hundreth

It's pretty much #2. We never really get past #1 and it creates a never ending cycle. If you believe that the Jews and Israelis are responsible for the plight of the Palestinians, then the Jews and Israelis are also the ones who can end it. If all the discourse is about how terrible Israel and the Jews are, nothing is going to change. When Jews hear all of this demonization, they don't feel the plight of the Palestinians. They themselves feel threatened and fight back. We hear "from the river to the sea", "one-state" solution and all of that. The discourse never reaches any other direction. You don't see many conversations actually discussing two state solution possibilities in the year 2025. It's all discussions about who is more at fault, Israel is the devil, Palestinians are terrorists, human shields, yada yada. If you want those who can actually change things to change things, start with "ok, Israel is here to stay. Let's try to end the plight of the Palestinians, what can we do to enact a two state solution and take Bibi out of power?" If you started there, you'd probably have a lot more support and you may see tides shift. I'm a believer that when the quote on quote "more developed" side goes to extremes, the majority falls back to shadow ideologies. This is how leaders like Trump get elected. The "woke left" who always cries victim about minorities etc but leaves out the middle class and regular white people. Who demonizes them, etc. It doesn't matter if they make good points. They aren't meeting people where they are and losing them.

The question is what do you guys want? You want a "one-state" solution - the eradication of Israel as a Jewish state. That is never going to happen. They will fight for that as if their existence depends on it. (It might.) So to that end, make up your minds. Either you want a two-state solution, some other configuration - or you want war / the continuation of removing Palestinians. It's that simple.

What's the bias? I'm also not following what you mean about the observer effect and consciousness. The flaw of what? Science? Leo did say that psychic abilities exist. Very plainly actually.

There is no resistance to the validity of the experience, more-so the conclusions drawn from it. I do this myself, I swear I've influenced the outcome of the Knicks game by saying the wrong thing. You seem like you have good intentions behind your words. The thing is, the observer effect has been hijacked by every woo peddler on the planet to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Most of them don't even understand it. The other part is that of course you're right that science isn't pro or anti anything, with enough data it adapts. The problem is that we dismiss all the data that does exist when it doesn't suit our narrative. There is tons and tons of data and studies which have already been done. Can they 100% disprove something, no - you never can. But you can make some reasonable inferences from the existing data. The same thing happens when you have people like RFK Jr. initiating studies around the origins of autism. We've already had tons of studies over the years, but no - they are all trash because they don't give the answer they like. They must now do new studies to find the answer RFK is looking for. Why? Because some parents had a valid experience of witnessing their children develop autism symptoms shortly after taking vaccines. But that one individual experience doesn't tell the whole story. This is the epistemic issue Leo warned you about, but he happens to be on the other side of it - today.

Ad hominems - Leo's first and last appeal.

AI. I specifically asked for James Randi because I was already familiar with his work but that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to controlled testing around paranormal phenomena. Not surprisingly, the results are similar.

I never claimed I was smarter than you, but you're using very basic run-of-the-mill arguments to prop up your fortune teller. There's nothing new about what you're proposing here. These are the arguments I hear the babushka on the corner of 108th st make. They always fail.

This is absurd reasoning. Fortune tellers and how they work have been discussed ad nauseam and the topic has been beaten to death. The answer is confirmation bias. You don't remember all the other things she said that didn't come true, nor do you care. They are also extremely skilled at cold reading. For thousands and thousands of years people believed all kinds of outlandish things. That doesn't make them true. It doesn't make those people idiots either, it's just a natural way for us to process the world. We take intuitive shortcuts to find answers because the totality of knowledge and understanding is completely overwhelming and outside our grasp.

These are same types of issues plaguing RFK as our head of HHS. Academics and scientists use the same rigor to dismiss bogus claims about the root causes of autism. In this scenario, you're for it. Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot and the same problems exist you've allowed your biases to guide you.

Oh those evil academics and scientists at it again, always ruining a good time. Yeah, we could throw away all skepticism and concern regarding these studies and believe whatever we want - or we could use Occam's razor and see that in the context of all controlled paranormal experimentation there are no verifiable results. They tried to replicate the results independently, they could not.

I dunno man, the implication from your blog posts is that if the US government had a remote viewing program, then there's credibility to remote viewing. I don't see it that way. The "only works on genetic freaks" is another cop out in a long line of excuses for why paranormal phenomena always fails under controlled environments. No one has ever won James Randi's paranormal prize despite tons of attempts. No one has ever proven paranormal or psychic abilities in a controlled environment. Ever. Now that doesn't mean the materialist paradigm is correct, or that there's no magic in the universe, etc. All it points to is that most likely our fixed context of existence has a very rigid set of boundaries. That so far, no one is able to surpass them on a physical level when examined in an unbiased manner. Nothing more, nothing less.

This thread might not fit here, as it's not specifically a video request but I couldn't find a more appropriate place for it. I can't really watch Leo's videos any longer. They're too long to be digestible or enjoyable. I understand Leo's perspective that deeper topics require more nuance, information and time to learn - such as in academics. I have no issue with that. But even in an academic setting, lectures are limited to an hour or so. If you had a professor lecturing on for 3 hours straight non stop, it wouldn't be especially effective. There is a phenomena known as information overload. It is very real. To make matters worse, it doesn't seem like Leo plans his videos as an academic lecturer would. They have become more stream of consciousness rants. Often, they are repetitive and meander. This is really meant to be constructive criticism and I hope it is received as much, as I believe Leo has valuable insights. My suggestions would be: Keep videos shorter (less than 1 hr, ideally even 30-40 minutes) If topics require more in depth coverage, split them up into parts or sub-topics Have more of a structured outline for what you want to cover Here is an example of a video which adheres to some of these principles and does a good job. Ignore the cheesy thumbnail. It is in a completely different domain, but the creator is going over a very advanced topic and consolidating a lot of information into digestible bits. Sprinkled in with humor and visualizations of bullet points to help process. When there is a rabbit hole to dive deeper into, he references another video or resource. It's just easy to digest. Anyways, take care.

Any way you spin it, you cannot avoid how catastrophic the end result has been for the Palestinians. Ousting Netanyahu could have only been beneficial for them. But you probably don't care about incremental wins, as anything that harms Israel must be for the greater good even if it harms Palestinians even worse. The Palestinians really gained nothing from this. The Hamas lose lose strategy.

One thing that gets overlooked is how bad Oct 7th was strategically for the Palestinians. Before Oct 7 Israel was mostly in a docile state and not focused on Gaza. They were increasing work permits and focused on removing Bibi from power. He had multiple corruption charges against him, elections happening every few months, etc. It seemed inevitable that Israel was going to oust him in favor of some new leadership. And at this moment what do you? You launch a massive terrorist attack that kills hundreds of civilians. You give Netanyahu exactly what he wants and needs to stay in power. Now it's a lose lose for everyone. Both sides got fucked.

You're conflating things, which is my point. You're bundling present day Israel with the term Zionism. Now you might argue that Zionism in your definition inevitably leads to present day Israel, but large portions of Israeli society would disagree with you and have their own vision of what Zionism means and what Israel could be. If the US stopped supporting Israel, it wouldn't remove Israel's right to exist. They would defend themselves still to the best of their abilities.

I think for most Jews, Zionism is Israel's right to exist. We are here now, we aren't leaving. We can do our best to deal with the wrongs of the past and create the best possible outcomes for the future, but within the parameters of reason. What is Zionism to you? That's the issue with loaded terms like that. You label them bad, and then those with differing criteria and opinions get bundled in. You've now pushed them further towards the other side and increased extremism.

Obviously you aren't interested in the domain of the video I sent lol. That's not the point. Neither is the point whether you knew the information in it already or not. The main idea is how he structured it. Splitting Leo's videos into parts isn't the same thing because a video has structure to it. There's an intro, and eventually some closure. A 3 hour stream of consciousness from Leo isn't as easily broken apart. Where do you do the cut? I don't have to time to go through Leo's 3 hour videos and try to parse out stopping points. Anyways this is just my feedback.

I didn't really get anything out of the thread you sent. What were you trying to say the reason was? That the videos were about more "practical" matters? I think it's less about the subject and more about the flow of information.

This statement shows how ridiculous you're being.

You think this is because of some engineered bias within the AI, but actually the AI sees the issue more clearly than you. Obviously it is more practical and reasonable given the current situation to relocate the Palestinians. Of course there's good arguments against it, which it seems to provide. On the other hand, relocating Israelis makes zero sense at all.

Right, so if you have the "right" philosophy then you can have the "right" science? That doesn't sound like science, it sounds like confirmation bias. Why not just follow wherever the truth leads? But yeah, I guess that is a philosophy of science in itself which I believe most scientists aspire to in principal, to be an unbiased observer. In practice, it probably isn't so simple. In that sense self awareness becomes paramount.

Why? The opposite seems like it could also be true. If you're subscribed to some ideology or specific philosophy you run the risk of searching for confirmations. This is what happened with Einstein and determinism. He was so ideologically captured by the philosophy of determinism, he spent half his life at odds with quantum physics.

Good question. The New Age movement has different dimensions, aliens, spirits, anything and everything in between. I think the difference is that in this model, everything is real. In your model, everything is a dream. I mean it isn't your model per se. I would hope the difference is that your teachings are more grounded, but part of me feels like you'd like to say that the new age movement is *too* grounded.

Here's a great example of how the community breaks down new theories from your favorite person, Dave. You can fast forward to 50:00 where he brings on Tim Nguyen, who peer reviewed his work to explain the theory and poke some holes. The entire video is great though. These are typically the frauds who claim they have a new theory of everything. The Weinsteins and the Terrence Howards of the world.

Understood. Yeah, I could totally see that danger. For sure, there has to be room for alternative medicine and intuition outside of current scientific paradigms.