Scholar

Still think the depth of consciousness thing is Maya stuff. You're just discovery the nature of infinity, which is infinite, lol. You'd like to imagine infinite as a static thing, as an infinitely large thing. But the way infinity looks like is more so akin to a vector. It's infinitely expanding into itself.

Depending on the kind of lentils you eat they can just be heavy to digest. I get sleepy after eating a high-protein red lentil meal for example. I wouldn't eat it in the morning. If you have problems digesting you can drink a bit of apple cyder vinegar before eating. (look up how to do it)

It's the other way around, if you can accept the wig, you clearly are enlightened.

Obvious stuff but for those overhyped people in here.

Sure thing buddy.

It's not that deep, you could have figured out 90% of the principles discussed here just by contemplating and investigating your own intelligence and intuition, whilst knowing the basic way of how LLMs work. It's nice to see the experts parrot what I have been saying in regardsto LLMs basically simulating intuition, and that intuition is used by humans in all forms of intelligent problem solving but is not actually intelligent problem solving. I had a discussion about this precise thing with someone on the forum a year back or so. They are still missing the connection to individuated consciousness though, but that's another matter. Any easy way to gain insight into this is to inspect specifically the nature of understanding. Note that intuition is not grounded in consciousness, or individuated consciousness to be precise. It's unconscious or subconscious, so is knowledge, and the way it is cued is conscious, but the way it is prompted from your memory is not conscious. You know this Leo because you made this insight when you realized your mind is like google and you can just ask it something and it will give you an answer. That is basically engaging the "LLM" unconscious" part of the mind or brain. Understanding however is precisely consciousness. It is cannot be simulated or imitated, because it is it's own form of existence. The brain is basically an interface between that form of existence (which is a unified form of existence, something unique and impossible to simulate via mere algorithmic approaches), so the neural networks feed into individuated consciousness, which is sustained through a particular relationship within the physicality of the universe.

I think Leo also has a need to be the best and ultimate at something. Wouldn't be very exciting if he couldn't develop the "deepest understanding of reality anyone has ever reached in the history of mankind" etc. Non-Duality is too simple, and there is a clear end point, and it was discovered for thousands of years. Can't really out-ego that.

I don't have a summary, but this conversation was pretty solid: I'm currently leaning more towards Yang being correct than Gura, or maybe neither.

Close-mindedness. I think Yang is superior.

Why? What makes you believe Ralston is truthful/accurate about his own self-assessment?

You're stanning him hard.

Rats are pretty cool though, so I take it as an insult to Ralson, which I might agree with.

You were a infant bub when you decided to make him your idol.

That seems gullible to me. You should seek to verify it, to yourself or even just by some evidence he provides.

But that's an assumption, based merely on what he says about it himself. Why do you believe him?

I feel like you guys are gullable. Why do you even believe this? There is no demonstration that this is even true, just the tournament that might have been won because he simply is a good fighter.

Oh because he says so... Please.

But the understanding is untested. If his school produced some amazing fighters or something then that would be different, but they dont seem to.

omfg we need a Leo wig.

What's wrong with his wig?

Once self-realization is attained there would be no difference between the bits of cheese and any thing else really, and given the human mind, it would simply do as it always acted (albeit changed structurally due to the nature of the insights). "Mundane" existence already is the full loving appreciation, because the perfection of mundane life is achieved through ignorance of love, which is the "highest" act of love. You can only truly love something if you are willing to let it be it's own thing. Loving it as God is easy peasy, that's what you do and did for all of eternity. It actually undermines the purity of the object you "love", because it muddies it with your love. Fear wouldn't be itself if it was muddied by your disgusting God-Love-Spunk all the time. It would just be a worthless love-fear mixture. Which just means you don't love fear enough to actually let it be itself. Godrealization is basically the ignorant human-monkey-mind ruining God's creation because it was too selfish to let Creation be itself. God-realization is like taking a cake, mixing it up, and adding a million tons of sugar. Sure you get more sugar that way, but the cake won't be a cake anymore, you ruined it all! If you want the sugar you can just be God, which you already were for literally eternity.

By "you" you just mean existence, or Infinity, which is just another word for reality. And that's all obviously, obviously reality gives rise to all of reality and existence.

Cope. You should do another interview though, looking back at it you were basically a complete newbie back then and the questions were surface level. Would be interesting if you could get more into the weeds, and maybe even have a discussion and challenging his views more.

Because empires were exclusive to Europeans. Not like the Arabs tried their best to conquer the world, or the Japanese, or the Mongols, or the Aztecs, or the Ottomans. And do the romans really count as europeans?

Listened to the interview, omg now we know where Leo stole the "Ta-daaa!" from!