AtmanIsBrahman

Appearance itself. Sorry, didn't mean to be confrontational.

You seem to post similar responses on a lot of threads. I'm not trying to invalidate what you're saying, but what if this is only a perspective? If you keep preaching one perspective, you become locked away from all the other possible perspectives.

Thanks for the responses guys. I got the impression that its a sort of glimpse too. I will definitely keep going to see if I can keep increasing my consciousness for the real deal.

This is the thing about corruption, you don't know that you're corrupt- otherwise you wouldn't be. Trump probably sleeps well, and if he doesn't it isn't because he's morally judging himself but because he's concerned about how to run the country and how to deal with his opponents. I'm open to the idea but not necessarily in a causal way. It's easy to think of examples where you do "evil" and completely get away with it. If something is truly good, there's no reason to do it- you just do it because it's good. So I don't think you're punished for evil in that way. Watch this if you haven't already:

What's the difference between epistemic scoundrelry and epistemic pervertry? @Leo Gura

This is a good one. Hardcore epistemic scoundrelry by Dave and this dude he talks with, who knows a bit more about philosophy but is also super self-deceived

Let's think about this.. when you're meditating, you're seeking a change in state of consciousness. You accomplish this by sitting for a long time focusing on certain "anchor points" for your awareness such as sounds, bodily sensations, etc. The mind gets slowed down, which theoretically makes space for higher consciousness and insight. Why slow down the mind? Well, there are 2 reasons I know of: 1) the idea that the mind is hijacked by the ego, so it can't think truthfully, objectively, or without bias 2) Alternatively, absolute truth can't be accessed just by thinking. Both of these are flawed. 1) is true, but what if we could think without involving the ego? 2) Depends on what we consider thinking to be. If we consider it linear egoic thinking of tier 1 spiral dynamics stages, then yes, but if the concept of thinking is expanded to higher-dimensional thinking, it's a completely different matter. Here's the main issue with standard meditation practices from my point of view. You're essentially turning the consciousness dial down instead of up. My guess is that doing so can get you to certain insights like no-self (in some basic sense) or states of no-mind, but you're practically lobotomizing yourself. These are the spiritual Buddhist rats that Leo talks about . The goal should be to turn up that consciousness dial as much as possible. The higher your it gets turned up, the better your thinking is- the more expansive, deep, penetrating, interconnected, multidimensional, paradoxical. And spirituality is about truth-seeking, which is ultimately going to revolve around thinking in some way (of course people will debate this). You are trying to have the most complete understanding of reality possible, and the way to achieve that is by thinking in ever more advanced ways as aided by spiritual practices, since baseline human consciousness isn't enough. The main way to do this is psychedelics, but for those of us who don't have access, I wonder if there are other spiritual practices that could be more effective than standard meditation. Here are some ideas: Emotionally stimulating music, video clips, or movies- not usually thought of as spiritual, but why wouldn't it be? Of course, you have to be careful that they're stimulating in a highly conscious way, not in a reptilian way. Tantric-style sexual practices- sexuality is a tool, so why not use it? Shamanic breathing/ breathwork Contemplation infused with the benefits of one of the above There are definitely many other practices I'm not thinking of, but the theme is the same: you are trying to supercharge the thinking process, to access hyper-thinking. You want thinking to be as fast as possible, not slowed down due to some relaxed, calm mediation state. If you're looking for health and well-being, standard meditation might be a great practice, but for awakening I have my doubts, as heretical as it sounds. If anyone has arguments for why meditation is a great practice, or knows of any other fringe spiritual practices, I'd be glad to hear about them. Is the premise that thinking is important for awakening wrong? Please debunk my claims.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-100

Fischer was more of an opening theory addict than anyone back when he was still playing

Read what I said in the last paragraph about pattern recognition. Chess is a game of pattern recognition, and opening theory is just one facet of that. Pattern recognition itself is what intelligence is in a certain sense. Bobby Fischer is known to have kind of lost it in his later years, and he was talking about top level chess anyway, which proves my point.

The reason practically speaking is that it gets you an advantage because you will get a better position or even win out of the opening, and otherwise you know some basic plans to use once you're out of theory. Keep in mind chess is a competitive sport. I assume your point of view is more of enjoying the aesthetic beauty of chess as "Mind." For that purpose, I guess there's no reason to memorize anything, but you might find beauty in understanding opening ideas, which will eventually lead to some memorization anyway. Either way, there's no way around memory in chess. It's a game of pattern recognition, and the more patterns you know and can apply well, the better you'll play. It's not a game of pure intellect, nor could it ever be.

Exactly. Opening theory is one of the most interesting aspects of chess. If it didn't exist, chess wouldn't have been popular for so long. It's really not the case. Opening theory isn't that dense until you get to a ridiculously high level of chess, and even then it's not the main thing deciding your games- it's just one aspect of the game among all the others. For example, Fabiano Caruana, one of the top players, is known for having great opening preparation which can give him an advantage against other top players. But all of that would be irrelevant if he wasn't already at that level in all the other areas of his game. As a beginner to intermediate player, there's no obligation to study opening theory. You can if you want to, but you won't be hurt by avoiding it. One of the most fun ways to approach it is to learn some traps/ tricky lines that are objectively dubious but will score you wins against players at your level. There are many ways to approach it, but playing Fischer random as a beginner/intermediate to avoid theory is a self-deception imo.

@Leo Gura how do you reconcile the absoluteness of logic with paradox? You were saying in the blog post that a=a is absolute, but a paradox is basically when a=not a. So has your understanding of paradox changed? Based on the absoluteness of logic, it seems like paradox cannot be fundamental to reality.

For those of us on the self-actualization journey, we should be ready to stare God straight in the face.

@Breakingthewall Interesting explanation. Do you think of meditation as going deeper inside yourself then rather than turning off thoughts?

Modal Ontological Argument 1) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists 2) It is possible that God exists 3) Therefore, God exists Obviously premise 1 seems silly. It's based on modal logic. From ChatGPT: In modal logic, a being that exists necessarily means that its existence is true in all possible worlds. If it is even possible that a maximally great being exists (in at least one possible world), then by definition of necessary existence, it must exist in all possible worlds. Formally, if ◇□G (it is possible that God necessarily exists), then □G (God necessarily exists in all worlds).

Okay, but that doesn't really affect the argument. The argument just wants to show that at least one necessary being exists. If everything is necessary, then that's even better. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the argument from an awakened perspective and a layman perspective. I assume this was the awakened perspective- possibility and necessity are really the same thing. But what about the validity of the argument from a layman perspective? This is one of the most popular arguments (at least for academics and intellectuals).

I don't see why that is. You're assuming that necessity has to be defined negatively by disproving it not being the case. Why can't it just be a positive notion that it exists in all possible worlds, always, and is unavoidable? You can't actually prove necessity, just like you can't prove God. To be clear, I don't actually agree with this argument, it's just an important one that is worth considering.

Are you trying to say that you can substitute in anything for God and still get the same conclusion? God is a necessary being, so it's different from any random thing you can come up with.

You don't need to show contradiction in saying God doesn't exist, you just have to show that God exists in every possible world. If you're talking about substituting in "it is possible that God does not exist" to try to invalidate the argument, that's something you can do, but I don't think it's valid. Well, being necessary is one of the main attributes of God- in fact it is the most fundamental one. Isn't absolute infinity necessary?

@Leo Gura you didn't give the ontological arguments enough credit (especially the modal ontological argument, which wasn't covered). If I remember correctly, you mentioned some old versions of it like Descartes', but there are modern versions of the argument that are much better. It basically goes like this: 1) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists 2) It is possible that God exists 3) Therefore, God exists Premise 1 sounds the most ridiculous, but it's actually usually accepted. The point is that it's based in modal logic. If something is possible, it exists in at least one possible world (which is just some way reality could be). God is defined as a necessary being, so if it exists in one possible world it must exist in all of them, i.e. it must be actual. The main criticism I can think of is that based on the definition of possibility that the argument uses, you are basically admitting God exists if you admit it's possible. So the argument is basically saying that a necessary being must exist, therefore it exists, which is tautological-- but is that not a bug, but a feature? I wonder what your thoughts are on this argument.

It's a good episode so far. Similar insight to what I've had about the cosmological argument: the infinite chain of causation is God. It's amazing how every philosopher/theologian misses this.

On the latest blog post, @Leo Gura Can you reveal anything about your process to understand that God is logical necessity and how this relates to logic and good and bad? It seems shocking that you now no longer consider these things to be relative. Are you using the word logic in the normal human sense, or is it some kind of divine, transhuman, or alien logic? Is the transcendence of these concepts a higher level beyond relativity, that confirms the absoluteness of lower stages but in a different way? Also, how is this different from absolute good like you've talked about previously?

A genius is a madman, but a madman isn't necessarily a genius.