Doesn't seem obvious to me at all. Could you demonstrate? Using real-life evidence? I suspect there is a fair amount of the, ahem, nirvana fallacy happening here.
For example, If I am an AGI researcher and I have a self-referential narrative, that's distracting me from the process of writing a paper, however its in majority of cases not there when writing, but during downtime.
...The nirvana fallacy "The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the
Since super-intelligence isn't the only existential threat I am aware of, I wonder why you don't think 'enlightenment' isn't necessary for our species survival? From the point of view of my brain, under the spell of this default mode, it seems obvious that it at least not beneficial for outcomes that are very complex. For example, for simplicity, if whatever I am, research AGI and there is self-referential thought with attachment to that thought, that's distracting.
I'm not sure what part our default mode is cause or correlation with for example sustainabil...
Well, using your terms, we all need to achieve enlightenment if our species is to survive, on Earth, Mars, or wherever. We're running out of time, with super-intelligence a few decades away. It starts with myself (or yourself from your perspective), as we are interconnected its the only way to do this. Otherwise everyone will demand others to achieve it and no one to actually do it.
I'm not all that familiar with Buddhism, but probably a lot is distraction and unnecessary, as with all religions there comes dogma alongside it. We need to do this secular, as ...
The 'dystopian' present is outside ones own suffering as well, this article is also about our species survival. The external world is always changed by oneself, all different nodes in this network of individuals, so by changing oneself, one changes the world. By that I mean one has only direct access to brain however that works... and the rest is indirect.
So yes, change yourself for your own suffering, but by changing yourself you change the world (How else would it be? change others? It's still your own doing by a change you made of yourself)
Rarely anyone...
The connection between our current 'dystopian' present and our default mode of being, if even that, and the possible solution for both now and the future. A mars colony would lead to the same scenario if the default mode isn't changed, for example. But a parallel civilization to Earth won't be outside the grasp of super-intelligence.
Unfortunately it seems unlikely as if any will change, like existential risk researchers. But nonetheless, one should only focus on oneself. That's the mistake I do by telling you this. (In the sense I have not changed my OS yet, and think I know what's right from the same type of being)
I don't think it's a word salad, since you didn't say what the salad is I will have to guess. Operating System is used for symbolic logic, subject/doing/object and the usage of terms related to operating systems is referred to processes which one undergoes but not literally.
What is worthwhile is:
a) Use software removal tools on the ego/I program and its subroutine "I am this body."
b) Discontinue using and supporting the confirmation bias program.
c) Discontinue using the reciprocal altruism program and replace with an open source version. Because I think it's a worthwhile avenue for investigation, regarding existential risk reduction and self-improvement. Each user here is like a node in a large network, our species, and positive impact can be great if we only changed ourselves. I'm guilty of not doing so. So take what I say with that in mind.
Nootropics or stimulants are to be re-dosed and used constantly? Many have side-effects in such a manner, subject to dependence and tolerance. If y... (read more)