Edvard

Member
  • Content count

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

1 Follower

About Edvard

  • Rank
    Lesser Chimp

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

354 profile views
  1. The thing about this is that it's just assertions from both sides, and the side against no-fap is so overwhelmingly larger, and seem to have more references to science.
  2. When googling this topic, I find the vast majority saying that musturbation is healthy, and several that says it prevents prostata cancer. Actually, I can't find a single article that does not say it's a good thing, and that one should do it often, expect for on some discussion forums. Hard to be convinced to do nofap by that. Some mainstream medias actually present articles showing less masturbation by certain groups as a negative thing. Wanna adress the points in theis video?
  3. Well, I did say I agree with you a lot, and it wasn't as much a defence of how science is practiced today as it was pointing out you generalizing and painting everybody with a broad brush. I said, if you wanna criticize people, I suggest you address things they have actually said, instead of effectively saying Krauss, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson and Harris are all the same. What's wrong about saying, "I don't know"? I think there is a spectrum here. Some are more materialistic and dogmatic than others, and of these people I would probably put Dennett as most materialistic, and Harris in the other end. Again, what has Harris said that is dogmatic? I'm curious. He has admitted that consciousness is subjective. He doesn't believe in free will, while Dennett's a compatibalist. It seems Harris probably would be careful talking about claims of paranormal activities and witchcraft and all that, but he certainly seems to not be as arrogant, and even contemplates whether Buddhism is actually true, on his podcast. And, unless you are conscious of what you Leo, are saying, you can't exactly say that it's true either. Well, maybe psychedelics... But Harris has taken that too, i.e. LSD. And he does think it could be a useful tool for investigating the mind. And comparing it with religious fundamentalism is kind of silly, when this seem to come down to spiral dynamics a lot. And it could also be useful to distinguish between scientists to understand who that is going in the right direction, who's leading the evolution. Who of Dennett, Krauss, Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and Harris do you think is the most and the least dogmatic. Or are they all the same?
  4. What other field is filled with people who understand that?
  5. @Leo Gura Several scientists don't dismiss many of the things on your list above. Many scientists are still closeminded thinking they're openminded, but many are also not. I think you are generalizing the vast differences you find out there. It's true that Bill Nye, Neil dTyson, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins don't know everything, and sometimes think they can define what there is reason to think is true. That's true, but they're certainly far more evolved than religious people, because they have moved away from fundamentalism (meaning that they are not closed 100% to new ideas). When asked what happens when you die, they don't answer with certainty other than that the brain will rot. Apart from that they may say what they believe and what there is good reason to think. I do think they're wrong in that, but when it comes to Sam Harris, he has openly said; «I'm not saying you just get a dial tone after death. I simply DON'T KNOW what to think about death. I think we should be doubtful to the notion that the mind can just migrate to a better place». He has also said many many times: «counsciousness is the only thing we can be certain is not an illusion». He may be wrong on many things, but he does not belong in the company of Dawkins, Krauss and Nye. The right answer when you don't know is: I don't know, which many scientists follow, so please don't generalize. And I think you're misrepresenting, be more accurate when representing other people, address what they have actually said. And not long ago, you yourself thought we were mortal. I agree a lot about flaws in science, but I also think that you are totally overexaggerating here, and talking about it as if it universally by default says this and that, when that's not true at all. And the other thing about science is that it works, that's why it was invented. It creates planes, and this is universal. You aren't bound to believe anything just because you created a plane or an iphone, or figured out evolution or the Big Bang through the methods of science. Another point is that science can make predictions. One can predict chemical reactions, that something's gonna fall because of gravity, asteroids approaching earth, etc. Given the consistent world we live in it's only reasonable to make the assumption that it's material, like it's just a tool. Science sometimes has to make assumptions, and a good scientist admit those assumptions. Because IT WORKS, it creates things and predicts things. And what scientists believe about the metaphysics vary a lot, and I think that science in the future will get rid of the materialist paradigm, and people already have. And yes, it has it's flaws and is often arrogant.
  6. @Leo Gura To be accurate, you said: "I also became acutely aware that non-existence is impossible". Mistake? At 21:12 : Edit: Oh, about a minute later, you said: "so existence is literally impossible". So which is it?
  7. The paradox of nothing. There is no nothing, which is why death doesn't exist - there's always going to be that space of consciousness left. Mystics and even you said so... You even said in the video Leo Hits Rock Bottom - EVERYTHING Understood, quote: "you can't not exist". That was a thing you reportedly had discovered. Doesn't this pretty much prove my point here; that it's just semantics we're talking about?
  8. @blazed Too bad you can't quit when you like.. or maybe one could by suicide... but then I guess you would still be dealt a random new game. If you only knew, you could just kill yourself every time you get born into a nightmare... but I guess that is a little oversimplicated of an idea. I guess it's just random, infinite and happening in the Now. Anyway, hard to make sense of it with concepts, and without actually being the Truth.
  9. Ah... and so the one reading it is the same one, just in a future or past life, which in actuality happens simultaneously and infinite times, because time is an illusion? Interesting.
  10. Right, I don't dispute that. When we're talking about nightmares at night, too, we give those meaning. They can be pleasant or unpleasant, although those dreams people actually realize are unreal. I can tell that I would rather have a pleasant dream over an unpleasant dream. Because of self-bias? Of course! But self-bias is also the content of this dream, and there is nothing to do about it, unless it is, unless enlightenment happens. But it either happens or it doesn't.
  11. I meant that it doesn't matter that there are no "whos", however you define "who", because of suffering. So suffering exists, you say. Isn't that enough? I think it could be more accurate to say that everything exists and non-exists at the same time. Yeah, but if something can cease, it obviously was something there before it ceased. The illusion and suffering was there. What I would conclude is that we have to exist, because although existing in itself doesn't make any sense, at the same time not being conscious is a paradox and impossible - the Now has to be eternal. That's what my notion has been for a long time, but this sense is even stronger now that I've gotten over the Dawkins and Krauss', etc.
  12. It doesn't matter. There is suffering no matter what you say. It's torment because of literary nothing. But again, given the fact that it's torment, and that there are perspectives (as you say), how does the metaphysics of this matter in that regard? It changes nothing, unless, perhaps, it's realized by nothing, but nevertheless realized. Why did you create Actualized.org? Why do you try to make lives "better" if there is no suffering? Whether that suffering is illusory or not, well, I don't think such a distinction exists when it comes to suffering. And when I say "you", I mean that the "brain" of Leo Gura (yes, which doesn't exist materially speaking) would find it utterly illogical to care about anything, and doing anything. But yet, you seem to care about people, so if you do agree that there is suffering and perspectives, that is something even if it's nothing - no matter what you label it it's just that - labels and concepts. Many enlightened people call it being. What else can being do but to be? I don't get your wordgame. And "who" is also a word.
  13. Who doesn't realize it, you say?? For an illusion to occur, that's good enough for me to call it real. Just as real and unreal as a videogame, just with/without other perspectives, but again, perspectives is all that matter to us regardless of the metaphysics. This is a wordgame. Most people are trapped in a seeming solid reality, and what happens in this dream matter to how one feels, whatever you call it, real or unreal, but those words are not what matter to us. What we care about is suffering less and gaining more happiness - having a larger piece of life, as Sadhguru puts it. That's all we care about, and most of us are trapped here regardless of the metaphysics, it doesn't matter what you call it ----except that realizing the true nature of your "self" seems to be the ultimate solution to the suffering going on, and being in a state of not-knowing. You're not in a state of not-knowing by saying that reality doesn't exist - it's just an other label you put on it. How do you define existence? The dictionary describes it like this : to have actual being; be. What is reality? It just is, right? By being.
  14. It was a question. We were discussing how empathy for it's own sake makes sense if there are no one to suffer. Then krazzer said; "you will probably know what happens if you don't treat others well". OK, so if that's true, what will I know to happen by stamping on an ant? What consequence, given that the ant doens't exist? (hypothetically, of course)