Sort of, but it generally goes more like: base/perineum, genitals, navel, heart, throat, forehead, and then one at the top of the head or just above. The Sefer Yetzirah, however, references specifically "Head, Belly, and Chest" as the three loci of the human body. (§ 3.4-5)
There's a healthy debate about whether the dantien is below the navel being mistranslated as near the pubic bone versus three inches toward your spine, either in your viscera or in the lowest layers of muscle in your abdominal wall.
We don’t know if we are experiencing the same thing.
Ultimately, muscle guarding can be bad for your health. I can only agree that I’ve experienced muscle unlocking, and the visualizations associated with that concept definitely facilitated that. I can’t say much beyond that. But I’m sure I could find you people who would happily jump to conclusions.
American software engineer here, and I have only used LLM tools ~3 dozen times: tried at work a few times, and been unimpressed/actively frustrated; a few times to ask questions I would be normally survey blog posts about (social/lifestyle things); and the rest has been generating images with my kids.
But currently, aside from generating "creative media", I'd say I'm pretty much opposed to LLM tools. They have yet to demonstrate any value to me at work or with respect to the areas of research I am interested in, and given the kind of statistical mechanism that they are, I do not believe they are capable of doing so.
Interesting take, because I'm the opposite of it. My biggest use case is getting into a completely new topic, as it's the most frictionless starting point for most of the queries. Then I look around based on the rudimentary knowledge that I can gather from LLMs. However, I'm completely opposed to any sort of creative media created by LLMs and try to avoid it as much as I can (music, images, and etc.).
Also, it has become the natural workflow for me to throw bunch secondary priority work stuff to Claude and let it do its things, while I focus on the important stuff.
My point is, everyone finds a way to use it. Some are opposed to specific things, others are using other parts.
These takes feel like a failure compared to my daily usage, which is literally non-stop for ten hours a day. Want to construct a niche jq, curl, or find linux command? Can't remember the parameters for a function? Don't want to leave your terminal to search for something? ctrl+I and type in readable english.
Note: If you have a mid-range to lower end phone, battery optimization might stop your playback anyway by default. You can exclude Firefox from battery optimization though.
To be fair, the description of the dragon incident is pretty mundane, and all he does is prove that the large reptile they had previously been feeding (& worshiping) could be killed:
"Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder: and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship."
The story is pretty clearly meant to indicate that the Babylonians were worshiping an animal though. The theology of the book of Daniel emphasises that the Gods of the Babylonians don't exist, this story happens around the same time Daniel proves the priests had a secret passage they were using to get the food offered to Bel and eat it at night while pretending that Bel was eating it. Or when Daniel talks to King Belshazzar and says "You have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose power is your very breath and to whom belong all your ways, you have not honored". This is not to argue for the historical accuracy of the stories, just that the point is that Daniel is acting as a debunker of the Babylonian beliefs in these stories while asserting the supremacy of the Israelite beliefs.
>"It does not always give the best advice possible in a situation. It will not necessarily make its wearer King, or help her solve the miseries of the world. But its advice is always better than what the wearer would have come up with on her own."
I think one very simple explanation would be that this comes down to a matter of exploration vs exploitation. Since it is only giving "better" advice, and not even 'locally optimal', there is reason to favor exploring vs merely following the advice unquestioningly.
A more complex, but ultimately comprehensive answer, is that free will consists, at least in one aspect, in the ability not only to choose one's goals or means, but also what _aspect_ of those various options to consider "good" or "better".
And if one were to say that all such considerations ultimately resolve back to a fundamental desire to be "happy", to me, this seems to be hand-waving, rather than addressing the argument, because different people have different definitions of the "happy" end-state. If these differences were attributed fully to biology & environment, the story loses its impact, because there was never free will in the first place. If, while reading the story, we adopt a view that genuine free will exists, and hold some kind of agnosticism about the possible means by which that can be so, then it seems reasonable to attribute at least some of the differences in what the "happy" end-state looks like to the choices made by the people, themselves.
Given that kind of freedom, unless one has truly perfect knowledge (beyond the partial knowledge contained in the advice of the earring), the pursuit of one's goals seems to unavoidably entail some regrets. And with perfect knowledge, well... The kind of 'freedom' attributed, for example, to God by philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, is explicitly only analogous to our own, and is understood to be an unchanging condition, rather than a sequential act.
(As a final note: One might wonder what this 'freedom to choose aspects' approaches as an 'asymptotic state' -- that is, for an immortal person. And this leads to metaphysical concerns -- of course, with some things 'smuggled in' by the presumption of genuine freedom, already. Provided one agrees that human nature undeniably provides some structure to ultimate desires/"happiness", the idea of virtue ethics follows naturally, and from there many philosophers have arrived at similar notions of some kind of apotheosis as a stable end-state, as well as the contrary state of some kind of scattering or decay of the mind...)
I struggled on a few days' puzzles under the assumption that there _was_ a perfect solution possible -- It may be worth noting in the "help" that not all lettersets can be solved perfectly.
Most people, past or present, have had to do whatever labor they can to (hopefully) simply survive at the contextual standard of living. Some kids may love a parent who lets them go hungry so they can do work they don't dislike as much -- but the other adults around them probably won't have such a generous view, and I think rightly so.
reply