Hey folks. If this resonates with you at all, you really need to talk to your doctor about depression. I'm seeing a lot of textbook symptoms being mentioned in here.
I'm an addict
201–210 of 602 posts
Re: I'm an addict
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not against religion, but you just want to add you don't need religion to get what I think is the good core of religions: healing stories and narratives, texts, mantras, rituals that help you in the moment, a community which shares your perspective and in the end, an explanation for existential dread, horrible things happenings and a way to get meaning . You can find it in humanism, you can find it in secular phi…
The difference is that religion is usually a known & tried way to run a society. It may be not perfect, but otherwise old religions wouldn't survive. Meanwhile many modern replacements usually don't have any longevity. Maybe one of them will survive but only time will tell.
I thinking you're confusing causality here.
The vast majority have staying power because of two primary things. Have children, teach those children your religion. In the days before mass education and when huge numbers of children died in early age making this a memnatic was an important way for societal continuation.
This says nothing about it's continued usefulness after a paradigm shift.
Re: I'm an addict
#203> my memory is very, very fallible
You need sufficient sleep to make short-term memories last. Author already said he’s not getting enough sleep.
Re: I'm an addict
#204I dont like the idea of replacing the time spend compulsively procrastinating with "learning a new language, getting a pet, going to the gym" is the right way. I see the root cause (for me atleast (used to read HN and blogs for 4 hours everyday)) is that i cant stand being with myself. During the last two months ive been trying to not panic when i'm idle. And not take out my phone or read the nearest material i can l…
I agree with you on not liking the idea of changing your time sinks. I ran into a similar problem as your's with Reddit, and realized it was because I did not really like my self.
Somewhere along the way I realized I had not day dreamed or used my imagination for a long time because it was so easy to "read the nearest material I can lay my hands on".
To add to your advice I would suggest to try to find out who you are without outside material and to get comfortable with this self.
Re: I'm an addict
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I recommend religion and religious teachings which address this and many other daily worldly issues perfectly. This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist. To me, Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. If you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from thos…
To me, Theology is really philosophy + God. That's kinda the beauty of it, you can interpret it however you like or however it fits you at the time. If you don't want the + God right now, just consider the philosophy. >Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view Plato's The Cave allegory is relevant, even though no one would ever live in a cave like that and it's obviously fiction.…
I think philosophy without faith is nice but doesn't have the same benefits at all. I think what makes religious people happier is the strong sense of community and offloading some of their existential angst to a third party.
Re: I'm an addict
#206> I'm simply incapable of doing things I've set out to do. Simple things. Everything is difficult. “Independent discharges of dopamine neurons (tonic or pacemaker firing) determine the motivation to respond to such cues. As a result of habitual intake of addictive drugs, dopamine receptors expressed in the brain are decreased, thereby reducing interest in activities not already stamped in by habitual rewards. ” From:…
Also from Huberman: "Controlling Your Dopamine For Motivation, Focus & Satisfaction" [1]
Re: I'm an addict
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually dangerous advice for a lot of forms of addiction... You MUSTN'T quit certain substances cold turkey, especially after prolonged abuse, because the intake of them are part of the body's homeostasis. It's also very inconsiderate... Addiction generally has much deeper roots than just "craving the high" since it can be maladaptive coping mechanisms people develop due to traumatic childhoods (or later lif…
You are reading a lot more into my comment that isn't there. I am specifically talking about alcohol as the comment is about AA. AA generally recommends stopping cold turkey, so you are also contradicting AA. I was an alcoholic and now I am not. I don't think it is easy but it is relatively simple. A lot of stuff that is glommed onto recovery from alcoholism obscures the fact that you have to stop using the drug, tha…
Then AA is wrong.
For many drinkers, suddenly stopping can be life threatening, causing seizures and convulsions.
I also stopped drinking, effectively cold turkey - but I wasn't a very heavy drinker, just a habitual one. However, I rejected AA as far too prescriptive in its approach.
For anyone reading this who is considering quitting alcohol I recommend r/stopdrinking on reddit, which is an incredibly friendly and supportive place where people practice and discuss a variety of methods.
Re: I'm an addict
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion is a modern word. Religious people did not refer to them as religious before. It was all part of life itself.
How modern is modern? I have sources back to at least the 1490s which clearly use the word 'religion' (and many more, earlier, sources that use the latin 'religionem') ...
The word has been changing for a long time. For lack of a better way to put it, think of it as the difference between an insider's word and an outsiders. Older texts almost always have an implicit reference to a particular faith in it. A 16th writer who says "he is a religious man" means that "he is an observant $SECT". In modern uses, it almost always means "he believes in this class of beliefs and practices". The reason I refer to it as an outsiders term is that it groups together groups that don't generally think of themselves as one.
Modern usages of the word "religion" group Christians and Muslims (for example), groups that would see themselves as distinct.
Interestingly, you can see a bridge period of sorts. If you think back to characters in movies of the 30s and 40s saying "I am not a religious man, but..." or "I am not a praying man, but..." you can kind of see the shift. A little reference to the good standing meaning but also some of the outsider type frame.
Re: I'm an addict
#209We're all being sucked in the internet. It's so easy to become addict to video, podcasts, games, etc. nowadays that I would not be surprised if that becomes a major society issue.
I always thought in 20 years, Facebook (or its equivalent) will have warning labels similar to how cigarettes do now. People should be free to do as they please, but I would hope that as a society, we would at least inform people as to what the actual product is designed to do. You could think of it like the nutrition labels on food. Imagine a pop up when you log onto reddit saying "this site on average engages users…
Someone make this a browser extension!
Re: I'm an addict
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
In broad strokes, yep.
I'm an atheist, yet I don't think science can answer why we exist and what is the meaning of life. I think those questions are syntactically valid but semantically invalid. We kind of (in the 'broad strokes' you say) think ( ) we know how we got here, how life got started, etc. But why? How do you know that? It's an honest question because, again, I don't think that question makes sense so I'd love to know your take…
A fair response to my blithe and confident answer. In general, though, we have figured enough out to understand our origin well enough to rule out religious theories in our existence. To reduce things the way you did is a denial of progress at some level, while couching it in caution against trusting science too far. Our first bridges sucked, now they are better. Our first stabs at cosmology were not much better than another religion, now they are better. Is there some bad knowledge kicking around in science? Of course. That is why I said in “broad strokes”.
To cut to the chase: our brains are just piles of chemistry. There is no meaning. We make it up, and that is ok. “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature. Maybe there is a Deus ex Machina in there, but for our purposes does it really matter?