Posts by urbanwalker72

Nicole Ross said:Either you're pulling my leg, you're intentionally misspelling things, or you're just completely out of the loop.
Treatment protocols shift pretty drastically when you realize that solving a problem can actually end up being more expensive—not just in terms of pricey medications and high-end diagnostic tests, but in hours of labor, longer recovery times, and, if you’re lucky, a whole host of side effects that basically trade one issue for three new ones. It's a strange way to run things, isn't it?

So, honestly, the harsh reality couldn't be any different from the one you've laid out here.

You can really feel that differentiation effect—it’s pretty easy to pick up on while you're actually going through the motions, but it hits even harder after a session of active therapy. Especially if you're staying consistent with your routine and hitting those exercises designed to dial up your proprioception. It makes a world of difference, doesn't it?

It’s actually quite measurable if you give someone something fun to play around with—it's incredibly easy. Just yesterday, I was working with a swimmer who managed to extend his latissimus dorsi, which effectively increased his reach by about 3 inches in just five minutes. I only measured it because that's exactly what he asked for.

Competition between medications is one thing, but proving they work better than a placebo is quite another.

By definition, a drug is something that performs better than a placebo.

So, the harsh reality couldn't be any different from the picture you've painted.

The reality is that the segment of alternative medicine which isn't more effective than a placebo represents one of the most serious frauds of our time and remains one of the most lucrative illegal businesses in the world.

The differentiation effect is easily felt during the course of treatment, and especially after active therapy, particularly if they regularly perform exercises that enhance proprioception.

Of course they feel it, but feeling it isn't proof.

Proof is established this way: You take 100 people who need such therapy, selected via random sampling. These people believe they are seeing a specialist. Half go to you, half come to me. They are certain they are visiting a therapist for differentiation. You know exactly what you are doing, whereas I have no idea; I just perform some random movements, massages, and nonsense.

In the end, we compare the results. If even after my "treatment" a certain number of people feel or believe there has been an improvement, it is merely a sign that those people were recovering without any actual therapy, because I am not a therapist.

If you have, say, 15 people improving and I have 10, then your therapy is ineffective, because my "therapy" doesn't actually exist, yet the results are similar.

Only if, for example, 10 people recover with me while 30 to 40 recover with you, do you have the right to claim your therapy has a genuine effect.

That is the first test. If you pass it, then you are a true therapist, rather than someone just playing the part.

In the second test, instead of competing with me, you compete with a physical therapist. I know you think it counts as proof if a physical therapist fails to help someone but you succeed. But individual cases and anecdotes are not evidence. Evidence must be statistically significant.

It is measurable if someone finds it easy to play around with it (yesterday, a swimmer extended her latissimus and increased her reach by 8 centimeters in 5 minutes; she measured it because that was her goal).

And will that stay with her for the rest of her life?

I am not saying your effect isn't measurable or real. How would I possibly know whether it is or isn't?

I am simply telling you how things are proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

rustybadger42 said:Working in medicine, I see people hitting dead ends every single day—treating the symptoms instead of fixing the root cause has basically become the standard rule in healthcare. Whether it's intentional or not, it doesn't really matter.
The reality is that the solution to so many health issues lies within ourselves. It's just that the marketing lobby is far too powerful to let anything simple or logical actually gain traction.

It’ll be interesting to watch how Abeylegesse does... who knows, maybe we'll see another world record shattered.🙂

Unfortunately, this isn't just a matter of marketing. We are dealing with raw reality. If something actually works, it can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, and those treatments quickly integrate into daily life and become part of mainstream medicine.

This isn't solely about medicine, either. Any claim that something possesses a real, measurable effect must be able to withstand independent verification.

Nicole Ross said:It isn't true,
I'm just really good at Photoshop :-)

Actually, her head hasn't been like that since she was little—mostly because she mentioned her parents have the exact same posture. As a kid, she just imitated them, and it became baked into her system much deeper than any injury or overtraining would. Those things happened much later in life, long after her movement patterns were already established and simply forgotten. She didn't "forget" how to hold her head; she learned it wrong during that critical window between ages 1 and 5 when the human body defines its sensorimotor patterns and neural connections. But the reason she came to see me was unbearable pain in her hips and legs, which made hitting normal race times impossible. It all hit a breaking point last Saturday during a half marathon in Copenhagen, and her doctor prescribed six weeks of strict rest followed by cycling.
That’s why she showed up earlier than planned. She’ll be back in two months, and then we’ll tackle the head posture, since that isn't the primary issue right now.

Of course it isn't physical therapy.
She's been trying to find relief with traditional methods for the last three years, but without much luck. And it’s not a "miracle"—it’s just a deeper understanding of how the human body and mind actually work. You can read about that on my site to understand why the results are so fast and lasting. This can be done for anyone with a functional CNS who doesn't have fresh, unaddressed trauma—provided they actually want to do the work. This isn't classic bodywork; it's education. It's teaching the body how to relearn what was lost over time (SMA),
or teaching it something new when it was learned incorrectly from the start.

If you look at it strictly from a money perspective, it's hard to set a realistic price. But man, it was such a rush when she called me on Tuesday saying she went for a four-hour power walk with zero pain or fatigue—and that everyone at her club was staring at her in disbelief on Monday, wondering how much she had changed between Wednesday and Monday! ;-)

That is wonderful, because I am certainly no expert when it comes to physiotherapy or Photoshop; my only real tools are logic and reason.

The reason she sought help was due to unbearable pain in her hips and legs, which made it impossible for her to hit her usual racing times. Things reached a breaking point last Saturday during the half marathon in Copenhagen, and her doctor has since prescribed strict rest for six weeks followed by cycling training.

Well, look, you can call it centering, differentiation, or even voodoo if that's what helps it make sense. At the end of the day, the only thing that truly matters is whether the method actually works.

Wasn't the fundamental cause of this girl's issue essentially a muscular imbalance? I honestly find myself wondering how she managed to run at all. Long-distance running... that’s precisely where the trouble lies. It seems like almost anyone who trains for distance looks as though they need to be physically centered; they just look so wound up.

It is quite fascinating how sprinters manage to maintain such perfect alignment, seemingly unaffected by three or four different postural issues.

It isn't simply a matter of luck; rather, it stems from a profound understanding of how the human body and mind actually function together. You can find more details regarding this on my page, which should help clarify why these results manifest so rapidly and endure over the long term.

Suppose you actually managed to convince me to pick this up. I tend to be quite the skeptic, and frankly, I have a bit of an allergy to anything resembling pseudoscience. That said, I haven't stumbled upon any pure nonsense just yet—only claims that are incredibly bold—so I suppose I will give it a read.

It could likely be performed by anyone who possesses a healthy CNS and hasn't been burdened by recent, unaddressed trauma.

What kind of trauma are we actually discussing here? I am asking purely because I want to ensure that one cannot simply use "trauma" as a convenient alibi if a particular therapy fails to yield results. Could you provide a clear definition?

If that is truly his intention—treating this less like standard physical training and more like a genuine education—then he might succeed in reclaiming the wisdom that time has so easily allowed us to forget.Spinal Muscular Atrophy is a devastating condition that challenges the very essence of physical existence. It serves as a profound reminder of how delicate the connection between our nervous system and our muscles truly is. ),
Or simply unlearn everything that was incorrectly internalized from the start.

If I have understood you correctly, are you suggesting that such things can be mastered so rapidly? It seems quite profound to think we could quickly correct patterns that we have been unconsciously performing incorrectly our entire lives.

If you look at this strictly from a financial perspective, it’s difficult to put a realistic price tag on the results. However, for me, there is a deep sense of satisfaction in hearing her call me on Tuesday to say she had just finished a four-hour power walk without any pain or fatigue. She mentioned that everyone at the gym was staring at her in total disbelief on Monday, wondering how much she had transformed between Wednesday and the start of the week.

If the price tag is $3.25, then attempting to permanently fix such profound postural issues within just a few days of therapy would be nothing short of a revolution—not just economically, but for healthcare and science as well.

In reality, there is only one true yardstick, much like any other metric involving health. It would be triple-blind tests designed to measure how your therapy actually stacks up against standard physical therapy and a placebo. While you might not have much interest in that, it would certainly be fascinating to see the results.

rustybadger42 said:I took a look at her case study and I have to say, I'm genuinely impressed.
Her posture was noticeably corrected in just a few days.
That obvious Hyperlordosis was fixed—you can see how much better her hip, chest, abdominal, and neck alignment looks now. And all in just a matter of days.
There's also this new, relaxed expression paired with much more upright posture.
Plus, you can really see in those final photos how much taller a person appears once their back and spine are actually aligned.🙂
..so if anyone dealing with a hunched back wants to see what's possible, here's the example:

I agree. Especially if what she claims is actually true.

A bad posture being visibly rehabilitated in just a few days.
An obvious case of Hyperlordosis has been corrected; you can see the alignment of the hips, chest, abdomen, and neck has stabilized. And all of this happened in mere days.

Give it another day or two and perhaps the forward head posture will resolve itself as well.

In my view, achieving these results in such a short window isn't just standard physical therapy. It’s nothing short of a miracle. If someone could consistently produce these kinds of transformations for anyone, they would be making far more than a local healer in Medjugorje.

Sean Bailey75 said:So, what exactly do you do? How do you go about fixing a hunched back?

A classic approach means someone gets educated, studies, and learns; after that, they spend years working under a trainer, teacher, or mentor, and only after even more years do they begin to act independently. Some call it a school, some call it college, some call it an academy, or just training, but most principles are rooted in science. I've heard you are a good nutritionist, so I assume you finished a degree or something similar. If you aren't working via the Feldenkrais method that your advocate here mentioned, where did this knowledge or qualification regarding posture correction come from?

This is getting a bit concerning because "differentiation" is a term that already exists and signifies something entirely different in science. It might have been understandable if you called it the Nicole Ross method if you arrived at these conclusions independently—though even then, you'd risk being compared to the methods of Ante Pavlovic. But reading you now, it seems you've described what your method *isn't*, yet you haven't shown what the method actually *IS* or where this wisdom originates. Would you be so kind as to briefly describe what you do, how you conduct the exercises, and where your qualifications come from?

Just so it makes sense to me, since it feels like we aren't understanding one another. And likely, there are others curious about this too, wanting to know specifically what YOUR differentiation entails and how it helps correct posture.

Sean, this conversation isn't going anywhere. If you want to know what that looks like, just book a session with someone to get centered or differentiated, or whatever it is.

If anyone reading this nonsense thread actually has postural problems, their condition will probably worsen just from reading it.🤣

To help people generally improve their awareness and learn the mechanics of achieving proper posture, I would recommend 'Becoming a supple leopard' and mobilitywod by Kelly Starret, along with 'Stretching and flexibility' and stretch therapy by Kit Laughlin.

Richard Cook2 said:Look, guys, I’m going to ask this once: please, do yourselves a favor and actually look up the information on your own before coming here to pester me. I really don't want to deal with people spamming this thread with basic questions they could have answered in five minutes with a quick search. It makes it impossible for anyone else to actually find the specific info they came here looking for.

If you want to understand how stretching actually teaches the central nervous system to lower muscle tone, you really need to dig into the physiology of Golgi tendon organs and muscle spindles located within your muscles and tendons. It’s also worth looking into how reflexes play a role in that process. You shouldn't have any trouble finding some solid resources online if you just search for something like "stretching and flexibility physiology."

"If someone is presenting with Kyphosis, it simply means their anterior muscle tone is far too high." Honestly, that's a bit of a fallacy—there isn't really a "front" or a "back" when you're looking at the body as a single, integrated system.
It’s defined that precisely because the body isn't just some flat, two-dimensional object. The muscles I mentioned are essentially shortened or tight, and they're pulling everything out of alignment.
The body leans forward because the muscles I mentioned earlier have become overstretched and weakened on the opposite side, leaving them without any functional tension.
The concept of "forces" used to align the body—well, if you want to truly grasp what I’m getting at here, you really ought to have a more solid grasp of human anatomy. It isn't just about moving parts around; it's about understanding how those internal tensions actually interact.
I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately diving deep into the mechanics of muscle function—specifically looking at origin points, insertion points, and the underlying physiology that governs how they actually move. It's one thing to know which muscle you're working, but it's a whole different ballgame when you start analyzing the actual physics of the contraction and how those attachment points dictate the entire range of motion.

The principle is actually quite straightforward: if you're tight or stiff, you need to stretch. If you're loose or weak, you need to strengthen. Honestly, I feel like this is the kind of thing they should be teaching clearly back in elementary school science class. xD

The idea that a problem rooted in the Central Nervous System can be fixed by focusing solely on the periphery just doesn't hold water. The CNS and the periphery are inextricably linked—it’s an interconnected web, much like everything else in the human body. How exactly do you think a muscle contraction even occurs? It starts with the CNS sending signals down through the spinal cord. You can't address one side of the equation while ignoring the other.
which stimulate the muscles through the nervous system. Of course, to truly grasp that, one would need a deep understanding of muscle contraction physiology—concepts like actin, myosin, Z-discs, and all that good stuff...

In short: please don't pester me or confuse someone who is just looking for a little help!

It is far too late for that; he isn't even checking this board anymore.

For those who might find it useful, in addition to the resources you mentioned, I would suggest looking into the following:

book : Kit Laughlin

Kelly Starret: 'Becoming a supple leopard'

web

http://www.mobilitywod.com

book:

Kit Laughlin: 'Stretching and flexibility'

web:

http://kitlaughlin.com/forums/

rustybadger42 said:Stretching and strengthening something that’s already tight and stiff—it's just going to make things worse

Very well, Doctor...

Jeffrey Campbell97 said:I’ve been wrestling with this issue of Kyphosis for quite a while now... I have some extra weight I really need to drop, and since my job is strictly desk-bound, the slouching is starting to become a genuine concern for me.

My goal is to finally fix my posture—to just naturally hold myself upright all the time—but I always seem to find myself curling forward again... and even when I do manage to sit up straight, I start feeling these nagging little aches because my body just isn't used to being in that position.

Does anyone have any advice on how to tackle this slouching and actually get my back straight again?

Are we talking about Kyphosis? Is it the thoracic spine? Are you describing a rounding in your upper back?

Richard Cook2 said:Unfortunately, you've hit the nail on the head; very few trainers actually follow everything listed there, though I certainly don't claim to be one of them. Of course, I don't know everything—and I have no shame in admitting that—but when it comes to issues like scoliosis, lordosis, kyphosis, pelvic tilts, or X-patterns, I believe I have a very strong grasp on how to address and correct them. If I encounter something I don't understand, or if the structural deformities are too severe for me to safely tackle, I will decline to train that client, regardless of how much they might insist.

The trainers aren't solely to blame here; in America, we simply lack a culture of regular, systematic medical checkups—it seems people feel an annual inspection is mandatory for their car, yet they treat their own health with total indifference 😁.

Furthermore, everyone is chasing instant gratification and quick aesthetic changes. Nobody wants to put in the disciplined, systematic work, nor do they want to pay a trainer to undo years of poor posture and sedentary habits.

regarding interval training, I think you're operating under a misconception. Answer me this specifically: why wouldn't you perform interval training with someone who is overweight but has received medical clearance, maintains normal blood pressure, has no known heart issues, and has an elevated resting heart rate that is being constantly monitored during the session?

Technically, you can. However, there are no guarantees in this business. You've likely seen even lean, professional athletes drop dead on the field due to undiagnosed cardiac issues despite regular testing.

And what kind of medical clearance are we actually talking about? A standard EKG? What does that really tell us? An EKG shows things that even a layman could spot without professional equipment. I'd wager that not a single one of your clients has ever undergone a cardiac ultrasound.

But you are right on one point: if the medical results come back clear, you can apply the same training protocols whether the client is obese or thin.

Richard Cook2 said:Of course, everyone’s situation is unique, and there is simply no arguing with that reality. 🙂 Training regimens should always be tailored to the individual, respecting their unique physical capabilities and inherent traits. One shouldn't attempt to force an overweight individual to run, for instance; there are countless other ways to approach interval training if one simply understands the underlying principles and maintains a sense of creativity. 😉

It is important to recognize that no two individuals weighing 120 kilograms are truly identical. Consider, for instance, the physiological difference between someone who has carried that weight since their teenage years and someone who was a steady 175 pounds but gained 90 pounds in a single year. While neither scenario represents an ideal state of health, the former individual has allowed their musculoskeletal system—their muscles, tendons, ligaments, and bone density—to adapt to that specific load over a lifetime. Consequently, depending on their height and age, they may actually experience fewer joint issues during aerobic exercise because their body has already built the structural foundation to manage that weight. 🙂

I have always believed in a deeply personalized approach; that is why I prioritize sitting down with my clients to truly listen and conduct thorough assessments before I ever begin drafting a single page of a custom plan or program. 🙂

Without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, I would like to ask for an honest assessment: how many of you—whether you call yourselves personal trainers, fitness coaches, or whatever the industry standard is today—actually take the time to evaluate if a client is medically fit to begin a training program in the first place?

Do coaches ever instruct their players to see a doctor first? If I had to guess, I’d say not a single one would ever hand over medical results to a coach just to prove they have a doctor's recommendation stating everything is fine.

It is my observation that at least 90% of the population suffers from various postural issues. Most Americans working in office environments who have surpassed the age of 30 exhibit what could be described as pathological immobility, characterized by extreme stiffness, physical asymmetry, pelvic tilts, and nearly every other conceivable postural dysfunction.

I find myself speculating once again, though I am certain that none of them bother with corrective exercises before diving straight into bench presses and bicep curls. Heaven forbid they attempt a deadlift or a back squat; fortunately, those aren't nearly as trendy as the others at most local gyms.

It follows that individuals struggling with weight can certainly incorporate interval training into their routines. This conclusion remains logically consistent with the principles outlined above; when there is no oversight, true accountability ceases to exist, leaving no one responsible for any outcome.

That is simply how things operate here in America.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Well, if you really want to go there:

The Elegant Universe Global Catastrophic
When you start poking around the concept of Global Catastrophic Risks, it feels a bit like standing on the edge of a massive canyon and realizing just how thin the safety railing actually is. It isn't just about some sudden, dramatic disaster falling out of the sky; it’s more about those slow-motion train wrecks where we realize too late that we’ve been heading toward a cliff at full speed. We spend so much of our time worrying about the day-to-day grind—paying the mortgage or dealing with traffic in Los Angeles—that we tend to overlook the existential stuff that could actually reset the clock on civilization itself. It's that nagging feeling that while we're busy arguing over local politics, there are much larger, more systemic threats lurking in the background, waiting for us to trip up.
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life
Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life Dog Behaviour
Earth Sciences Demystified
Key Contemporary Concepts: From Abjection to Zeno's Paradox
If you ever find yourself wandering through the dense thickets of academic theory, you’ll eventually stumble upon the intellectual heavyweights who shaped everything from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism. It’s a bit like trying to trace the lineage of a complex family tree where everyone is constantly arguing about whether the tree even exists in the first place. You have these thinkers who didn't just want to observe the world, but felt an almost obsessive need to dismantle the machinery behind it to see why it was grinding so loudly. It’s less about simple observation and more about pulling the engine apart while the car is still speeding down the highway, hoping you can figure out why the steering feels so off.
Lost Histories—Exploring the World's most Famous Mysteries
When you dive into Mircea Eliade's take on Cosmos and History, you really start to see how much our perception of time and space shapes everything we think we know about reality. It’s like looking at the world through a lens that doesn't just record events, but actually gives them weight and meaning, rather than just treating life like a series of random, disconnected accidents.
Cosmos and history Mystery of America_Enigmatic Mysteries and Anomalous Artifacts Neanderthals and Modern Humans Neurophilosophy
Neanderthals and Modern Humans
If you ever find yourself wandering through the dense thickets of neurophilosophy, you’ll inevitably run into Patricia Churchland. It’s one of those subjects that feels like trying to map a hurricane while standing right in the eye of it—complex, slightly dizzying, and deeply transformative if you actually manage to wrap your head around it. She approaches the whole mess of consciousness and identity from a perspective that doesn't pull any punches, essentially arguing that if we want to understand the "why" of human existence, we first have to master the "how" of the biological machinery driving the bus. It’s less about lofty, ethereal abstractions and more about getting your hands dirty with the actual wiring of the brain.
When you really start digging into the connection between deep history and how our brains actually function—specifically looking at those ideas regarding human identity during our earliest prehistory—it feels a bit like trying to reconstruct a massive, complex machine from nothing but a few rusted gears and some fossilized dust. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, but there’s something fascinating about how our neurological evolution shaped everything we consider "human" today.
on Deep history and The Brain Origins and Revolutions_Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory Quote

Whatever works for you.

That is an excellent suggestion. One might also consider including The hidden reality to round out the collection.

Risks here be Dragons_The Scientific quest for Extraterrestrial Life Dog Behaviour

It would be wise to include The eerie silence as well.

Daniel Castillo11 said:I suspect that for those wandering the spiritual path, the technicalities of whether the Self is eternal, enduring, or merely fleeting are actually secondary concerns. What truly matters is the practical dilemma: once I am confronted with this "Self," what am I supposed to do with it? Or more fundamentally, "who am I?" and "what am I?" We don't really need a collection of discursive theories or conceptual frameworks to address this; rather, we need the direct experience that arises from embodying the mystery—living fully within the present moment that the question itself points toward. These inquiries are essentially just triggers. Even practicing mindfulness, whether one uses a mantra or stays silent, doesn't inherently settle the heavy questions like "does the human soul exist?" or "is there life after death?" Personal experience alone isn't quite enough to provide a definitive answer to those cosmic mysteries, though it serves as an excellent catalyst for asking them and for expanding our awareness in every direction. Maintaining that sense of openness is the absolute prerequisite for achieving a truly holistic perception.

Even if we consider the possibility that the Self is simply a sophisticated illusion manufactured by the brain—a sort of hyper-symbol or a "memeplex," as Susan Blackmore describes it—we are still left staring at the profound mystery of that very Self as it manifests through our embodied experience in the here and now.

I've gathered a few articles on the subject that might interest you:

http://garynini.com/ist-trasicorr.htm
http://garynini.com/ist-koan.htm
http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/gol_all_focusing.asp
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/awaken.html

It feels like a variation of Chalmers' hard problem. To my mind, it is something that is inherently unsolvable, a question that will eventually fade into irrelevance as our understanding evolves..

eternalme As stated by:
That profound depth is the realization that I am a spiritual being first and foremost, rather than merely a physical one. Even when the storms and tempests of life batter my external circumstances, my spiritual essence remains untouched, existing in a state of perfect tranquility regardless of the outcome. It is much like the vast, silent depths of the Pacific Ocean. On the surface, one might face raging twenty-foot swells, yet deep below, there exists an eternal peace and absolute silence. It is much like that.

While you previously touched upon the illness, the highlighted text suggests that you are actually doing quite well.

Many people simply aren't granted that kind of peace. Consider someone battling Alzheimer's; for them, there is no bottomless well of stillness or tranquility to be found, nor is there any way to reach it. At every conceivable level, they are being battered by a relentless hurricane of chaos.

His sense of "self" lacks the permanence of yours; in truth, it is quite fragile.

"Quote:"

I hold the firm conviction that I shall continue to advance along my spiritual path for as long as is required to achieve true personal growth.

If your ultimate objective is to achieve lasting mental tranquility and emotional stability, I would suggest that it might be more prudent to focus on preserving the equilibrium you have already established rather than constantly venturing into new experiments in pursuit of something more.

There is a profound possibility that what you seek will ultimately offer you no true benefit.

One should find contentment in what has been achieved.

"Quote:"

Sandra Morgan2 As stated by: I find myself inclined to agree with Descartes; the old adage "I think, therefore I am" remains fundamentally sound in my estimation.

It is entirely possible that your perspective holds merit. 😁 He simply couldn't afford to rely on circular definitions right from the jump. It is difficult to characterize his approach as true philosophy, given that a philosophical inquiry ought to be anchored in logic—and here, the logical foundation is fundamentally broken from the very beginning.

One cannot simply embed a conclusion within the initial premise of a first assumption. While such a structure might possess some inherent mysticism or perhaps a value that remains obscure to me, the formulation itself is ultimately hollow; it fails to offer any real explanation and serves no functional purpose in the pursuit of clarity.

There exists an inherent function in concealing and mystifying information, though I find little practical value in such tactics when it comes to meaningful discourse. While such obfuscation might serve a purpose within the realm of spiritual practice, it offers nothing to the clarity of our discussion.

"Quote:"

Attempt to reach a state of total mental stillness—which is, after all, the true objective of meditation—and try to remain composed when that sense of "self" begins to dissolve. Once you have reached that threshold, tell me whether you still exist, or if you have truly vanished.

That is a perfectly valid observation; such phenomena are certainly not confined to the practice of meditation alone, but manifest just as readily during sleep, under general anesthesia, or through various neurological conditions and the influence of certain substances.

Daniel Castillo11 explained it quite well—your meditation doesn't imply an ontological disappearance of the "I" agent, but rather its temporary dormancy, a quietening of that central symbol due to the transient shifts in brain function. An ontological disappearance of the "self" would only occur if the capacity to evoke it were permanently and irreversibly disabled.

Daniel Castillo11 said:If we look at this through a phenomenological lens, what you're essentially doing in that moment is untangling yourself from all that verbal, cognitive, and affective baggage. It's quite clear that the neurotic habit of clinging to everything just snaps. That's what people call mindfulness. However, the "Self" doesn't vanish on an ontological level. It only truly disappears when you stop thinking entirely, which is basically when you're dead. This feeling of "I" is your defining characteristic; it follows you everywhere. Even in the deepest meditative states, it remains present in the unconscious. There is a distinction between mindfulness—that deep, non-verbal focus on pure experience rather than mental content—and the awareness of concepts, language, and linguistic constructs, but that distinction is purely subjective. The focus shifts, the perspective changes, but that individual experience alone isn't enough to let us draw any concrete conclusions about the actual nature of consciousness.

Now, Advaita Vedanta is perfectly fine when it comes to phenomenology; it does a wonderful job, both technically and poetically, of describing that existential vacuum that occurs before we start layering on concepts, memes, and various identities. But in my view, it adds nothing to the question of ontology—it offers no proof that consciousness exists independently of the brain.

But then again, that's just my take, which is pretty much aligned with Wandov's, and us naturalists are definitely in the minority here. 🙂

My own way of looking at it is this: I am, therefore I think. The moment I falter, the thinking stops. While I am thinking and while I am living, I can choose how and when to employ different perspectives of consciousness. In other words, I get to decide how to experience my present moment. To me, there's no "winner" in this debate. Both perspectives—focusing on the content of thought versus focusing on raw experience—have their specific merits and drawbacks depending on the situation. One is object-oriented, while the other is process-driven and dynamic. When you're practicing mindfulness, all your attention is directed toward the sensory perception of your body and your surroundings rather than the noise inside your head, and that's perfectly fine. The other extreme is neurosis, where you become overly reactive and tethered to every passing emotion, thought, and impulse.

I have a great deal of respect for spiritual practices, even if I don't buy into their interpretations.

That reality is profoundly saddening 🤣

My personal approach: I am, therefore I think. As soon as I falter, the thinking stops. While I am thinking, while I am living, I can choose how and when to utilize various perspectives of consciousness. In other words, how I experience my present moment.

It is highly questionable what exactly "you choose," whether you truly possess agency, and indeed, who is doing the choosing..

I respect spiritual practices, but I don't accept their interpretations.

Perhaps because those aren't actually interpretations at all, but rather mystifications resting calmly upon unverifiable assumptions.

It is a living demonstration of Shermer's thesis regarding believer-dependent realism. Belief arrives first, and only then follow the reasons used to justify it. In such instances, reasons do not serve to explain the thing itself, but merely to bolster the belief, thus becoming both generated and selected to suit it.

However, as you noted, that is their right... though I believe one should dispel the illusion that they are attempting to provide an actual explanation.

If they were genuinely trying to explain, their hypotheses would be risky and testable, making them epistemologically honest.

Sandra Morgan2 said:Wand, my fellow eternal companion, don't you dare tell me spirituality is just "voodoo."

Any individual possessing self-awareness—that is, an awareness of oneself (being able to grasp the concept of "I" and recognize one's own reflection in a mirror)—is a self-aware person.

That does NOT mean they are self-realized.

Self-realization implies the disappearance of that "I," not its recognition. Not falling in love with it and all that...

Even without stepping into "spirituality," purely from a biological, intellectual, and logical standpoint—it's the same thing. Self-reference applies to anyone with enough interiority to possess a complex enough symbolic system to include the concept of "I," or self-reference.

So what even is the "I" besides being self-referential?

A sufficiently rich system of symbols created it, or rather, it consists of those symbols, memories, the mental stream, conditioned reactions, early childhood programming, blah blah... The "I" is a construct. A construct that isn't even more than the sum of its parts; it has no substance. It's made of mist and feathers because it changes from one minute to the next.

🤣

Quincy:

That doesn't necessarily imply that she possesses true self-awareness.

It is true that self-awareness lacks any tangible substance. Beyond being an ill-defined concept, it functions primarily as an inescapable, self-referential loop.

Quincy:

True self-awareness isn't about finally recognizing the "I" or falling in love with one's own ego; rather, it is the quiet process of that ego gradually fading away.

The disappearance of that "I" signifies nothing less than the total cessation of the self-aware agent.

I believe, therefore, I am.

Whenever I engage in the act of thought, it is an inescapable truth that there must exist a "self" to perform that function. Without this foundational sense of "I," there would be no one to process these ideas, and consequently, existence itself would cease to be.

It cannot be considered a self-aware agent, much like how a garden gnome exists merely as an object without any true consciousness.

Quincy:

If we strip away the layer of self-reference, what remains of the "I" beyond its own reflection?

One must observe the paradox through the lens of an illusion constructed by a self-referential loop and isomorphism.

Quincy:

The self is merely an intricate assembly of symbols—a collection of memories, mental streams, conditioned reflexes, and those early childhood imprints we all carry. In reality, the "I" is nothing more than a construct. It possesses no inherent substance; it is composed of nothing more substantial than mist and feathers, shifting and dissolving with every passing minute.

It is quite evident that change is underway, and it is clear that everything previously mentioned is merely a construct.

I find myself in complete agreement.

Sandra Morgan2 said:Urbanwalker72, you total party pooper 🙂

Now they know exactly how to checkmate me.

You've got a point...

but

even if you can't identify someone who is self-aware,
spotting someone who isn't is easy enough.

In that regard, Drew Gray4 is definitely the latter.

😁

but

even if one has achieved self-realization, they might go unnoticed, whereas someone lacking it remains easy to overlook,
it is no easier to find those without it

in this regard, Drew Gray4 falls into the latter category.

Let us address this systematically. It matters little whether an individual is considered 'self-realized' within the context of your specific interpretation of spirituality.

Any person possessing self-awareness—that is, a conscious understanding of oneself, capable of grasping the concept of 'I' and recognizing their own identity—can be defined as self-aware.

Setting aside any metaphysical nuances, from a purely biological, intellectual, and logical standpoint, the principle remains identical. Self-reference applies to anyone with an internal life complex enough to sustain a system of symbols that includes the concept of 'self.'

One cannot escape this fundamental reality, nor can it be analyzed solely through the lens of the 'enlightened.' This condition applies to all human beings, and perhaps even to certain animals.

Sandra Morgan2 said:Phrases? Come on now... that wasn't very kind of you. You can find real depth and wisdom in plenty of books—spiritual or otherwise. They can be informative or even transformative, especially since many great works were written by people with highly developed spirits, high intelligence, and broad educations. We can learn so much from their experiences! Plus, as we know, you're actually writing a book yourself—that’s why you started this thread in the first place, right?

I've never felt the need to write extensively, but with this thread, I wanted to share my feelings and thoughts—things I feel are too important to just keep to myself.

I just wanted to say that by falling in love with myself, I realized my own depth—this unspeakable depth that was hidden behind the superficial physical level I used to inhabit, which I hated and felt ashamed of (referring to my looks, material status, and things like that).

So... what exactly is this "depth"?
What is it made of,
whose is it,
and who is it that discovered it?

When you squeeze an orange, you get orange juice.
An orange can't produce anything other than what is already inside it.

You can't squeeze an orange and get strawberry juice.

So, when you start squeezing a person, what comes out is exactly what they hold inside.
The public persona of a public figure is rarely the same as what lies within.

My questions are meant to squeeze you—to see what is truly inside you. Are you peaceful in the way most non-neurotic, mentally stable people are, or is your peace the kind that comes from true self-realization?

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. When we discuss the concept of self-knowledge, self-reference is logically indispensable. Your analogy regarding the orange and its juice lacks that necessary element of self-reference.

If I were to draft a formal mathematical or logical definition of a self-referential system, I doubt anyone would bother reading it, so instead, I will rely on more familiar, illustrative examples:

Let's start with something simple:

Consider the statement: 'This sentence is false.'

Is this statement true or false? If it is true, then by its own definition, it is false. Conversely, if it is false, then it must be true.

Now, for something slightly more complex:

Imagine there is a town with only one male barber; let's assume all men in this town are regularly shaved. Some men shave themselves, while others go to the barber. We can establish a rule: The barber shaves all those, and only those, men who do not shave themselves. Given these parameters, we face a question: Does the barber shave himself?

As it turns out, the scenario described is actually impossible.

If the barber does not shave himself, then according to the rule, he must shave himself, because he is the one tasked with shaving everyone who doesn't shave themselves.
But if he does shave himself, then according to the rule, he must stop, because he no longer falls into the group of people he is permitted to shave.

Self-referential concepts inherently harbor paradoxes, regardless of the subject matter—a fact that was spectacularly proven through formal logic by Kurt Gödel and Gregory Chaitin.

Any system that possesses enough complexity to speak about itself must, by necessity, contain paradoxes.

Therefore, if you intend to logically analyze someone's self-discovery, your analysis must be built upon concepts involving self-reference, rather than the juice of an orange.

Good luck with your search. 😁

crimsonfox26 said:Exactly right.

I actually have a few good links regarding this topic.😉

urbanwalker72, go ahead and drop those reading recommendations; there are plenty of us interested in diving deeper.😁

Drew Gray4 said:Benjamin Taylor6: I get that people are bitter about their circumstances. Some just brought it on themselves by choosing to view life as an endless uphill battle. And when you live like that, you end up fighting...

I don't want to overshare, but if you think six years of mental illness just appeared out of thin air, you’re mistaken. It’s the same with my own life—it has been a constant struggle just to maintain our family's basic existence (the way we’ve understood survival since early childhood), dealing with health issues in the immediate circle, pulling ourselves out of various messes, and things like that. Everyone has a story. There’s a book by Viktor Frankl—'Man's Search for Meaning'—about a man who found purpose even in the depths of Auschwitz. If you want to compare existential hardships, there will always be someone who had it worse than you.

Ultimately, I don't believe any of those people or children are actually starving. They aren't dying of hunger. At the very least, they could get a meal at a local soup kitchen and meet their most basic needs for existence—which, if we're talking about the bare essentials, is just food and water. Everything else is an upgrade—Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if I recall correctly from school. I might be caricaturing a bit here, but I hope you see my point.

Take Željko Mavrović, for example. He has a young daughter who, from what I gather, has cerebral palsy. If you look him up online—check out his interview on a major US Sunday morning news program—you'll see he isn't someone stuck in a victim mentality. He doesn't waste time asking "Why me?", "What did I do to God?", or "How can everyone else live normally?" while venting like most people do when tragedy strikes. Instead, he offers a profound, deeply considered reflection on everything he’s faced, from his boxing career to failed businesses and the fear of losing his child multiple times.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to check the links you sent because I'm at work, but I'm sure they all represent heavy burdens and difficult fates. However, a burden can be carried with grace if it's carried out of love. Out of a genuine love for life itself.

urbanwalker72: On the contrary, feel free to send them.

If anyone is interested in exploring how the world's leading cognitive scientists and philosophers define the concept of the "self"—specifically whether such an entity can exist, or if your idea of an "eternal self" might be reconciled without falling into the trap of heavy dualism—I would suggest the following readings:

Available in English:

- Douglas Hofstadter: 'I Am a Strange Loop'
- Steven Pinker: 'The Blank Slate'

For those comfortable with the original English texts:

- Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett: 'Minds I'
- Daniel Dennett: 'Kinds of Mind'
- Steven Pinker: 'How the Mind Works'
- Ray Kurzweil: 'How to Create a Mind'
- Marvin Minsky: 'The Society of Mind'

Drew Gray4 said:Sandra Morgan2: No, I haven't swapped them out in three years. I went through them pretty frequently during those first three years... and generally speaking, yeah, they wouldn't have lasted nearly this long.

To address the question I missed earlier... I'm not exactly an expert at articulating things in such a spiritual sense, nor have I devoured enough literature to pull sophisticated phrases out of thin air. What I was trying to convey is that I've finally learned to love myself. I’ve come to realize my own depth—an unspeakable depth that was previously obscured by my physical appearance, which I used to loathe and feel ashamed of (I'm referring to my looks, my financial standing, and things of that nature).

crimsonfox26, you hit the nail on the head: acceptance. It's about not fighting everything around you or within you. Life isn't a battle. So many people pay a heavy price for that mindset because they view everything as a struggle, and when you frame life as a fight, there's always the risk of losing. But personally, I can't lose anything, because I don't own anything besides myself—and since I am timeless, I can't possibly lose who I am. Something like that. :-)

Should you decide to pursue reading, I would be happy to suggest some titles; however, my intention would not be to provide you with catchy phrases, but rather to help you navigate away from logical paradoxes..

crimsonfox26 said:Drew Gray4....great topic here 😁

Anyway, since I started hanging out in this sub and reading through all these accounts of enlightenment, spiritual awakenings, and wild visions... it feels to me like it all eventually boils down to just grasping how simple life actually is. It’s about accepting whatever comes our way without getting too caught up in endless philosophical gymnastics or trying to run away from who we really are 🤷

I'm definitely not trying to offend anyone; if anything, reading these threads is actually quite motivating for me personally 😉

That highlighted point is the core observation: accepting what life brings is synonymous with achieving a certain spiritual tranquility.

Some individuals navigate this through a belief in the supernatural, divine events, or higher beings, while others remain fully prepared to accept reality without any such framework.

This explains why only a select few truly achieve inner peace or reach a state of being "awake"... and if you think about it, they are incredibly rare, appearing across all spectrums of both the faithful and the atheists.

This phenomenon suggests that neither organized religion nor spiritual movements serve as a guarantee for a meaningful spiritual life. If they did, we would see a vast majority of Americans who identify as religious enjoying total inner peace, yet we can clearly see that is not the case.

Drew Lewis11 said:http://osijek-cro.com/video-sport/hr...tvo-kickboxing

Hey everyone, has there been any official word on whether that fight in Indianapolis is actually happening?
If it is, does anyone know the date, the venue, or where I can grab tickets? There isn't anything posted on the official site yet. 🙂

I believe you should find the current lineup quite impressive:

Ricco Rodriguez, a former UFC champion, remains a massive name in the American combat sports scene even as he nears the twilight of his career. Then we have Stipe Miocic, one of the most promising heavyweights in the country and a recent victor over Ricco, followed by Antun račić, who stands out as perhaps the premier 70 kg fighter in the region, and Pavel Žuravljev, an exceptional kickboxer.

Should the crowd turn out, it promises to be a truly remarkable event; the combination of Ricco's seasoned technique, the unstoppable force of Delija and Račić, and the fluid precision of Žuravljev ensures a main card of the highest caliber.