[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Derogatory? Apologies, I thought it was a neutral term ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I didn't live through the drug culture, so you'd know better than me if referencing non-drug users as Normies or Squares was meant to accurately describe a group, or to 'other' them.

My only point is that normality exists (on a bell-curved spectrum) and is the most common state because of how functional it is.

Tell me you didn't watch the videos without...

I didn't watch initially, because I've never heard a profound thought come from Joe. His comedy is good though, and he's among the best hosts because he's willing to ask the uneducated questions most of us are wondering on any given topic.

I don't find his hypothesis, that primates chewing on every random thing and then finding enlightenment from some of the things they chewed on, as compelling an explanation as genetic evolution theory. It sounds like a lightly digested regurgitation of Genesis 3 though.

100% of what he possibly attributes to having been made better by drug use is art. Art is a luxury for wealthy societies who have leveraged technology to accumulate enough excess that non-vital activities can be pursued.

There're two concepts I want to express to someone else next week that I think are essential for understanding the Simulation: Intelligence and Consensual Reality

You've mentioned two different concepts that aren't apparently related... and as I'm always saying, simulation theory doesn't offer any additional utility over the more ancient frames because it merely adds technology into the myth.

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

If youre testing something that's really expensive one off, do you just arbitrarily blow it up the first time you use it?

I'm not understanding where you're going with this question. The Manhattan Project did just that. SpaceX has been doing it. I suppose those weren't arbitrary instances though, as they expected to learn something from it.