If you stopped flow by binding all your energy to your chakra's that would be an explanation for the negative side effects you are describing.
I think we're just having a terminology issue. Spontaneously or deliberately, I can experience what could be described as undulation and movement throughout my body at any time, continuous "traveling" fluctuations. But, I would describe this more as "spreading activation" than "flow." Like, I don't think something is moving but, yes, sensation can move or spread in a seemingly non-discon...
Fascia vibration and mechanotransduction could be a thing. I would think that can be coincident with autonomic interoception (what I write about) but doesn't have to be. I hadn't heard of Danis Bois. His framework looks like it could be life-changing for some people.
I'm not really sure if there's an effective way to respond to your comments about my experience. I've been doing meditation, bodywork, "energy" work, phenomenology, and much more for over a decade, via many different systems, from many different perspectives (neuro, psych, evo psych.....
What systems do you work with? What do you think "energy" is?
The "truth" about "energy work," according to me:
(with a brief nod to psychoneuroendoimmunology.)
Writing is hard.
Alright, here's my list of writing resources (in no particular order):
This is an excellent article about writing:
Some more inspiration:
I've been using a personal wiki to develop my rationality skills, and I've recently written about it, here:
Not a book, but a blog post and a paper:
PRISMs, Gom Jabbars, and Consciousness
The point is that these speed runs presumably involve backtracking. They can rewind time and explore different paths until they find one they like.
Meditation and metacognitive training in general.
Self link: http://meditationstuff.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/how-to-do-foregroundbackground-meditation/
I have made some unsubstantiated claims in the "I’ve given you some reasons to meditate:" bullet in the link above. More generally, there is plenty of evidence that meditation does good things to you.
More evolutionary perspectives here:
Psychotherapy wouldn't work if working with the psychotherapist didn't elicit a workable solution. I've intermittently found psychotherapy to be very helpful, but it doesn't always solve the problem for which I went to psychotherapy for.
Buteyko breathing  and high-intensity interval training . YMMV, etc.
 e.g. "sprinting" on an elliptical
Sleep apnea is caused by low CO2 tolerance which causes you to breath off too much CO2, and low CO2 levels relax smooth muscle, including the smooth muscle of your throat (which otherwise should actively maintains your airway at all times). The above two practices increase CO2 tolerance.
(Low CO2 tolerance can be caused by many things (e.g. too much m...
Anything remotely like this for EU countries?
Anyone do "mechanism design" in their day job? What are jobs that have aspects of this? (Besides implicitly, like every web startup ever, which is still interesting to think about.)
As encouragement to OP, I haven't read The Things They Carried either, but OP totally makes sense, and it's interesting and helpful, and I'm glad ze posted it. (... But now I realize OP has been edited before I got to it, so maybe parent applied more beforehand. :-)
I look at it as an empowering concept, apologetic, or an explanation of how "rationality" can go awry. I think Mitchell Porter says it best:
But the really hard questions are characterized by the fact that we don't know how to think rigorously about them - we don't have a method, ready at hand, which allows us to mechanically compute the answer.
Rather, grasping at easily available ontologies and attempting to reason with them will not get you very far whe...
I just mean, in the beginning, I made more of an effort to simulate an LW-rationalist perspective and write accessibly or intriguingly to people who knew that memeplex. I've gotten lazier in later posts, just writing about what interests me, from my perspective. I don't really consider myself a rationalist. A "transrationalist" maybe. But maybe it's all semantics--non-straw-vulcan, Keith Stanovich's reflective rationality, etc.. I am fascinated by phenomenology, metacognition, and evolutionary psychology, and "rationality" is only one i...
How strong is the evidence in favor of psychological treatment really?
Existent. But psychological treatment is in it's infancy. I am not a licensed mental health professional, but watch this:
Now, go find a therapist who's at least 45 years old, preferably 50-plus, is not burned out, and loves what they do. It doesn't really matter what the therapeutic modality is. Don't go to a thirty-something CBT-weenie.
Edit: A bunch of recent posts on my blog are about therapy. May or may not be useful:
Robert Forman has done TM for many, many years, and he writes about his experience in this book:
His perspective is balanced and thoughtful.
You might also be interested in my meditation blog which is often (particularly in earlier posts) but not always from a rationalist perspective:
Perfectly beautiful nude people, on demand, with infinite rapid novelty is a superstimulus.
Here is a self-link to my meditation blog; this post has links to other posts:
The blog is a mixture of personal experience, unscientific references, and cherry-picked peer-reviewed research. I specifically talk about the dangers of meditation, with included citations, but unfortunately it's all mixed in with other stuff. Here is one place to start:
On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science by prof. dr. Edsger W. Dijkstra:
I think the issue is that driving is a process of tiny course corrections, where if you're slightly off course you don't die. But, programs are fragile. One bit wrong and you die.
I'm coming at this from ten years of brain fog, unrefreshing sleep, "feeling sick all the time," etc. Mostly better now; I did a lot of stuff highly specific to my situation. The below mostly helped with enduring it. Remember, I'm just some random idiot on the internet, hope this is helpful, and in no particular order:
My meditation blog from a (somewhat) rationalist perspective is now past 40 posts:
This is all stuff that I use:
See also: Warnock's Dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma
The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:
Another possible interpretation:
Disagree with the post; can't personally refute it, but believe that someone who shares my views (and is more knowledgeable) could.
The existing karma system does a good job of addressing the first two possibilities, but the last three cases are still pretty hard to distinguish. Kaj_Sotala seems to be talking about cases 4 and 5, more or less.
As long as we're talking about a technical solution, it seems like the relevant dimension that Kaj is talking about is difficulty/understandability as opposed to agreement or general quality, and I can imagine a few different solutions to this. That said, I'm not convinced that this would tell you the information you're after, since readers who...
Read the table of contents, read the index, read through the citations, read the preface/forward/intro, possibly read the concluding chapter. Then and only then do I dip into the book in a few targeted places, and then and only then do I (sometimes) read the entire book.
For math courses, I always took the "honors" version. This was not because I was an over-achiever but because the honors versions were taught by professors whereas the normal versions were taught be TAs. The instruction was soooooooooooo much better, which made up for the extra work and/or extra difficulty. My annoyance level was kept low, which was worth it.
The idea is to start a thread for people to discuss 50 Shades, or something else perceived as trashy, and try to find what's likable in it.
The links in this MetaFilter post will make it harder:
Or maybe it won't.
But, seriously, I genuinely enjoy trashy, extremely problematic stuff like 50 Shades. I am curious to see a poll, too, to get a sampling of things that provoke, "I DO NOT GET WHY SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE THIS THE CONTEMPTIBLE FOOLS."
I cannot partici...
This book looks very interesting, as does the author's other work. Sort of tangentially related: empathic accuracy. Right now, humans can infer the emotions and actual thought contents of complete strangers, way above chance. This guy has done many, many years of research:
Ickes, William. Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Prometheus Books, 2003.
It's my pleasure. Feedback greatly appreciated--I have over a decade of thinking and doing on this; Help me expand on the parts that people most care about.
I started a meditation blog from a rationalist perspective. 10 posts so far.
Venkatesh Rao has tips on this exact topic:
Somewhere I think there's a quote about Eliezer writing faster with a writing partner. Could someone point me to this quote?
I'm sure some people find some of these ideas distressing or depressing, whether or not they actually accept them as true in whole or in part. I would say I do, in a qualified way. But I have decent perspective on the whole singularity/LessWrong/FAI/etc/etc memeplex.
Try reading Hoffer's "The True Believer" to gain insight into how elements of singularity thinking can be really poisonous to your mental wellbeing. There's more and less healthy ways to think about and approach the future.
I don't have any references that I can reach for, and I'm not sure how good the studies actually are, or what they actually say, but my mild belief is that meditation does generally accelerate cognitive development at all stages.
Also, the "unitive" stage isn't just found in advanced meditators: "enlightenment is an accident, meditation makes you accident prone," as the saying goes. Not that I want to get into a discussion about classical Buddhist enlightenment. Also, Wilber does say that that meditative attainment and cognitive...
I don't/didn't have time to assemble a coherent section on this, but I also want to point people towards Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Related buzzphrases: Experiential avoidance, rule-governed behavior, environmentally contingent behavior, repertoire narrowing, relational frame theory... (Stephen C Hayes and colleagues) There's a developmental line or skillset in there that relates to ugh fields, original seeing, cached thoughts, and more, in LessWrong jargon. See also "Compassion Focused Therapy: Distinctive Features" for more references and exercises for influencing "socioemotional" brain systems.
I had a specific reason for giving the book a shot, while simultaneously I had strong evidence that I was wasting my time. I wanted to nudge people who didn't have a specific reason to read it to consider reading it, anyway. Overkill? Doth protest too much? Maybe!
Learn how to safely fight. Like, really, truly, ugly-ly fight:
You'll get more out of your relationships and have better relationships. (John Gottman who writes all the pop relationship books (and does peer-reviewed, quantitative research) loves this guy's stuff.)
Oh yeah, so here's how I actually log these 2-4 hours: If a) I'm only doing X (e.g. not also eating or listening to music), and b) I truly expect not to be distracted (I'm in an isolated location and email and phone are off), then I log that time. Otherwise, it goes into the "everything else" bucket. From my log, it looks like I average only 15 hours/wk under these criteria.
Just more anecdata, but this jives with me. I keep time logs. I have "maximal mental effort" (MME) and "everything else." For me it's about scope and depth: MME is about how much I can integrate and bring to bear on what I'm doing, like my capacity to coherently integrate citations into my writing. So perhaps it's how large and long you can subconsciously sustain "useful potential inputs" to conscious working memory. Monkey coding I can do, for sure, many hours a day. But coding at my maximum ability is, again, 2-4 hours per day.
Ok. That's compatible with what I meant, even if it's not what I said. :)
This reads like a recipe for locking-in into your own randomly generated dogma.
I'm coming back to this years later, but, wait, what? How does one learn, then? How does one separate true stuff from false stuff without engaging with it, without wrestling with it, without trying to disprove it, without applying it?
When you don't know, you don't know what you don't know. How can you know, except by doing something intelligently accidental? Even if it's just doing the exercises at the end of the chapter?
Something to add: allocating attention in the correct order:
Otherwise you have the failure mode of avoiding painful emotions (even if they're being triggered erroneously) and then all sorts of bad things happen. So check in with (1) before (2) and (3). And check in with (2) before applying (3), because otherwise you're using cached thoughts.
Jealousy/envy of people that have money. It's worth a simmering frustration and, more importantly, short bursts of action, for me.
Meditation: My blog is a terse, cryptic, rambling, ungrammatical rabbit hole, but it's highly opinionated and absolutely packed with links and resources:
Here are two practical posts:
Shinzen Young, Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, and Culadasa have systems that can get you very far depending on how well they fit you.