gengar

Why are you not sharing your military sources with us? Genuine question. I'm still doing the research myself I just don't have that much free time to have done it yet. What's the mindset here?

Except wikipedia and science is supposed to be a book that changes over time as new findings our found and proven, unlike the Bible.

In you guys experience, do the different levels of binaural beats actually work as advertised, with different levels giving different effects like spiritual, cognitive, etc?

I was under the impression that if hard material facts are true and proven over time, and known by enough people, the consensus pushes it through to be on wikipedia. Guess I was wrong, although I still don't understand how, when it is truly proven by enough people, it hasn't seeped through to mainstream consciousness if it's proven to have worked materially. I know wikipedia is the matrix, I just didn't expect the matrix to be so strong to even be able to deny proven things in consensus reality. It's not even like they ignore the issue, the entire article is a whole counternarrative about remote-viewing not being false. You'd expect the Truth to seep through especially now since enough people seem to have already proven it. If wikipedia denies it despite knowing the good research proving otherwise, they are in fact lying.

"US presidents and the highest ranks of the military know that remote viewing is used to gather intelligence." How do you know this. These claims are mind-shattering if true. This means Wikipedia is actively lying to us about empirical facts of the world. But this isn't about spiritual concepts, but about real, consequential material stuff in the real world. If remote-viewing has material consequences, wikipedia should not be denying it. There's a fundamental difference between materialism in the metaphysical sense and materialism in the denial of empirical world-stuff.

Yeah, just read your new blog post, sorry. made an edit to my OG post. Thanks for the extra leads. It's so weird to me that if you're right, than those materialists on wikipedia are actively spreading disinformation by deeming all remote viewing done by the government as a dud. What you're saying is there is real evidence that the army succesfully used it/is using it. If that is true, and that information is public and verifiable (let's assume Leo's research was correct) - It's clear cut evidence that they are literally spreading blatant disinformation on wikipedia. It goes further than denial of consciousness, because that's just because of a lack of consciousness. But denying actual research and facts just to shape a materialist reality for the masses is a true crime. Wikipedia goons' statement on the conclusions of the Stargate program Are the Wikipedia goons really claiming that if each time I snap my fingers, lightning shoots out of my hands, I still haven't proven magic or paranormal stuff? or am I understanding it incorrectly? I know you're not keen on sharing your sources (which again, with all due respect, I think is not a good mindset, all scientists and researchers share their sources, why would you refrain from it purely to teach us a lesson that we should not be lazy) , but those military sources you're talking about are probably hard to find out. If you'd share them, that'd be awesome. If not I guess I'll just have to dig in myself. Still don't see how you found out those military documents and verify their authenticity. Maybe my source-finding capabilities and empirical epistemology aren't that sharpened yet.

@Leo Gura I'm wondering why you said remote viewing is purely genetic and can't be learned. Why do you make that claim so strongly, like you know it for a 100% sure? What's your evidence for that? Moreover, the channel you recommended (Mishlove), and the speakers he invites on there, do not treat remote viewing in that sense at all, but all state it can be learned. This speaker even talked about skeptics coming to his course to debunk remote viewing but finding out that they can do it themselves. EDIT: Nevermind some of what I said, I just read your new post on remote viewing and I guess you do admit that some of it can be learned. Not that that was my stance to begin with, I'm just very interested in your evidence on the stance that it's mostly genetic. I'm really interested in your study of it. I'm making a study of it myself and it's pretty hard, I'm not a formal researcher and my epistemology, openmindedness and skepticism are being heavily tested. I hope you share a research report on your research on remote viewing soon or in the future. Not because I want to not do the work, but because I might miss something myself. I won't be looking at it till I finish my own research anyway. Plus, I think it's not really good scientific practice to gatekeep research in the name of "I'm not lazy like y'all, do your own research". If this is all true, we're up against a horde of materialists who even infiltrated wikipedia to state that the state-led remote viewing projects were all duds. Are they right or is Leo right in deeming it real? What an interesting empirical research question.

So how does that argument translate in your transforming into an alien mouse? did that violate material reality? and if it did, how come your human body still returned because the chemical wore off? That sounds like the alien experience was but a virtual experience, nested in material reality which was still running in the background. Or does taking the trip and doing the transformation actually change reality? If so, why do the limitations of the chemical wearing off still persist?

By stating this you've already answered the question why some form of logic is baked in to reality.

That's true, but my argument was also talking from that level. How can you point a philosophical, rationalist person towards the Truth? by saying Idealism is true. Because from the philosophical standpoint it is, because all Idealism says is that THIS is true, and no conceptualisations are like materialism. Idealism is the turning philosophy in on itself by "escaping" the conceptualisation, if you get what I mean. If you want to get a person lost in concepts out of their game you have to defeat them at their own game, so therefore, argue for Idealism. Which is always possible because God is infinitely real and thus all logical reasoning leads to it.

This is incorrect. We're talking about what is actually real and fully actualized. A part of a fractal doesn't exist - where do you pinpoint where one part begins and ends? You're missing the subtlety of what's being said here. The experience of "zooming in" is an illusion. you've never left the exploration of the full fractal. it's like going into a forest, and having the forest experience which is of course very different than the desert experience or the experience on the moon. yet all those things are only conceptually different, different to biased creatures, but not in actuality. So how can something conceptual (the subinfinity) be just as real as something that is actual? (the entire infinity) The arm of the fractal exists only as an idea, while the entire fractal itself does not exist as an idea, but in full actuality. God has never counted up the natural numbers till infinity. because if he would, he would still be doing it right now and not created this experience right here. The logic of Infinity demands there to be only one Infinity, and all others to be illusions, and the consequence of this is that a "subinfinity" can never exist. God is infinitely "choosing" aspects of Absolute Infinity, and that unending process is whats happening right now. Any zooming in on one part, like the set of all cheeses, is purely an illusion; it may seem that God is exploring the set of all cheeses but he is not, since the set does not exist at all. Were the set of cheeses be real, and the function of infinitely exploring it (actualizing the subinfinity) also real, then God would never get back to the exploration of Absolute Infinity. In computer science terms, Gods search algorithm is neither depth-first nor breadth first, but random (unbiased). because both a bias for breadth-first (choosing different sets), and a bias for depth-first (cycling through members of a set) would give an infinite bias to either a particular set or only the first member of each set. Gods search algorithm must therefore be completely unbiased which means all subcategories are absolutely conceptual and arbitrary. In a sense, Cantor's critics were correct in saying infinities are mere conceptualisations, except about one thing: Absolute Infinity. (nothing against Cantor he was genius but we're talking about what is ultimately real here)

Ah yes. However I would add that a sub-infinity doesn't actually exist. The only infinity that actually exists and can actually exist is Absolute Infinity. the sub-infinities may seem to exist, however they never actually do; in the same sense that you can never count up all the natural numbers. In theory and concept it exists, but never actualized. Absolute Infinity is the only Infinity in Actuality.

They're not concepts at all, at least not in the way you're denouncing them as. I'm using them as operators in absolute logic, which is the entire point of absolute logic. We're talking about the fundamental things of logic and reality here. all the operators i used are the bedrock operators of language. And you're basically telling me to touch grass lol. Logic is not in conflict with feeling and intuition. The closer you get to the absolute, they are the same. "Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two, my life flows." I also don't see Wisdom as being fundamental just as Love, so the quote doesn't answer much for me. Love is the the attraction and repulsing of atoms, planets, people, EVERYTHING. it is the fundamental coming and going of the universe. Maybe Wisdom is as fundamental, but I don't see it now. Maybe you have more insight than me about it though. "all of which only exist within the mind via its conceptions and their apparent conflict with each other." Actually, I'm trying to point out that Leo's point leads to contradiction, while what I propose, namely that no infinity truly exists except for Absolute Infinity (so all "lesser infinities" are illusions and concepts and don't actually exist) , actually resolves all contradiction.

My logic tells me different. Nothing that is biased in essence (like evil) , can go infinitely high, because it blocks the other biased things in God's Infinity to ever sprout again, like a cancer growing infinitely. Imagine an Infinite, selfish being, and an Infinite selfless being, both imagined in Gods mind. The selfish being will try to destroy the selfless being, and will try with infinite power, because it is infinite. The selfless being will not try to stop it, because it is selfless. In the end this means Gods mind would be colonized by selfishness and no selflessness would remain. And thus the unbiased nature of God would be corrupted, and God would no longer be infinite, because his Infinity requires all biases to exist, including selflessness and selfishness. The only way for this to happen is for all evil and all other biased things to be of finite nature. An infinite selfish being does not exist. ---- Apart from the logical argument, take a look at this from a moral perspective, do you really propose the cosmos, the All, Gods mind, however you want to call it, to be something that can spawn infinitely evil things? How do you even come up with that being a possibility? Sure, the cosmos seems to be a constant duality of attraction and repulsion, an eternal conflict of evil and good. But Gods unbiased nature requires every ripple to be finite. Apart from the IMO clearly apparent logical truth of this, why do you entertain such moral evils to your followers? clearly it's not true, like I've just deducted to you using absolute logic which you also use. Why do you entertain such radical disinformation to your followers without thinking it through at first? What we're sharing here is no joke, but absolute seriousness.

no, because dualism is untrue, and material monism is saying that falsehood (namely a non-existing conceptual reality of material reality, a set of quantifiers) is true, while stating that truth (consciousness, current experience, field of perception) is false and doesn't exist. So the only thing that remains is idealism, because that is monism of what is true and states that conceptual realities are not true fundamental realities. In the end, Idealism doesn't even deny the existence of object in favor of a subject, it unifies them, since object and subject are the same; objects exist, but only as consciousness. the rock in my hand exists and is absolute truth but it is not separate from subjectivity. At first glance, it might seem that Idealism denies material reality, when in fact it doesn't, it actually supports it because it turns out material objects can only ever be conceived of in idealistic sense. Idealism supports both objects and subjects, although they are of the same substance in the end. While materalism (materliastic monism) denies both and plays vague mind games to come up with a set of quantifiers which ultimately make up reality without any quality. Materialists HATE qualia and the fundamental problem they propose for formal materialism, so they MUST deny their existence in some way or another. Some muffle them away and don't spend much thought on the problem, while the more hardcore materialists realize the problem of qualia and don't shy away from it, leading them to the inevitable conclusion that consciousness and qualia MUST be illusions (this is called "Illusionism", propagated by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" and Daniel C Dennett in "Consciousness explained" (wish i could put another set of quotation marks around that). The ironic part is of course that qualifying something as an "illusion" by definition invokes qualia, which they deny by calling it an illusion. It's funny how materialism taken to its ultimate conclusion ends up in a mystical strange loop. The Illusionists do actually arrive at a conclusion that reality is an illusion, but in a twisted way to cope with their own biases.

so what happens to horror to the Infinityth degree? Does it get defeated by the infinity of God's love? Does a limited bias (such as "horror" or "pleasure") even get to have an infinite degree, or is the infinite degree only reserved for the totality itself? Think about it logically, if "evil" for example were to stretch itself into the infinityth degree, it would find a way to destroy all good. It also goes against neoplatonic logic of "ever-returning". What are your thoughts on this?

See, what Leo fails to realize about his own conclusions is that it doesn't go far enough. Let's examine the two true statements that seem to follow out of absolute logic, and thus have to be reconciled with eachother: - Reality is God and Love because it is all-embracing and has no outside, and ultimate Good - God is everything, including infinite horror Concluding that these statements are true, how do you not then realize that reconciling them is God's ultimate task and should be taken extremely seriously? It makes sense that both are true, and that for God to be ultimately good, it must include all evil things in itself, or it would not be whole and good. However, the inclusion of ultimate horror seems to contradict this goodness in itself, because a horrible thing by definition is not good - even though it is only an ego which deems it horrible - the ego's projection is absolute, the projection is what creates the thing and it's horribleness, and in the end there is no projection at all, since the ego is God, God is looking at it as a horrible thing and creating it as horrible experience by being the ego and being with the horrible. So you cannot use logic to escape the fact that it is in essence horrible, since the argument of "it's only a projection by the ego" doesn't exist in absolute logic, since all appearance and creation are one, the experience of a human being raped by an iron pick to death is not a projection, but absolute, and absolutely horrifying, since the experience of the pain, the ego's agony, and the "objective", "non-projected" experience of the pick, are one. We've basically arrived at the problem of evil again, which Leo refuses to tackle, in my suspicion because of his arrogance (laughing at his forum members for not accepting infinite horror as being part of infinite love, instead of guiding them towards accepting it - again, this is God's hardest task, since it is the loving of the things most unlovable - it's easy to love sex and cake but hard to love pain and rape - Yet Leo laughs at his audience for struggling with it) And where does it end? Does God ever conquer horror, or does he move in an experiential sine-wave from horror, to nothingness, to pleasure, and repeats this cycle forever? Is there any use in controlling our karma? If life is full of horror, why not kill yourself? Is there no honor in staying alive till natural death happens, no karmic reward for going through the suffering and not being a coward and killing yourself to avoid suffering? See, Leo has no answer to these questions. No, instead of using his superior knowledge (which he claims is even deeper about suffering than ours, claiming we don't even have a clue about how much suffering there is in life, but he does) to guide his followers, teach us how to open our heart or something, give a strategy for God to transcend the horror, unimagine it, any karmic path at all - he does not. No, instead of that he points his finger and laughs in your face, and calls you a puny human for not realizing infinite horror was true in the first place. The only conclusion I can make of it is that he has absolutely no clue how to deal with it himself. No clue how to cope or deal with this aspect of reality himself. And instead of admitting to that, he creates a shield of arrogance and superiority around himself, and loves to scare and blackpill you about horrors that we're not even aware of , but mighty Leo is. This is Leo at his worst. How can you be like this. THE ENTIRE FUCKING ORDEAL IS COPING WITH ACCEPTING AND LOVING HORRIBLE THINGS. and you dismiss and laugh? You're a clown when you're like this. Leo shows you reality and your own mind, through logic and investigation - yet does nothing when you arrive at the real premise, the reveal of the real ordeal of reality - dealing with infinite horror. No, he belittles you instead. Insane how someone can be of such high epistemological intelligence but have such a low spiritual intelligence, if those terms make sense. He gives objective truth but has now clue how the subjective should deal with it, and hides that fact by acting superiorly. Leo, if you dismiss this criticism about the fact that this way that you're dealing with the problem of evil, i.e. where several hard truths conflict, and laugh and point at your audience, that they don't see it, that they are just coping, and you're the one capable of seeing the real horror, while we are just puny humans, if you dismiss my criticism it's very clear. You lack the intelligence of the heart to deal with this shit and how to guide your humans. You reveal truth to them through guiding them through their own minds, yet have no, absolutely no clue on how to deal with it, what to do about it. This is God's imperative, this is God's quest. Conquering his own horror. Don't you have that imperative? Don't you have that intuition that even though horror is part of God, it will be defeated by Love because Love is greater, even though horror is also Love? You lack the feminine spiritual intelligence. Masculine spiritual intelligence, the logic, the revelation, you are the greatest on earth with it. But what is next, you have no clue. You're like a baby in the crib when it comes to this branch of intelligence. You lack to even understand the question, the imperative, just like Daniel Schmachtenberger doesn't even understand the question of "what is reality". THIS IS WHAT ITS ABOUT. THESE F**KING QUESTIONS AND POINTS ARE ACTUALIZED.ORG'S BLIND SPOT. EVERY SPIRITUAL TRADITION GIVES AN IMPERATIVE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF EVIL EXCEPT YOU. Buddhism recognizes infinite horror, and gives cessation and nirvana (total release from samsara and thus horror) as an answer. And so does every other tradition. Why don't you? This seems like an "emperor with no clothes" moment. Have you really never thought of this? Do you not fucking care about this aspect of spirituality, even though you realize with open eyes that the horrors are endless? why not care about it then? I would understand an atheist since he doesn't believe in infinite horror, but deems all horror to end on the death of the body - horror is merely finite and ends forever on death. Do you simply not know how to cope with it yourself? If you dismiss these questions again, or answer shortly or not to every point I've made, you have failed as a teacher and guide IMO, and I have no other choice but to conclude that your awakening is incomplete.

What type of horror are you talking about? You're clearly implicating that you've seen something which we haven't. What specific horror are you talking about? And why are you so sure none of us would believe you? Why are you so sure again that you're the only one who went this deep into something? This must surely mean that you're talking about something outside of the scope of human existence again. Are you talking about salvia torture realms you've experienced or something? If us puny humans don't know about how horrific life can get (which is weird since you're talking about human life) - why do you, Leo, a fellow puny human, somehow have knowledge about such horrors? Or are you talking about stuff again that transcends the human experience? Transcendental horror?

Yes, but simulation theory is probably still true, because the argument is sound; namely that any Universe has the power and intelligence to create a new reality, and therefore, according to Murphy's law, since we have infinite time, intelligence and space, we are always inside an infinite chain of realities, whether simulated, or our universe is inside a black hole of another universe, etc. Those "background realities" don't actually exist, since all that exists is the foreground, however the illusion of the Universe, which is all that the universe is, is just one universe in an infinite Russian doll of background universes. This fact simply follows out of the logic that reality is infinite. if you somehow escape this current universe, you will always reach a new universe. This logic of simulation theory is actually correct; however it doesn't explain reality itself, since all that reality is is of course the absolute. but the illusion of an infinite Russian doll chain of universes has to be there, because there is no reason that it is not. Maybe I'm not saying anything here, but I have a feeling it is, since it follows out of the logic of an infinite illusion. any universe has infinite intelligence > which will create another infinite illusion inside of it, forever repeating this process. Like I said the logic of simulation theory is actually correct, the error is just that it doesn't actually have to do with the nature of reality but only with the nature of the illusion.

Thank you. My question was more an epistemic one on how to know what is verified; how do you, Leo, actually know which online studies are authentic? how do we actually go about verifying sources like this for ourselves? How do we know if the studies are even real? We often overlook this process that seems to be obvious, but just like you asked "How do you know the holocaust happened" in the "How to know what is true" video, the answer is less obvious than it seems. I'm interested in formalizing how epistemic stuff like this works. Often when I'm reading an ancient book for example, let's say by Plato, sometimes I wonder, "How do I actually know a person called Plato actually existed and wrote this very book and it wasn't altered?" It seems that multiple chains of narration/transmission are always necessary for historical stuff like this to be verified. I'm interested in finding out more about the logic/formal process of epistemology and history. If I find some sources I will share them here.

See, that is what makes me even more skeptical, that the remote-viewing is conveniently connected to the UAP phenomena, two things that, by themselves, don't need to be connected with eachother for any reason. Yet their connection is of course that they are both enjoyed speculating and believed in by the new-age crowd. So how convenient that these two things end up being connected and that you can supposedly summon UAP using remote-viewing like you're summoning Epona in Zelda using your flute? It's not that I disbelieve in these things, and in fact, I want them to be true. I want nothing more than these things to be real, that we have some more innate power than our darwinistic, physicalist functions in this life, that are only made for survival in the physical. That we are not alone on this awful world full of egoes, that we are looked over by benevolent aliens with their alien technology. Yet precisely because I want that and am so interested, is why my stance is so skeptical. Otherwise I'll get lost in the current of fantasy which I have so much experience in already, believe me. We should try to falsify all this 100x times and if it turns out to be unfalsifiable, only then should we accept it to be true. Answer me this then: If remote-viewing is real and accessible, why don't companies like Leo's idea of T-rex scavenging already widely exist? If there is anything that incentivizes wide adoption of remote-viewing, it's profit seeking. If it's so easy to remote view, where are all these scavenging companies? Do you really think Leo was the first one with that idea? Where are the companies? It should be all over the news if such companies exists. That is how the flow of knowledge works. Yet it doesn't seem to be the case. Also, have you personally read the studies and the work of Dean Radin that Leo referenced? are they sound? Anyway, good luck with your efforts. Keep us posted with your work.

Thanks for the reference to Dean Radin, but you are making some very incorrect and even arrogant assumptions here - namely that I am not serious, and asking to be spoon fed the studies. Me asking for the studies is not because I want to skip the work because I am not serious, it's because efficient peer-reviewing of studies is necessary for efficient development of the collective consciousness on these issues. no serious scientist gatekeeps studies because other people "haven't put the work in" , which is what you're doing right now. he shares the studies so they can be quickly peer-reviewed so the truth can be found out. Imagine an archeologist demanding everyone to come to their site and do their own research on it because he "doesn't want to spoon feed people". Do you realize how unscientific this is? It should be quite obvious for a person of your stature so I'm again quite amazed at your childish stance on this. This work is not about effectiveness or effort, but about truth and nothing else. I admire you for your anti-pragmatism stance when it comes to truth but right now you are contradicting that. I'm kindly asking you to acknowledge this and take back your statement about me wanting to be spoon fed studies, and that it's unscientific of you to demand these silly gate-keeping ways of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is to be peer-reviewed and done so in the most efficient way possible. How childish of you to assume such things of me! Also, I'm not widely known with the official architecture of academia on the internet, which you clearly are. I could be wasting hours of my time going through unsound or even unauthentic sources. Asking you for some advice on which studies to find is normal - in the case that we are two truth-seekers of equal rank looking for empirical evidence on a matter. Clearly you don't see it this way; You assumed I was asking you as an inferior does to a superior when I was not. In assuming this you thought it'd be a good idea to gatekeep the studies from me and patronize me into doing my own work, like this is some kind of homework assignment. No, I was simply asking a fellow truth-seeker which studies he had studies to come to certain conclusions. How arrogant of you to assume otherwise! Leo, I'd like you to introspect in this and notice that you made many assumptions from my questions, presuming your own epistemic superiority and position as a superior to me. Admit to yourself that when discussing these things with your fellow forum members, your position should be as an equal and that you shouldn't default to a position of being a teacher. We're making a quest for empirical evidence here, you're not above that with your silly games of thinking everybody is lazy and unserious. You have no clue how serious or unserious other people are, especially when it comes to things you're no expert in. You're literally making wild claims to your audience of parapsychology existing, yet you slam me when asking for evidence, saying I should put the work in myself. Like you're not the one making these far-fetched claims to your audience. Your audience is large and I'm in a sense protecting them by pushing back against your wild claims. If they turn out to be true, that's that. But the fact you're slamming me for something as simple as asking for studies shows that you're already pretty far down the deep end. Clearly you've awakened further than most, at least, that is my assumption. But what you're doing right now is really bad, arrogant, childish and against raw truth-seeking. This is not a manner of metaphysics or spirituality, this is simply about studies of content of the universe. And since you're the one claiming, without showing much skepticism, that remote-viewing exists, the burden of extraordinary proof is on your shoulders, not mine. Again, -What mechanism do you postulate by which remote-viewing works in the universe? -It's not merely that new-age channels are also filled with bullshit, and that there is like a soup including elements of truth but also of bullshit, no, these elements are actively intertwined and used to prove eachother. On the Mishlove channel which you claim is great, remote-viewing, which you claim is sound, is actively used to prove Atlantean pseudo-history and the like. How is this not a dealbreaker for you? Yet you share it to your audience as a "great channel"? -What is your stance on the Stargate project being terminated by the CIA as described in this CIA report : https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf And what does it say that Mishlove and his guests still cite the Stargate project as being proof of remote-viewing being real? Anyway, thanks again for the reference to Dean Radin. I'll do my best to make a research out of it, especially now that you've agitated me by claiming that I'm lazy asking to be spoon-fed (which is a radically childish notion for you to say anyway, but okay). If I make any conclusions I'll share them in this thread, with proper references, like it's supposed to be.

I've listened to multiple videos today from the channel including ones about remote viewing. while most seem interesting, there are also videos of pseudo-historical nature, like a woman "remote-viewing" into ancient "Atlantis" and describing the society she sees. This is radically different than a verifiable cases of remote viewing like successfully hitting a target. Why do these interesting, "boundary-pushing" science channels about things like parapsychology always still tend to go into fields of cookery like channeled accounts of Atlantis and ancient Egypt and the like, and other speculative pseudo-history of the like of Graham Hancock etc? It doesn't really give way to the scientific nature of the channel that it proclaims to have. Wikipedia also reports that the Stargate project (the CIA project that was launched to study remote viewing) was terminated because it didn't wield any tangible results. Wikipedia also reports that remote viewing is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Notice that this is different from academia's mistake of how it views Consciousness, since that is a mistake of thinking and assumption - materialist theory of consciousness doesn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, but with philosophy, philosophy of science, dogma, group-think and a plain lack of consciousness. In contrast, however, are phenomena like remote viewing, which are to be studied and observed in an empirical manner. It's either true or not true based on the empirical evidence, which means we can give a lot more leeway to academia when studying these manners. @Leo Gura What makes you say that the evidence is sound for remote viewing? can you share any studies with me? I'm no scientific expert, so I would appreciate it if you did. This is no light manner. Also, if you claim remote viewing and, potentially other forms of parapsychology, to be real, what is the mechanism by which it manifests in the world? Do you hypothesize actual other dimensions like astral dimensions, which are often postulated in conjunction with these parapsychological phenomena, which often makes skeptical people's eyeballs roll, because of how new-agey that all seems to be?

@Leo Gura Wait, you actually believe in remote viewing? Isn't it clear that all that stuff is as BS as it comes? I thought you were doing elite level epistemology and know you come with this kind of cookery? I thought you cut through all those fantasies, the same way with your magic healing that didn't work out. I went through the same thing, but ended not being able to anything about my perpetual suffering. Isn't it clear that this world is entirely materialistic and naturalistic? I agree that in essence the universe is Consciousness and just a dream, and that no material substance actually exists; however the dream is entirely devoid of physical magic. How are you not humbled by the fact that your healing didn't work out, even though on psychedelics you were so clear that you could do it? Isn't it clear that this world is brutal and physical, and that all our human survival instincts and functions of consciousness are based on this? Just like World of Warcraft being in essence, simply electrical signals in the hardware, that fact has nothing to do with the rules of the virtual world. Just like WoW, our universe pertains to the rules of this world which are the physical laws, and all empirical evidence leads to this fact, right? how else could you return from a total Awakening where you have no body, are completely gone in the void, God, whatever, how many infinite levels of awakening you've shared to have had, yet always return to this body? because the body remains in it's physical state and no matter how hard you trip, you can do nothing about the physical state of the universe. Why else would you have to return? If you reach infinite Awakening, can't you just dream up whatever you want, yet you choose to return to your myopic existence as a human, which you don't have the highest opinion of anyway? (You've shared many times how stupid human existence is, and how better "Alien" levels of being are - clearly you're not above choosing to leave the human existence) What evidence do you have of remote viewing existing? I'm not saying it's impossible, but this requires extraordinary evidence and scientific reasoning that you haven't shared. What is your actual worldview on this?

@Leo Gura I don't like how you're simply stating that it's a "murky line" when he is literally preaching white supremacist thought. Are you one of the people who think that all ethnicities of people can be racist to eachother in the same degree even against white people? If so, I think that is unintelligent and uncalibrated to the point of making the forum a worse place. I'm not even one of those far leftists who go as far as to say racism against whites is literally impossible, but come on, we live in a society with a certain history and systems still in place. There should be some degree of wokeness in place, since if you cater to these centrist strains of thought where "people are just racist and they can just share their opinions bro" , that inevitably will be used in bad faith. Since there is a current of white supremacy in the world, to steer against that current and make the forum a neutral place there should be at least a small current of wokeness in this forum. Majed literally posts about "Oh those beautiful white people I wish I was among them" and you don't see that as problematic? I guess it's not in the spirit of you nor the forum to give him a woke sermon about that but your reply is way too uncalibrated and unintelligent IMO to the kind of garbage that he posted, to the point of cringe.