zurew

I find it refreshing though, that he is not bought into every position (mostly conspiracy theories), that most new age people blindlessly bought into. Even though if he is a grifter, it would be convenient for him to just go balls to the wall with all those conspiracy theories (cause most of his audience is aligned with them). For example, he rejected the vaccine conspiracy stuff and if I remember correctly, he has reasonable takes on institutions as well. I saw him losing some portion of his audience after they realised he is pro covid vaxx. Basically, - based on what I have seen about his stuff- it seems to me, that he usually has nuanced takes and not ideologically driven takes.

Yeah I understand that and I can agree that it can be really effective and valid when it comes to talking about certain things that cannot be conveyed in normal logic (like talking about the absolute or infinity) - but when it comes to relative domain stuff, I think we should strive to be as strict and clear as we possibly can, without being loose with our words. I sort of agree with this as well (and I mostly tream him as an entertainer), however the problem is that Bashar doesn't act like an entertainer, he acts and conveys himself as an actual guru/teacher (someone who delivers actual knowledge/teachings) and that could be problematic. He makes a ton of descriptive claims about reality and about spirituality as well. For example the 5 laws:

Most of his teachings seems to be too vague to me and I think thats a problem, because it opens up the interpreter to misinterpret the core of the message. For instance the 'follow your passion without any insistance or expectation on the outcome' - sounds good, but really vague. How can you tangibly differentiate between following true passion vs being compulsive towards something (that hiding itself as a passion)? The other example is the idea of synchronicity - that if you follow your true passion everything in your life will come together without you needing to worry about the specifics or money or anything. To me, this seems to be a potentially very dangerous advice , but besides that, this idea is an attempt to try to use it as kind of a law to explain stange or special events (that may or may not happen in your life) , but the problem is that no grounding or justification is given for this "law" - it just put forth as an idea and you have to go with it. The other problem is that most of his teachings seem to be unfalsifiable. Beside all that, I find it interesting that some of his stuff seem to be very similar to Leo's stuff: Nothing in reality has built in meaning Reality is infinitely complex, but it is not complicated. Permission slips The third one is especially interesting:

This is not true and very easy to refute. For example, one criticism of pseudoscience is the lack of rigor and bad/loose inference making. That obviously doesn't apply to all sciences.

I think in the video (what I linked) there he explains it pretty well, but if you have further specific questions or any confusion about the data or anything related to the project you can directly ask him - he will explain it in detail. You can reach him on twitter or at his discord server (if that is necessary I can give you the link in pm). Almost every day he goes live on twitter and he answers questions regarding the project.

Yep assuming the numbers he used to calculate are correct, it is a pretty strong empirical case against the claim of indiscriminate killing of everyone. Whatever argument someone wants to make against this have to explain this: Why would Israel spend a whole bunch of time, effort, resources, and mission objective compromises just to discriminate away from civilians killings? Now, as I have already said, of course this is not an absolute way of assessing whether Israel has genocidal intent or not, however it has to be appreciated how much weight it holds and whatever arguments somone wants to make against this ,has to hold a lot of weight to counter this stat and calculation.

@Danioover9000 I see you going on a rant and got triggered for some reason, you should cool down before you give a response. Im not falling in any trap, I shared how RR is calculated and what it supposed to represent and what specific argument it supposed to counter and thats it. Now you are connecting this to a whole narrative and other stuff that wasn't mentioned or said at all. I don't know why you are making strawman arguments. You are not even trying to be good faith. I never said there is no connection between destroying buildings to genocide intent, all I said was that alone destroying buildings has a loose correlation to genocide intent. Regarding the Nazi argument. Nazis did kill millions of Jews and if we were to take a look at RR(relative risk) regarding them, then the calculation would show an obvious genocide, without looking at how many buildings were or werent destroyed.

Btw if anyone wants to ask some questions to the guy who created the chart, you can do it on twitter right now (he is live):

Yes it does, the whole point of that chart is to give a quantitative analysis for indiscriminate genocidal intent and it is a counter to the argument of 'But look at the civilian death numbers' . Meaning, that if someone wants to make a counter argument using a quantitative analysis (rather than a qualitative one), then you have to use an even better metric than relative risk (which is used on the chart that I shared). Or you can give a qualitative analysis and counter it that way. I don't see how this is relevant. If more buildings gets destroyed that establishes somehow that there is an intent of genocide? I think there is a loose correlation between genocidal intent and the amount of buildings getting destroyed. I think Relative risk (RR) is a better metric to use, but if you can give an argument why destroying buildings and genocide is closely related, then i am open to hear about it. These arguments are fine in terms, that you try to give a qualitative analysis/argument there, which the chart I shared does not want to counter. Again the chart is just a counter argument to the other quantitative analysis of 'but look at the civilian death number'.

Regarding the claim 'careless targeting/killing of civilians' here is a tweet, that has a graph that calculates the relative risk rather than just stateing how many civilians were killed. It has multiple wars on it , so you can compare and see all the different relative risk values from different wars. https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1751718541621928033/photo/1 The idea that the only variable (how many civillians were killed) is adequate enough to establish that Israel indiscriminately killing everyone is an incredibly bad logic and doesn't make much sense at all. The whole idea of discrimination is to measure how much you differentiate killings between militants and civilians - You need to compare militant death to civilian death (per capita). As you can see on the tweet's graph, relative risk(RR) is calculated this way: (Militants killed/Militant population) / (Civilians killed/Civilian population). Here is his explanation (timestamped) how relative risk is applied in real scenarios:

It doesnt exploit everything - it specifically selects for traits that optimizes for reproduction (survive long enough ,so that you can reproduce) in a given environment. So again you for your argument to work, you would have to make a case for why evolution necessarily has to select for the ability of OBE (meaning there is no scenario when evolution doesn't select for the ability of OBE). If you cant make such a case, then this evolution argument won't be sufficient to debunk OBE. ... and to be clear - even if you could make such a case - there are still ways to get around it by saying: Even though evolution haven't exploited the ability of OBE, it will in the future (because, just because you can make a case that evolution haven't exploited a trait yet, from that doesn't necessarily follow that in the future it won't).

You use this point about evolution as if it would be a necessary dealbreaker. Whats your argument for why evolution would necessarily exploit these things (not just might, but necessarily)?

This is just rambling without having any coherence or real point to it.

Here is his new vid on aliens: What thoughts do you guys have on it?

If you have fun debating these topics you probably should. It can be a fun challenge to craft a sound and persuasive argument for some of these topics in a way, that can be persuasive and or mind-opening . I can think of two ways how to approach these debates/convos: 1) Try to ground your argument in a premise or premises, that can be compatible with physicalism (or in other words, try to ground it in a premise , that they more than likely already agree with and slowly step by step build an argument from there that ends with your conclusion). 2) or if the first doesn't seem to be possible , then you need to debate physicalism (which will be very unproductive with most people).

Its true its just not efficiently computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_for_primes.

@Jrix just bite it and engage with @Inliytened1's question. Your actions dont necessarily show your metaphysical beliefs ( this is obviously true - like there could be given a 1000 seperate reasons why you would do a specific action) and even if they perfectly did, how would @Inliytened1 know exactly all the actions that you take on a daily basis?

@Davino Ty for the detailed response

23

What did you see while tripping and How did it feel like?

I don't see, whats the essence/point of your objection. Im planning to go through a territory that im not experienced/knowledgeable in, therefore I would rather take in the wisdom that others have who are more knowledgeable/experienced in this field rather than just chaotically going through it and elevating the chance of fucking myself up in the end.

Yeah, well, I am okay with some "disorder", but I want to be catious as well.

I have read that other people had their own crazy experiences with kundalini stuff as well. Could you handle the experience (By handling I mean , did the experience had such a big effect on you so that you couldn't do your normal everyday stuff for a couple of hours or days) ? Also how many days/month/years did it take to properly integrate the experience? I only had some kind of heart chakra opening experience. I don't know if it was fully open or not, but it was really profound. I felt a profound and deep connection to all beings in the universe and I could feel deep empathy for all of them without exception and the only thing you care about in that state is to serve and to give to others to the best of your ability without expecting or requiring anything in return (Because in that state you are completely fulfilled and you don't want to get/expect/take anything, you just only want to give and contribute). To be honest I would be down to open up all the chakras, but it seems to me that if its not done right, it can become really overwhelming and could probably cause ego backlash and would probably make it so that I wouldn't do any meditation or yoga for a good while again. Is there any program that you (or anyone who is reading this know of), that shows how to open up the chakras in a systematic way so it won't become too overwhelming?