what a measurement even means. In 3D the whole thing collapses in a way that should scare you. No matter, no cosmological constant, and gravity is locally flat everywhere. Six degrees of freedom per point, all of them eaten by diffeomorphism symmetry. A field theory that ends up with finitely many real degrees of freedom, sometimes zero. None of it is hidden. Cut a parallelogram out of paper, glue the edges, and you have a torus. Flat everywhere, and yet two numbers survive that no local measurement can see. The lecture is free. Here is the trap: you feel every equation you can solve, every geometry you can draw, as progress. What you cannot feel is the gap you have to cross. Ten to the forty-one, from the Planck scale back up to the world you live in. And crossing it is the only thing that pays. Almost every approach still cannot show it recovers ordinary physics at the far end, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free to learn. The nerve to stop trusting your picture of space, that part you still have to bring yourself.

A woman who spent nine years gluing paper models in a print shop just told a room of physicists their whole field stands on a mistake, one line, no hedging: "Every theory we have takes space and time for granted, like a bagel that forgot it was once a flat sheet of paper." That's Bianca Dittrich. She has a free lecture course that asks one question: what is left of geometry once you quantize it? The answer is: far less than you can picture. Quantum gravity looks like one more field theory. Buried inside is something stranger. Every quantum theory we have puts fields on a fixed stage, flat or curved, and does the physics on top of it. Here the stage itself is the thing being quantized. Your gut reads an atom of spacetime as a tiny grain sitting somewhere. Wrong. It cannot sit anywhere, because it is the somewhere. The move is invisible to human intuition, which is exactly why the people who get anywhere stop asking where the pieces are and start asking what a measurement even means. In 3D the whole thing collapses in a way that should scare you. No matter, no cosmological constant, and gravity is locally flat everywhere. Six degrees of freedom per point, all of them eaten by diffeomorphism symmetry. A field theory that ends up with finitely many real degrees of freedom, sometimes zero. None of it is hidden. Cut a parallelogram out of paper, glue the edges, and you have a torus. Flat everywhere, and yet two numbers survive that no local measurement can see. The lecture is free. Here is the trap: you feel every equation you can solve, every geometry you can draw, as progress. What you cannot feel is the gap you have to cross. Ten to the forty-one, from the Planck scale back up to the world you live in. And crossing it is the only thing that pays. Almost every approach still cannot show it recovers ordinary physics at the far end, and almost everyone quits long before then. The math is free to learn. The nerve to stop trusting your picture of space, that part you still have to bring yourself.

Zyron

110,850 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

David Friedberg says Anthropic is using the same playbook religious institutions have been using for centuries "If you think back on the course of human history and the moments where systems were set up that created power structures that didn't exist before, they were all predicated on the simple notion that there's an existential threat." "You will all die. A deity, a god, some powerful system will come in and destroy you. "And because I can protect you, you must follow me, you must do what I say. It is the common system of human power and control structure to tell a narrative of existential threat and leverage that narrative into your solution being the path to protection and safety." "That is what sells votes, but it is also what created all these early structures where early religious institutions ran all the countries, told all the people what to do, were the power and command centers of the world, and in many parts of the world still are." "When you talk about, if you don't listen to me, God will damn you, God will shame you, God will destroy you, or some deity will come down and get you, this is the same psychological concept." "There is a story being told that you will all die. There's a 10% chance you will all die. If you don't let me control it, if you don't give me the power and the authority to control it, you will all die. Give me that power."

David Friedberg says Anthropic is using the same playbook religious institutions have been using for centuries "If you think back on the course of human history and the moments where systems were set up that created power structures that didn't exist before, they were all predicated on the simple notion that there's an existential threat." "You will all die. A deity, a god, some powerful system will come in and destroy you. "And because I can protect you, you must follow me, you must do what I say. It is the common system of human power and control structure to tell a narrative of existential threat and leverage that narrative into your solution being the path to protection and safety." "That is what sells votes, but it is also what created all these early structures where early religious institutions ran all the countries, told all the people what to do, were the power and command centers of the world, and in many parts of the world still are." "When you talk about, if you don't listen to me, God will damn you, God will shame you, God will destroy you, or some deity will come down and get you, this is the same psychological concept." "There is a story being told that you will all die. There's a 10% chance you will all die. If you don't let me control it, if you don't give me the power and the authority to control it, you will all die. Give me that power."

dnap

71,866 görüntüleme • 22 gün önce

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

109,182 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,915 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Demis Hassabis just told you why civilization never became a science. Hassabis: “AI itself will maybe unlock new sciences… the one I’m particularly excited about is AI for simulations.” Physics became physics because you could run the experiment twice. Drop a ball. Measure the fall. Drop it again. Same answer. Now you own the law. Economics never got that privilege. You raise interest rates on 300 million people and watch what breaks. Hassabis: “If you raise interest rates by half a percent, you have to do it in the real world and then see what happens. You can have theories, but you can’t run it thousands of times.” Every war. Every policy. Every financial system ever designed. One run. No control group. No second attempt. The population was the experiment and the cost. All of human history is a series of unrepeatable experiments performed on people who never consented to the trial. We buried the failures and called the survivors wise. Hassabis: “Why aren’t they just sciences like physics today? Because the problem is they’re emergent systems… it’s very hard to do repeated controlled experiments.” The line between hard science and soft science was never about intelligence. It was about whether you could afford to be wrong more than once. Physics could. Civilization could not. So we built governments on instinct. Economies on ideology. Foreign policy on pattern recognition one generation deep. And convinced ourselves that was rigor. Hassabis wants to end that era. Hassabis: “If you could simulate things really accurately, then maybe there’s sort of new sciences to be done where you can rigorously sample from a very accurate simulator.” Simulate a nation. Crash its economy. Isolate one variable. Run it again. A thousand iterations. A thousand variations. Before a single real person absorbs the cost. That is not a better forecasting tool. That is the end of governance by intuition. Hassabis: “That will allow us to make much better decisions in these, today, what are very uncertain domains.” Every field we called soft was only soft because the hardware to make it hard did not exist yet. He is not improving prediction. He is making civilization itself repeatable. And the moment it becomes repeatable, every lesson we thought we learned from history reveals itself for what it always was. A conclusion drawn from a sample size of one. That is not knowledge. That is mythology with better record-keeping.

Demis Hassabis just told you why civilization never became a science. Hassabis: “AI itself will maybe unlock new sciences… the one I’m particularly excited about is AI for simulations.” Physics became physics because you could run the experiment twice. Drop a ball. Measure the fall. Drop it again. Same answer. Now you own the law. Economics never got that privilege. You raise interest rates on 300 million people and watch what breaks. Hassabis: “If you raise interest rates by half a percent, you have to do it in the real world and then see what happens. You can have theories, but you can’t run it thousands of times.” Every war. Every policy. Every financial system ever designed. One run. No control group. No second attempt. The population was the experiment and the cost. All of human history is a series of unrepeatable experiments performed on people who never consented to the trial. We buried the failures and called the survivors wise. Hassabis: “Why aren’t they just sciences like physics today? Because the problem is they’re emergent systems… it’s very hard to do repeated controlled experiments.” The line between hard science and soft science was never about intelligence. It was about whether you could afford to be wrong more than once. Physics could. Civilization could not. So we built governments on instinct. Economies on ideology. Foreign policy on pattern recognition one generation deep. And convinced ourselves that was rigor. Hassabis wants to end that era. Hassabis: “If you could simulate things really accurately, then maybe there’s sort of new sciences to be done where you can rigorously sample from a very accurate simulator.” Simulate a nation. Crash its economy. Isolate one variable. Run it again. A thousand iterations. A thousand variations. Before a single real person absorbs the cost. That is not a better forecasting tool. That is the end of governance by intuition. Hassabis: “That will allow us to make much better decisions in these, today, what are very uncertain domains.” Every field we called soft was only soft because the hardware to make it hard did not exist yet. He is not improving prediction. He is making civilization itself repeatable. And the moment it becomes repeatable, every lesson we thought we learned from history reveals itself for what it always was. A conclusion drawn from a sample size of one. That is not knowledge. That is mythology with better record-keeping.

Dustin

23,348 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce