If you skimmed the above summary, you might get the idea that the conclusion would run along the lines that there must be "a ghost in the machine", that-which-experiences, a soul, but the conclusion is the opposite! We can see the experiences in the lab: the auditory cortex, made of material cells, very much part of this world, does some work which is the sensation of an internal voice.

In other words, the p-zombie is an impossible postulate because the material world is sufficient to create experiences. If the material world is sufficient to create experiences, there's nothing left for a soul to do. What's it there for?

It's rather the belief in souls (dualism) that requires also claiming that p-zombies are possible, so that the soul can be said to add something.

In the book The Incomplete Enchanter, the hero is transported to a magical world based on Norse myth, where technology doesn't work, so naturally when the hero tries to strike a match, it fails to catch aflame.

But if you were transported into such a system of physics, you would die… because your cells live on combustion too.

This is an example of why you usually can't retcon any part of our physics, because you end up with an universe that can't support life. All the physics laws tie into each other; reality is laced together a lot more tightly than people realize.

• Timeline of people born
• Universal Fire

You know situations like when you deadlifted 115 kg last time, and today you come into the gym feeling particularly good, thinking you can shoot for 120 kg to 'leap ahead'?

Even if you're sure you can do 120, shoot for 117.5 kg anyway according to plan.

The problem with leaping ahead is you rob yourself. You need to make sure you enjoy every gym-visit, and a part is 'seeing the numbers go up'. One 5-kg leap creates about as big a burst of satisfaction as two 2.5-kg leaps, and you miss out on the second burst.

Not to mention that it often goes like this: 115, 120, … 115 again and suddenly you're not having as much fun. If instead you have patience and go 115, 117.5, 120, … then you've also done two separate days above 115 so your body is better prepared for the attempt at 122.5, and in any case you'll backslide less often.

In the "newbie-gains" period, the numbers easily go up, and that's actually a luxury—why rush it? Milk it for the positive feedback loop as long as it lasts.

Plus, hypothetically, if 120 kg is going to be the end of your newbie-gains, then if you spend 2 months on the path from 90 kg to 120 kg, you're much more able to continue beyond, than if you'd only spent 1 month on an accelerated path.

On the accelerated path, you ride a strong upward curve and suddenly hit a plateau – no fun! Avoid facing this contrast. By calming down with the upward curve, you also won't plateau later.

When gains are easy, slow down. Slow down and enjoy.

"Starting" seems an overwhelming commitment. Of couse you'll put it off.

What if you never officially start? You're just working out today, for fun, not to advance a planned progression.

You set yourself up to feel guilty at some point once an app reminds you "hey it's been two weeks since your last workout"… bad idea.

Instead of being on the wagon so you can fall off it, consider yourself to always be off the wagon. There is no wagon.

On any given day, you can go or not go, as you prefer.

I suspect it can be a good strategy to just pay for once-off visits. For the same money that a membership costs, you can do around 4 once-off visits per month, depending on the gym.

Without membership, you're free of all the mental crap associated with "gotta make use of this membership", which may not be a good mindset, compared to going every time because you want to. And observing yourself pay for the session will crank up your subconscious valuation of the session.

• Portal: On my mind

Some research showed that the fastest writers do this, instead of sticking only with cursive or only with print.

I believe your basic approach would be cursive-first, and just changing some letters for the print version. I'm guessing the following print letters tend to be faster:

• b, h, k, l, q

It also probably depends on what letter came before, so it's a bit of an art.

Omit the initial stroke on these letters: m, n, r, u

Draw these in a single stroke instead of two strokes: d, g, p, q

Draw s as a backwards c.

Omit the step where you "cross the T's and dot the I's". It looks weird but you get used to it. Letters affected: f, i, j, t

Do all the above, and I expect you'll need no cursive at all.

For example:

• the -> ·
• you -> u
• your -> ur
• these -> dz
• this -> ds
• that -> dt
• make -> mk
• are -> r
• and -> n
• with -> w
• without -> w/o
• people -> ppl
• conversation -> convo
• them -> em
• because -> bc
• explanation -> xpl
• have -> hv
• high -> hi
• is -> s
• habit of dropping a vowel letter here and there
  • everything starting with "ex" -> start with "x"

It can be either an acronym you make on the spot, like if you're writing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics then the acronym "SLOT" will be clear from the context, or it can be a clipped word like "ind." for "independence".

Trust in your future-self to make sense of it.

If you're worried your future-self won't make sense of a particular abbrev, I guess you can add a legend for that one in the margins, afterward. But I'll bet usually as long as you make it obvious this is an abbreviation (clipped words should always have a dot at the end), that's enough to cue future-you into searching the context for meaning.

Sentences needn't be complete. Many word-classes can be omitted. "Chair on table" is equally clear as "a chair on a table".

For example, you can write "A sentence needn't be grammarly…" even though you know you can't find "grammarly" in any dictionary. Future-you will probably understand, and that's all that matters.