Well that’s true. Say. You want to be the first to take a stab at the question I’ve been asking?
Would you mind restating it for me?
(I also need to leave for work soon; looking forward to enjoying my 8 mins of electric scooter bliss)
Ah, yes.
I was looking up Apollo 15 measurements of the moon’s temperature to get a better grasp on that angle.
The Soviets sent a few probes to Venus (which lasted about an hour on the surface) and there are obviously the Mars exploration robots too.
Getting an average temperature for those planets (and moon) is a bit more involved.
They have temperature readings at the spots that the probes/astronauts took them, however its hardly an average temperature.
To definitely confirm the accuracy of average temperatures of other planets, far more extensive measurements would be needed.
So, it goes back to the the rabbit hole of building a computer model.
Unless you have a spare few billion dollars to take the actual measurements, we are left with “they said it is so, thus it is so” science regarding other planets.
Agreed in principle. If the measurements were extensive enough and they were in line with the Boltzmann predictions, would that be a good reason to use Boltzmann as a starting point to model our climate?
Indeed, if the -18C (which the link you posted says) is correct, then the greenhouse effect is a fact.
The first part of that article shows however the weakness of the calculations.
The albido!
They use the albido of the earth as it is now in the calculation.
That is the silliness.
then the greenhouse effect is a fact.
Well I wouldn’t go that far. There still could be other causes of a sustained hotter climate. We just don’t know what they would be.
We do know, but don’t like admitting that it’s a fact; The sun.
I don’t think anyone has a problem admitting the Sun is a cause of heat.
1 Like
Whatever that star does, those untold gazillion tons of hydrogen and progressively heavier elements does, is 99.9999% of everything going on in the solar system.
1 Like
granted
It’s time for me to leave the house.
I am interested to see where your interest takes you on this.
That was the fun for me.
I’ve noticed from other posts that you see it as a “win” if the person you rebutt in deep detail doesn’t respond point by point to you. So guess what; you’ve won another round! 
In all seriousness - without responding to everything, you seem to have (perhaps willingly) missed the point of what I was saying. You don’t need to make out I’m against facts or whatever else, pretty reductive argument. I was talking about how much of your identity is linked to being an actualism defender ( à la Alan).
So you linked me an example of how you did, on one occasion, dare to question Richard. If I’m not mistaken, having read the example - you literally realised after two months that you were totally wrong about it and Richard had been totally right, no? Hardly a win for independent thinking.
Again - I didn’t say aligning with facts was what prison was. I was referring to your obvious desire to emulate Richard - be it in opinions, writing style etc. That’s what I was referring to, about burdening yourself with additional layers of identity. At times you get so worked up about it, it reminds me of Srid a bit. Can you feel any strong emotions when you are writing about this stuff - like a strong desire to end up on the right side? That’s how it comes across at least.
Surely we can take the best of the website without having to drink the cordial on every opinion Richard has ever held? Is it because you think it will help you become free faster or something?
You end by challenging me to come up with something Richard has said which isn’t factual. It’s so strange to me that you think that would be hard to do. He must indeed be omniscient!
PS - thanks for the quote though from my PCE that was dope to re-read 
There is something weird going on on this forum currently. It kind of reminds me of one of the pioneers seeing Richard as a lunatic/madman at some point, I don’t remember who it was precisely. It all seems back to front…
It’s the method that is at fault, it’s the actually free that are biased etc
Is this referring to things I have said? I don’t have time to rebutt all the comments on here atm 
. We need a chatgpt plug in on this app to save some time haha.
To be clear, I’m not trying to attack R&V or even debate them on any given topic - especially not re the method - though I don’t think they are correct about all topics by default. Definitely not. That is no diminishment on their contributions regarding actual freedom, and no lack of appreciation for their involvement in discussing such matters
Regarding the method: I’m not saying feeling good isn’t fundamental - I just don’t think that saying the method is “feeling good each moment again” is in itself a method for how to feel good. So much of it is stuff to do with awareness, working out how one is getting in the way, enjoying and appreciating etc etc. Feeling good each moment again is more of a standard than a method per se. There’s a lot that has to be worked out to reach that standard, based on direct experience of what works - whether tracing back, investigating, naïveté etc etc. That being said - from the point of an actually free person, that whole journey is identity based. But we can’t act like we are there already as if it made it somehow silly to talk about practical issues with implementing the method.
And then regarding the ‘belief’/bias based stuff you mention - essentially how much one dares to question R&V - I’d say that if one was going to wait to use one’s brain until after one becomes free, one might not have enough brains to become free.
Yeah the ‘method is at fault’ bit is referring to what you wrote in your journal recently. But in general I am referring to a certain vibe or approach that I am observing from writings. It’s very hard to put my finger on it, the below is the closest I can come to describing it.
I remember getting into gaming when I was a kid and someone described to me what a ‘noob’ is - essentially someone who has no clue what they are talking about but because of their utter lack of experience they behave as if they know everything back to front already, the funny thing is that they are not even aware of the depth of their ineptitude so they act as if they are experts, you don’t know what you don’t know.
I should clarify I am definitely not calling anyone some kind of actualist noob (therefore implying myself to be some actualist expert by virtue of making such a claim).
It is just the best I can describe this tendency. It is attacking the ones that have been there and done that from a place of ineptitude/ignorance. What they are saying cannot be the case because ‘I’ cannot see it from where ‘I’ am sitting, but where exactly am ‘I’ sitting? From which vantage point am I assessing?
Haha Ok. But do you see questioning things as an attack? Or a ‘noob’ move?
What do you think this process is, if not a “trying on” of a method that someone has relayed to you. You think you should just take everything on authority?
My diary is an expression of my own testing ground - not a pulpit. To that extent it does indeed show my viewpoint. One persons expression of their attempt to do this.
As such things can change - I might say stuff that is totally wrong and I’ll disregard later. That’s fine though right? or do you think you have to be some sort of “model” citizen of actualism for things to work? You do seem to write in a way that is pretty safe - I used to do that I looked like the perfect actualist haha.
I mean I don’t see these “attacks” you are talking about. Unless you think not paying lip service to their authority all the time is a type of attack?
I respect R&Vs expertise and advice fully - if that’s not clear. I consider them friends almost They have always treated me very well - and we have had super frank conversations about topics like homosexuality etc.
But I’m not going to become free by riding their coat tails - hence why you see I do not write about them much, or those issues. despite having spent a lot of time with them. Im not interested in global warming or whether or not they have on point opinions on social matters. None of that stuff matters to me right now. Only working out the next steps for my process.
And it’s called a ‘psychic maze’ because you do hit dead ends along the way - so I’m more than happy to be super wrong and a noob 
Depending on where one is operating from but I see it as potentially a counterproductive habit/approach.
It’s like if I am in an area I’ve never been to before and I ask a local for directions. When he proceeds to explain to me - “turn right after the shop and you will see a hill”, it would not be sensible to question him on whether he is sure that the shop is not a school and the hill is actually on the left side, why? Because i’ve never seen the place.
1 Like
Nah . Im not just dimissing advice left and right like I know everything. Im applying the advice to my own circumstances and obstacles. And from that, drawing my own insights.
In terms of your map analogy - it’s not like the school and the hill thing. Because the obstacles you will face are entirely unique to you. The map doesn’t show you
any of the obstacles that will stop you along the way - and we all have different ones.
So it’s like Richard says ‘head north’ - but you and I might be starting with 1000km distance between each other. Or you might get find it easy right close to the end and hit a massive wall of fear that you never get past. Or Srinath may have got stuck because he had social identity stuff. Vineeto ran away from actualism for 2 years at the very start. It’s individual.
But I’m not sure in any case how the following was not clear (and moderate - seen as you seem to like to be moderate) enough for you:
I’m advising people to follow their own experience, and see what works and what doesn’t.
In my view the actualism website essentially gives you some parameters, to guide you towards the experience of the PCE. But it isn’t some perfect toolkit thing which you just follow and it works - that’s clear.
Another aspect is where you start from. People all have different psychology, different baselines, different personalities, different circumstances etc.
You can tell all people “head north and you’ll get there” but getting there - including obstacles faced along the way and the time it takes to reach the destination - is entirely dependent on where an individual starts.
So why do you take issue with me describing my progress with becoming free (in my own diary, no less)? It’s called the psychic maze for a reason😃. And guess what, with a maze you hit roadblocks. You take wrong turns. You question things and reconsider your approach at different points.
Do you think that’s not allowed? Maybe you have a fear of stepping outside the bounds, or a belief in being well behaved on some level, if you are pulling me for supposed insubordination. Coming up against that would be one example of an obstacle of yours that would hinder your progress. If you were to only trust the map in that instance, but not your own experience and intelligence, you wouldn’t have any of your own intuition to rely on.
The whole point of actualism is to have the obstacle of yourself. If you already felt perfect all the time, you would already be free. So you’re being covertly hypocritical/holier than thou - because you can’t say that you do feel good come what may (therefore there’s obstacles you have where the method isn’t working for you).