Yeti101
-
Posts
2,172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Yeti101
-
-
I can't remember if I've posted about it elsewhere, but Johns Hopkins via Coursera is currently running a MOOC on Psychological First Aid: https://www.coursera.org/learn/psychological-first-aid
About this course: Learn to provide psychological first aid to people in an emergency by employing the RAPID model: Reflective listening, Assessment of needs, Prioritization, Intervention, and Disposition. Utilizing the RAPID model (Reflective listening, Assessment of needs, Prioritization, Intervention, and Disposition), this specialized course provides perspectives on injuries and trauma that are beyond those physical in nature. The RAPID model is readily applicable to public health settings, the workplace, the military, faith-based organizations, mass disaster venues, and even the demands of more commonplace critical events, e.g., dealing with the psychological aftermath of accidents, robberies, suicide, homicide, or community violence. In addition, the RAPID model has been found effective in promoting personal and community resilience.
Participants will increase their abilities to:
- Discuss key concepts related to PFA
- Listen reflectively
- Differentiate benign, non-incapacitating psychological/ behavioral crisis reactions from more severe, potentially incapacitating, crisis reactions
- Prioritize (triage) psychological/ behavioral crisis reactions
- Mitigate acute distress and dysfunction, as appropriate
- Recognize when to facilitate access to further mental health support
- Practice self-care
The RAPID model is pretty much what SANE Australia use and teach people. I'm thinking of doing this.
-
1
-
-
That's pretty blunt @sagiXsagi, but yes I think it has to be said that a big part of making sense of some experiences/ideas/intuitions is being able to run a critical eye over them and work out what (if anything) they mean. Actually, I think this applies as much to everyday experiences as to those had in hyperspace or higher dimensions etc. As for 'truth', I have believed some pretty odd things (and probably continue to), so I don't want to throw stones in the glasshouse of unconventional worldviews.
That said, I have concerns that the system of belief entailed by the pfcn.net writings of Alex Kochkin and John Crawford, (which make up the bulk of what courage promotes), may contain serious flaws. Whatever these people have experienced, they are certainly not masters of consistent theology/eschatology.
@courage: Referring to yourself in the plural 3rd person might impress some people, but it's not going to have much effect here.
-
3
-
-
42 minutes ago, courage said:
I'm tired and you always make my brain think hard.
I'm sorry you are tired. But your brain should think hard - that's what it's for
-
1
-
-
At this rate I'll be ready for the cold next winter.
-
1
-
-
I too like to think this community is special. But there are explanations for this special-ness that do not require your particular metaphysical beliefs - there are probably sociological explanations that require no supernatural entities. I'm not saying that this is right, just that you might consider the possibility that not everything is a confirmation of the way you think the world is.
And while this might well be a enlightened community (relatively at least), it is up to all of us to decide if we should be "islands of inspiration and light for countless numbers of people". I know feel that you want to lead us to the light - that you want to be there for us. But I feel you are being a little presumptive in claiming to know what is best for us.
Lastly, (and I think this points to an inherent tension in what Alex Kochkin has written in this instance), you should heed his words: "There is no teaching, methodology, or gurus here". Do you not presume to teach us? And a particular method (e.g. crystal meditation) at that?
-
7
-
-
48 minutes ago, niggles said:
the way breathing is described in the course is not forceful, deep breathing, not extremely slow like when i am meditating, but nothing forced. I have tried really huffing the breathing and I find I can get better breath retention and effect from relaxed deep breathing.
That's the impression I got from the pdf in my last post (which, AFAIK, is Wim Hof approved).
48 minutes ago, niggles said:I think your person may not have done the course or understood it exactly
I thought as much.
@waterboy 2.0: I've had Raynaud's since I was a kid, so yes, I'll be interested to see how this goes. Warm shirt, lol. Anyone who masters this will be very popular on mid-winter camp-outs.
-
2
-
-
https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d66zm6nfpJw/VZPkdSfb5pI/AAAAAAAAAts/-eXlmuAepsI/s1600/hallucinogens-www-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg&key=a35069941459734e66637ba9aa9b277fedcaf97573b26b31fb15cc8cf66e7819
-
6
-
-
I found this overview on the web (attached) - it's worth a read, though (as always) I run a pretty sceptical eye over these things (not a reflection on Wim personally, that's just me). Definitely some very interesting physiological stuff going on though.
One thing to note is the difference between how the breathing method is described in the doc attached, and how some other websites talk about it: "The breathing technique is first and foremost premised on inhaling deeply and exhaling without any use of force!" I've read at least two second-hand accounts of the method that talk about exhaling quite forcefully. I've only been reading about this for a few days, but I think that the nature of the exhalation, in conjunction with different visualisation, could produce different results - this would be consistent with my extensive reading regarding g-tummo meditation (which started about 10 minutes ago) - the difference between forceful breath and gentle breath techniques perhaps?
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
Ultracrepidarianism
-
I'd be interested in looking at this as I have not-spectacular peripheral circulation; would be keen to see if I could even partially overcome this.
And I could totally handle being superhuman.
-
-
3 hours ago, courage said:
Am I speaking clearly enough?
I'm not sure it is solely clarity that is the issue here.
Perhaps people are concerned that your beliefs are not true - or maybe that the energies and entities you deal with are not be what they appear to be.
Maybe, more pragmatically, and without forming a firm metaphysical judgement, they worry that the beliefs you espouse could lead to actions that cause physical, psychological, or spiritual harm - not just to others, but to you too.
Neither of these things call into question the honesty with which you believe. But no one is immune from being wrong - not you, or me, or any member here, or any of the people who worked with pfcn.net.
Nor are anyone's professed beliefs immune from scrutiny, especially when they are so publicly expressed with the aim of bringing others around to a particular view and/or way of living. Telling people how to live is a high-stakes exercise. If you are right - great. If you are wrong - you can ruin entire lives.
This is not, generally, personal. People here argued about whether or not Terence McKenna's 'machine elves' existed (and if so, in what way). And the debates about the nature of our experiences and what we can infer from them are ongoing - you just a haven't been here long enough to see us agree to disagree.
This a community that contains a plurality of worldviews on metaphysics, science, politics, morality and spirituality - and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is good and right that it does so.
So, no matter how convincing you find your eschatology/cosmology, it will take people a while to understand it. Even then, not everyone will believe it as you do - and (clearly) you need to be ready to accept that.
-
8
-
-
On 17/06/2016 at 9:03 PM, Anodyne said:
Ooh, I like this. Evolved simulation, eh? If we're thinking of evolution as a system for passing on information in the most energy-efficient way possible, then a system that reaches a stage where we are only information (rather than information-encoding proteins & such) is surely much more efficient than the meat-and-bone kind which requires so much more space & heat & glucose...
I was thinking about Leonard Susskind's Holographic Principle - that the universe is, at it's most basic level, actually 'made' of information. I wonder if the situation you describe works because it cuts out the middle-man of DNA and so-on. Why do information-matter/energy-protein-information, when you can just have information?
I also think the Holographic principle is interesting in that if we were living in a simulation, it would make sense that physical reality supervenes on information.
(PS: I'm not a physicist)
-
https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the-future/images/venus.jpg&key=8c4958d807ab752bb61d88f5fd6ea6ce2afb49bd49a71e66aa81e2872a24d328
-
1
-
-
Go to http://sci-hub.bz/ paste in the PMID number - they should have it.
-
2
-
-
-
Zugzwang
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, ThunderIdeal said:
Maybe simulation level civilsation is the end of real history
And maybe if simulation is processed in realtime by a computerlike means of limited capacity, it cant keep up with a similation being run within its simulation so for the sim people to reach sim stage would mean the end of their history too, or something like it
Maybe in a similar way the universe is incapable of supporting simulation, either because of limits to complexity or information
If it isnt the end of time maybe simulation is effectively time travel
Indeed. Some have speculated that reaching the cilivisation level* of running a simulation would have the simulation you are in switched off. If this is the case, then the near- infinite matryoshka of nested simulations that Bostrom implies might be less likely. I'll have to dig out the paper/reference later, after coffee.
I'm sure I saw something about simulations and the multiverse - but it was the other way round - that if simulations are possible the multiverse isn't. Or something - too early for this.
*On a different note, what a mad Wonder for a Civ game: Constructing the Ancestor Simulation!
-
A lot more about this particular argument can be found here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/ - this includes Bostrom's original article: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html I should have posted that, so that people had the option of not actually having to listen to him
There's also sexy-looking maths type stuff!As others' have pointed out, this is his basic thing - at least one of the following are true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Bostrom's argument is about the probability. In order to smash it entirely, we'd need a reason to say that what he is proposing isn't even possible - but I don't have that answer. Lots of things are possible - but we don't generally worry about that.
Any one of those things are possibly true. He doesn't state it in the paper (I think - too early for reading), but he does say in the video that us reaching post-human level, and being interested in running ancestor simulations boosts the probability of (3). I can't quire articulate it, but I can't help but feel that something is wrong with this line of reasoning. Why would the fact that we did something make it more likely that someone else (or maybe posthuman version of ourselves) has done it already?
And if we are in a simulation, then why would we assume that the chances of reaching post-humanity are the same 'in here' as 'out there'? It would be like a character in a Civilisation game making inferences about history in our world - they would almost certainly get it wrong.
So, the higher the probability of (3), the lower the probability is that we can accurately assign probabilities to (1) and (2). I thinks this indicates a contradiction in the argument. At best, Bostrom is back to odds of 1/3 for each.
But, as Anodyne said, how do we know that those are the only 3 options? Assume that lots of things are possible.
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
(4) we are part of a physical computer run by mice.
(5) we are part of an infinite branching multiverse, where every collapsing waveform births a new world-line.
(6) etc.
.....
(n)
If we have n possibilities, and we assign equal probability to each possibility, the bigger n gets, the smaller each individual probability becomes. As n approaches infinity, the probability of each possibility becomes infinitely small.
If anything is possible, then everything is improbable! (Take that Oxford!)
Regarding what living in a simulation might mean, we already face these problems, this just brings them to our attention. What does life mean in a cold, chaotic and/or mechanistic universe? Do we know that other people are real? Am I real? Is there a creator or other supernatural beings and what (if anything) do they want from me? Do my perceptions tell me anything about the 'real' world?
Thunder is right too. I used to think that you had to get your metaphysics right before you could have a chance at being ethical. But I'm no longer so sure of that. Personally, I believe in subjective experience. What is the difference between a perfect illusion of pain, and pain? What is the difference between a perfect illusion of joy, and joy? Not much that I can see - especially if I don't know for sure that it is an illusion. And is justice different if it is a simulation or not? Hurting people would still be causing pain to others - (or to yourself if you don't believe in other people). So I see no good reason to take the possibility of being in a simulation as reason to go crazy, or to abandon morality.
-
2
-
-
https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://i.imgur.com/7j15tXU.jpg&key=988db0d2615d2665315c543517540af4704f9aea58de2d9a5d3bfc31eb183146
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Slocombe said:
I didn't say that!
That is so much better than what I was going to say. But yes, you didn't say that. Never let reality get in the way of a good conversation.
-
1
-
Thoughts on SAB fb group?
in Creativity, Spirituality & Philosophy
Posted
No need to apologise for being blunt sagi