zurew

People who make claims and then refuse to elaborate on said claims are the mature and spiritually developed ones, and they are the ones who are doing REAL spiritual work, in contrast with immature and undeveloped people who waste time asking for clarification rather than just project their own semantics on everything and then label that as an activity of "thinking for themselves".

If you were then to ask those same people whether God is existence itself, then the vast majority of them would reject that characterization. You would be lucky if there would be 1 from 10000 who would cashout the term "God" in a similar way as Leo does. Also terms like "all powerful" , "all-knowing" and "transcendent" are not univocal concepts. Regular people understand "all-knowing" as something related to propositions, but thats not what most people mean by it here.

In that case, its my bad for misinterpreting your message.

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school. For clarity, I don't think you are stupid for not knowing those things until now (or perhaps you simply forgot them—there are probably a bunch of concepts I've forgotten as well), but I think it shows for most of us that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because many people lack even a basic understanding of how language works.

It can be, depending on what he means by it. If by language we mean something sub-semantic and sub-syntactic (something interchangeable with Meaning) and an interface through which the world is represented and aspectualized (relevance realized), then it goes very deep. If by language we only mean semantics, then it doesnt go that deep. But of course a representation (doesnt matter how complex) is not the same as the thing that is represented. But I think it is often times overlooked or underappreciated here , that you can have very complex non-propositional representations as well.

Just to make this very explicit and clear, the implication is this: Non-english speaking mystics are categorically removed from God-realization. Thats how retarded the inference is that is made here.

You are confusing understanding with term usage. There are a bunch of things that can determine term usage that are unrelated to understanding. This is why your inferences shouldnt be made merely based on what label is used in a single sentence, but rather should be based on long substance (where the given person gives a long description about the content of his awakenings and about his understanding of spirituality) and based on that long description you can make a much better judgement on that person's understanding about spirituality. But thats precisely what I dont see from almost any of you , what I rather see is that you single out and focus on label usage in one single sentence and then you run away with big and firm conclusions about that person's understanding about spirituality. It would be like as if a person who isn't familiar with Leo's term usage in any way at all, would only hear one single sentence from Leo "You are God" and based on that single sentence they would infer that Leo is talking about some supreme being that is seperate from the Universe. Understanding maths is not the same thing as using the exact labels or terminology that you happen to use. If a highly intelligent alien species were to visit Earth and used different words to describe mathematical concepts, it would not follow that they lacked an understanding of maths. What would much more likely follow is simply that they use a different system of labels to describe the same underlying concepts.

You are assuming that the term "Pure Consciousness" was used the exact same way you use the term. I dont understand why almost none of you is sensitive to the fact that 1) the exact same label can be used to refer to something different 2) Multiple different labels can be used to refer to the exact same thing

I can grant for the sake of the argument that you have the best understanding of what Reality is , what I have issue with right now are the norms that you demand related to language and label usage and also with you inferring big things based on mere label usage.

You are doing the wordgames, because its you who want to infer big things from mere label usage and not give a fuck about the underlying substance that is pointed at by people who use different labels than you do. Your moose-racoon example utterly fails, because people who create dictionary definitions they actually do empirical work related to how the term is used by the general population and by specific fields and they dont do the method that you want them to do, where they ask Leo Gura what exclusive Gura-vocal definition should be given for the label that Leo prefers. You are the dude who would fail a philosophy of language class because you would fail Frege's puzzle , because you would think that the label 'morning star' and the label 'evening star' would have to refer to two different physical objects. Yes you do, even given your definition once we clarify what you actually mean by those subterms even those will mean something wildly different than what most theologians or how common folk understand those terms. You have a definition of God where God's existence cannot be denied because its analytically true given your notion that God must exist , given that under your notion God is an interchangeable label with Reality. Literally almost no one uses the term "God" that way. The vast majority of people dont use it that way and you are arrogant enough to demand others to use that label the way you do and you stupid enough to confidently infer understanding from mere label usage.

This is just another empirical claim , where you have a sample size of 1 and you make your assertions and 100% confident inferences given that sample and then you expect people to take you seriously when you create another 2 hour video on epistemology and about epistemic responsibility. Like yeah dude congratulations for your highly intelligent inference - mystics who dont understand any english are categorically removed from being God realized. Given the Ralston thread it seemed that you had a basic understanding about language and label usage - that multiple different labels can be used to point to the same thing - so I dont undersatnd given that why you make confident inferences just purely from label usage. It seems that you give more fucks about people simulating understanding by parroting your preferred labels than about figuring out who has what level of understanding irrespective of the labels they use. People will use your terminology here and you will be immediately swayed by it and infer from that they have a high level understanding of spirituality. Given your super unsophisticated scheme for figuring out who has what level of understanding, its comically easy for anyone to trick you into thinking that they are much more profound than they actually are.

Something like this : 2 educated christians Ethan Muse and Dustin Crummet (both knows philosophy , especially Ethan - that guy is on another level , but Crummet is very smart as well - that guy managed to create a new novel argument for theism ) are going at it related to the fatima miracle (miracle of the sun) which was an interesting event btw and from what ive seen skeptics have a hard time providing a plausible explanation that can actually explain all the data points related to the event, without taking a bunch of data points to be false or just outright denying certain data points . Its interesting to watch debates like this and to extract the epistemological problems and to systematically go through how events like this can be explained given different paradigms and to use that to improve our abductive reasoning (so that we can explain and categorize such events better in the future). Btw I have yet to see one Leo post or video that indicates and shows that he actually thought deeply about philosophy of science related problems (because I havent seen anything novel that he provided in his myth of science videos or in any video where he shits on scientists where the point that he makes arent trivial to anyone who is even remotely educated in philosophy of science).

Good way to destroy a conversation by switching to the Absolute. None of your previous crticisms makes any sense then, since there is no one who could pick any AI, there is no one who is expressing themselves and there is no AI, and there are no others who could use AI to amplify things. You would rather give this pompous nonsense, swing around your spiritual dick, and abstract your way out of the conversation (destroying the necessary frame within which talking about AI-related problems is still meaningful) by switching to the absolute, rather than actually engaging substantively with the points.

Change AI to a human and you immediately realize that your line of thought doesnt hold up. "When I picked Leo to win arguments for me and to speak for me, I just chosed Leo to express myself bro and when Leo won, basically I won". There cant be amplified expression, when there isnt any expression in the firstplace. The expression amplification only makes sense if there is some kind of substance that can actually be amplified.

Yeah not sure why you think this is something weird, when non-AI algorithms were already capable to mindfuck you and to make you quadruple down on all your psychological defects. All time on site business models use AI to curate their algorithms and they were capable to make millions of humans to get addicted to their sites. Meta's AI can probably predict your next word better than your mom could and it knows your interests better than your family ( for example - facebook ads are insane). Also its not just that the dead internet theory is real now, but it is the case that even when in reality you interact with humans, those lazy fucking humans will use AI to interact with you and some of them will copy paste AI junk and arguments. (There are a bunch of users even on this site, who will copy paste AI arguments and thats how they will reply to your questions and arguments , and the sad thing is that some of them doesnt understand the content of the argument that the AI made for them or the relevancy of it to the underlying problem).

There are people who can make you go crazy and who can affirm delusions endlessly, but usually those people arent treated as all-knowing gods, arent avalaible for 24/7 and when they have credentials they are usually constrained by financial and legal and cultural incentives (to be more responsible) . Given how user glazing and accomodating AI currently is right now; it isn't just an issue for delusional and mentally ill people, but it is a big issue for everyone, because it makes us much more biased.

This is what I immediately noticed a few years back when I wanted to do research. Its more useful to use the word ET or extraterrestrial or UFO or UAP when you use the searchbar on a secret service and or on a government website. Leaving it as a lazy person so that other motivated actualizers will find the juicy cases for me. There are a few recent ones near my area, but I personally havent seen shit unfortunately.

It was the agential God fucking around.

WIll leave this here for anyone who wants to dig through reported cases https://nuforc.org/subndx/?id=highlights https://nuforc.org/map/

Aladdin's rug flying around looking for Aladdin.

Oh shit.

Im not seeing you having such issues when non-solipsistic views are attacked in a similar fashion. I disagree, unless your relativize literally all epistemic norms, but given that you do ,then what you are pointing out is not gonna be an exclusive problem to the intellect, it is gonna be a problem for any kind of justification and thats gonna target everything including mysticism and spirituality as well. What I did instead - I pointed out certain epistemic virtues and given the context of those, how solipsism ranks worse than other views. With that move you dont undermine literally all views and you dont relativize everything the same way as you did. You can say that you dont give a fuck about those virtues and norms and thats perfectly fine with me, and thats compatible with me saying in so far as we are using those standards, solipsism is gonna rank worse. The "truth is true regardless of your epistemic norms and standards" is an issue for everyone and not just for the intellect. The truth is true regardless of your spiritual practices and your drug of choice and your awakenings. if you want to go that skeptical - then there is no rule in reality that awakenings have to do anything with whats true. You are demanding such a standard from me that you dont demand from the mystics. Your standards are unreasonable mine isn't, because the standards I use dont relvativize and dont undermine literally all investigation (and just to be clear again, Im not against spiritual work; I value mystical experiences and I include spiritual practices in the epistemology that I use, but if you would push me on it the same way you pushed on the intellectual norms, then a similar answer would come up - maybe none of these things have to do anything with whats true). if your criticism of my criticism is that one must have 100% certainty about what kind of epistemic norm(s) or standards must have to do something with whats true (because otherwise every criticism is just bogus); in that case, literally everything is just bogus including all philosophy and all mysticism because there isn't any rule in reality that any kind of epistemic norm or standard must have to do something with whats actually true and if you gonna claim "but there is such a norm" then you gonna get back to the bootstrapping problem that you tried to push on me and that you thought was exclusive issue to intellectual norms. Im okay with a starting point and using that starting point to filter views, and im also okay with not having 100% certainty about anything and with giving qualificaiton for everything (you not gonna see a similar kind of intellectual honesty from most actualized members though).

I didnt attack mysticism with my posts, I specifically attacked solipsism with my post. Most mystics werent solipsists.

His inference from "not affirming solispism" to "you are stuck in a rationalist paradigm" doesnt make any sense for multiple reasons , one obvious reason being that you can have a mystic epistemology and not be a solipsist and also not be a rationalist. Ralston isnt a solipsist, Rupert Spira isnt a solipsist, Sadhguru isnt a solipsist and none of them are rationalists.

Not affirming solipsism = being stuck in a rationalist paradigm. Next time I will try to do spirituality and philosophy with your approach and I will ask Leo what set of things I need to affirm. Red herring is when I bring up something that is directly applicable to solipsism and you have no answer for it. Yeah and that point is very stupid, because it is accounted for in many paradigms better than in others. And you also agreed with this previously btw and immediately ran away from it by saying "why should we care about explanatory power bro, I like simiplicity more and maybe explanatory power shouldnt be cared about bro, what matter is what true bro and what true is true bro regardless of explanatory power". You claimed solipsism makes 0 assumptions ,which is laughably false and anyone can recognize this who isn't mind raped by Leo. it perfectly makes sense. Your lack of ability to imagine that others have consciousness doesnt get you to others not having consciousness and especially not getting you to the impossibility that others have consciousness - but of course you wont recognize this because Leo paved the entire landscape of possible thought your mind can navigate through. And again there are a bunch of alternative idealist views that are different from solipsism that can perfectly account for this, but of course you dont know about them , because your knowledge starts and stops with the things Leo feeds to you. (nonduality, Bernardo's analytic idealism etc).