I watched this video when you first published it and I remember wondering if it would be one of the people for whom it would be life changing, like you said. I'm back to say that I was! A few months after watching it I fully realized that all my hard work wasn't getting me anywhere and never would. I began authoring my new reality by trusting and expecting that I would get everything I wanted from the universe and I did. It has been a gradual process of undoing all my old patterns of thinking but I'm to the point now where I can see how everything in my life has been pure fiction, completely made up by me. So happy that nightmare is over. Thank you for my new life where everything is beautiful and interesting and fun and also completely made up by me! 😂
I follow Scott Adams mainly because I've heard him say a lot of things that I've discovered on my own. He's given me a few new ways to think about things. I don't always agree with him but what he says is usually worth considering.
I have experienced all this before and was able to greatly (Bigly?) change my life for the better. However, I allowed myself to lapse into an inertia of contentedness ( I put the 'Pro' in procrastination). I have been using my somewhat advanced age as an excuse for not attempting massive change. I enjoy your podcasts but am not a "regular" yet I serendipitously found myself here today after similarly watching another RU-vid video last night on manifestation etc. Never let it be said I couldn't take a hint. I am now using all this to set a new and sufficiently outrageous goal for myself that I will apply your proscribed methods to accomplish. I will keep you apprised of my progress.
It is true: facts don't matter ... to most people most of the time. HOWEVER: Building an Epistemology based on this is self-defeating, logically. But then again, who is rich and engaged to a hot girl? Not me.
The Simulation Theory has no say about our origins. To do so, it would have to answer the question: how did the FIRST programmers come about? Scott's theory is an infinite regression.
What is it with this obsession of being happy, let’s face it...the majority of life is NOT being in a state of happiness, but rather delaying gratification through hard work and suffering interspersed with moments of happiness.
Scott is a typical example of survival bias. Most guys dream of making it big, most girls dreams of being a princess. For 0.01% something like that happen, for the rest it dont.
This reminds me of teachings of Ernest Holmes, who said "change your thinking, change your life" and founded the Church of Religious Science which incorporates "practitioners" who frame things around affirmations (see You Can Heal Your Life by Louise Hay, a Religious Science minister).
Re: all things are related to mating. One of the reasons I loved the ancient philosophers of Greece. Was that they saw aging as the freedom from sexual desires. If age does bring tranquility from desire, I think it would lead to a serenity of the mind. And.... The ability to think more clearly about these topics. In our current culture, I'm not sure if that seperation is possible. But the point still stands, if we can separate desire from mindfulness, we're better off...
Anecdote related to Norman Vincent Peale: Adlai Stevenson was to speak a Baptist convention in Texas during the 1952 Presidential campaign. In his introduction the host had said that Stevenson had been asked to speak "just as a courtesy, because Dr. Norman Vincent Peale has already instructed us to vote for your opponent." Stevenson opened with this: "Well, speaking as a Christian, I would like to say that I find the Apostle Paul appealing and the Apostle Peale appalling." 😁
In Christian theology, the simulation theory roughly corresponds to incarnationalism, that one is the living embodiment of Christ, a representation, though with it an added ex opera operato in Catholic terms, benefits to the Office-holder; thus rooted as early as St Augustine after the Donatist controversy. Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" and the mind/body dualism also plumbs these depths. Catholic theology surrounding the sacraments comes from Aquinas (nee Aristotle), very interesting parallel - are simulation theorists Thomists?
Scott's method is a way of distilling these concepts down to simplest terms. Though I think these truths, like God, no matter how simple, are so profound they can only be revealed to us as we are ready to see them.
I'd like to see some support for your assertion. Do you have any links to a synopsis of your position? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just hadn't ever heard that, but then my exposure to actuarials is nonexistent. I find the concept worth investigating.
Maybe in one of these Scott could give us homework/experiment for all of us to conduct testing his user interface. A simple experiment to conduct in our lives.
The desire to control others and the action thereof has surprisingly negative personal results. Control of your own personal being is beneficial. Power over others for your own benefit brings woe.
The idea of filters on reality is at least 2000 years old. The Indian text “Yoga Sutras” mentions how people filter reality based on their experiences. Interesting video. Thx
"If the simulation is true, then what we believe about evolution probably isn't cause you don't need evolution if we have the simulation" That's just silly now. Evolution can happen within a simulation. The simulation hypothesis doesn't "debunk" the theory of evolution. The simulation is not a competing theory to the theory of evolution. Plus evolution is observable and reproducible in a laboratory. It's been proven.
I believed that too. I thought others were the ones in a bubble, and I was the one who saw the truth. Consider for a moment that evolution, as well as religions, and philosophy, are all just filters on reality. See the world that way for one day, just as an experiment...the only thing ypu have to lose is your mental prison😉
@@odonnelldenise evolution is the most powerful filter I had so far, everything make sense in that filter, zero blind spots, 100% predictions where applicable, although it is a very sad filter and gets me nowhere.
Indeed, we're not going to discover that evolution is fundamentally untrue, just as we're not going to discover that the Earth is a radically different shape than a sphere. Maybe it's a simulated sphere but it's still a sphere. (And of course we still have no good reason to think the simulation hypothesis is correct. But it's irrelevant.)
@@gomertube they pretty much gave up on this, waiting for engineers to solve that problem, and I assure you, when (if) they do, it'll fit evolution perfectly. And btw evolution theory is even less darwinian now than modern physics is newtonian,
@@cakemix007 No one can become a multimillionaire by doing things that are against the interests of the state, unless you are the citizen of a larger state
Scott, reading your books, you use the Bibles truths. Speaking out what you want to see happen is a big one. God spoke the creation into being. We were created in His image and likeness. We are the ones who speak words. Norman Vincent Peal taught that very thing. "You shall have what you say". In many ways we do create our own reality. As Christians, we speak out God's truths. I remember reading how often you said over and over, "I will speak again". God led you to do that.
Scott: Most people who have studied the Bible (new testament included) can well see what you saying and probably have known all along what you are telling us. You have discovered it through another path. You are a very smart person.
He's trying to explain something true in a way that he thinks will get through to simpletons that sounds freaking dumb to people who understand him and aren't simpletons.
Thank you sir for the valuable content you grant us the privilege to see first hand I sincerely hope that you do more of your tutorial type of videos as a training tool to hack life. Your avid follower from Morocco
We had lake effect snow from Lake Erie in Northern Pa for two days, nothing stuck but it was interesting when the winds howled...it calls for a swaddle at 11:45 EST
I don't think he considers himself a philosopher. All his talks give the impression that he's entirely wordly and pragmatic in his thinking. The simulation stuff just fits that model too well to not adopt it I guess. That's probably why he comes across as insufficiently critical of his own instincts to me.
In a less facetious comment I think it might be useful for you to read about Nietzsche and specifically the concept of an uberman. He did not really cover the 'tools' as you describe but the general mindset I think is more reminiscent of what he had to say. The idea that a man can carve their own path through a self created narrative which may lead them to take actions others could observe as questionable due to their inability to see the bigger picture, or failing to understand the individual's ideals.
Congrats, Scott! It's 23 years; I was married in '97. For me the manual is the Seth Material of which the 3 books that stand out the most are: Seth Speaks The Nature of Personal Reality The Nature of the Psyche
@@RoboSteave "That's my filter." And how does it fit with what you can observe? If Scott is a nihilist, explain why he has worked so hard on his careers?
Pattern recognition is how we survive, if you touch a flame or a hot stove it physically burns you, if you see a large dog loose you avoid it because it can attack you, the real danger is failure to recognize patterns in life and deny them.
Because people like Scott have very limited understanding of technology or AI or simulation sw for that matter.... Even today AI programs like alphazero evolve themselves to the point of beating human grandmasters in a matter of hours
If our reality is a simulation, it was programmed. If we are in a programed reality, we can’t know if evolution is real or if the simulation presents it as real (maybe the simulation started 200 years ago and presents this “modern” world with animals and humans that “evolved”). If it is real, meaning evolution has played out within this simulation, it was still part of the program. The simulation supersedes evolution either way as the primary organizer of life on Earth. I don’t even buy simulation theory and I can work that out. Vlad Mordekeiser Maybe you should stop thinking like an 11-year-old girl...
@@MichaelRodriguez-og8wc Let's say the simulation is 250 million old, as an example. And of course dinossaurs and other extinct animals were real. In such case evolution would have been real. That it occurred inside the simulation doesn't make it less real. The Simulator may even have left that run lose, within certain parameters, to see what would come out of it. But that doesn't matter. What matters is: IF the simulation hypothesis is right, "evolution" existed in one of two ways. In the first possibility, evolution was an artificial, guided process - in which case it was no real evolution at all. BUT in the second possibility animals were let free to reproduce or die, and the "fittest" (in a manner) survived and evolved (changed). Well, in THIS second case evolution IS real, even if inside the simulation. In the same way that WE are real, in a sense, even if inside a simulation. As a side note: does trying to offend unknown people over the Internet bring any benefits to you?
@@MichaelRodriguez-og8wc faithfully replicating the evidence of billions of years of evolution effectively would require simulation of that evolutionary history (this argument is also supported also by the notion of computational irreducibility, which would hold that constructing a world as if evolution had occurred would not be possible without at least as much computation as simulating its entire history)
Definitely something in your audio setup that is causing random pops. It's consistent in all the videos in the last several days at least. Edit: Wasn't happening it in 959 but it was in 958. Not sure what setup you had in the drum room.
Think about the top 0.01%. Not the top 0.001% (I'm sorry if I did not do the math correctly in a specific way on the cutoff for billionaires). My point is I don't think he is saying you will be a god following this stuff.
If we don't have access to a Base Reality, why are we watching you, Scott? Thank goodness that your vlogs help me access that base reality better every day, even as you deny its accessibility.
I haven't listened to referenced podcast, so maybe I missed something important? related to Darwinian evolution theory, but I fail to see what anything about authoring your own version of whatever paradigm you choose to use as a filter of whatever simulation theory you might buy into from time to time (including religions, Darwin, Nihilism, Determinism, Marxism, reincarnation, self-actualization...) has to do with Darwin. This Scott episode seems to be yet another in a series of self -congratulatory ego trips. That doesn't mean that there weren't some valuable lessons discussed.
"I perceive, Ion; and I will proceed to explain to you what I imagine to be the reason of this..//...there is a divinity moving you, like that contained in the stone which Euripides calls a magnet, but which is commonly known as the stone of Heraclea. This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their power of suspension from the original stone. In like manner the Muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended, who take the inspiration."
It's not true that people se totaly different reality by the same information. Some people only have the subset of Information. What also matters is what order you get the information. This is really a accepted psychological fact.
