caelanb

Thanks for the replies. This is kinda is tough to really grasp, it's all very abstract as I said before. About the contemplation @Loving Radiance I have seen Leo's videos on contemplation a while ago. And, I in fact contemplated, anger once (excuse my bad writing plz): Keep in mind this was done a few years back when I had an eating disorder so, it's a little outdated. However, that was my first attempt at it, which I don't know if it is in the right direction or anything. I cannot deny that everything that I have ever experienced is in my subjective experience, but that is the same for everyone else too. But it's hard to come to the conclusion that I am imagining everyone else because, for them, I am not imagining them (they would be imagining me). So I guess I don't want to discriminate against any other experience, because that would offend someone else (their experience is as true as mine is). But then if their experience is imaginary for me and mine is imaginary for them, then who's is not imaginary. There would have to be an external world for both experiences to be real. If no sentient being were alive on Earth, no one would be experiences this Earth, so according to perception, it wouldn't exist. Isn't it possible to take 'landmarks' and put it on the territory, in order to explain it and understand it? The landmark is on the territory, you can dissect a chipmunk and put a stick in its brain to label it, and explain how it work and what it does, thus you are learning about the territory. Which from my knowledge, is what science does. @Nahm When it comes to feelings/emotions, I have experienced intense emotions of anger, frustration, guilt, pleasure, and all of the, you can call basic emotions. Which I do indeed feel in my body, I don't exactly if it covered the entirety of it, but the stronger it is, the more it seems to feel that it covered. I also did watch Leo's videos on an advanced explanation of Love, both parts. I can grasp how absolute love is loving everything without any condition, that makes sense to me. But he also says, from what I can recall is that feeling of love (the lower one if you will), the 'petty little human love' as he says, is not actual love, which I find kinda hard to understand, because that's the only love I have ever experienced (from what I am aware of; love for family, friends, pets and so on). So, yeah, I guess he makes a distinction between, Absolute love of everything regardless of anything (God as he calls is), vs the 'petty little human feeling' love that is very condition (which, I guess is the only one I have ever experienced, and anyone that I know has every experienced). The human feeling is just a feeling within the body that you can experience. If I go out and test all the scientific theories that I learned in HS for example, and find that they all a truth. Couldn't I say that those theories are true? Because I indeed tested them. @Scholar I am not skeptical enough? I do see your point, I think you're saying that you cannot use something within existence to prove existence itself (which is all you can do, however). You would have to use something out of existence to prove existence, which is impossible to do, unless you stop existing. But aren't concepts even pure existence because they are within existence itself? I guess this is the self reference issue. Essentially you would have to become to understand existence itself. But, do you have to take non-existence into consideration too? Even though it would also be impossible to do that, because nothing can be non-existing, because because it would literally be nothing. And so we have a non existence and an existence. What I just said probably didn't make any sense. I was just trying to understand lol. It's funny because I have just started a university Biology program (taking bio and chem), and all this deep philosophy stuff makes it all seem questionable, as though it is essentially a dream. I do find Biology fascinating, however, so I'll learn that, have to try to find a way to make sense of both at the same time, which would likely end in a paradox. What would be the point in trying to understand anything at all (even survival itself is apparently just a dream), would it not matter? How would it be for an atheist, materialism, rationalist, who even if you told them that 'this is a dream' and they respond with 'even if it is, so what?', would react/respond to some spontaneous awakening experience. I would assume they would say something like, 'oh, well I guess I was wrong, my bad', or would it be different? That's all I got, I hope that made sense.

@Loving Radiance Thank you very for effort trying to explain what seems like belief to me, but I guess until I do more introspection, I'll never be aware of it, if that's the right word to use. What you said sounds very much like semantics at this point. Leo, talks about contemplation, self-enquiry, and introspection from what I'm aware of, are all those pretty much the same? with slight differences? The big thing for when I meditate, is my mind going off and thinking random stuff, and I sometimes strain the muscles on my face in order to try to 'stop' the mind from going off, because it eventually gets bored. I'll try to start just notice myself getting distracted in thoughts, and calmly bring myself back. It's funny how if you ask a biologist, or physicist or scientist that studies the world, what they think about what you wrote, they would probably say, 'that's nonsense, BS and semantics to confuse people into thinking the real physical objective reality is not that', I know that's what my parents would say lol (they aren't actually scientists though. I forgot to say the body as being part of the self. So are you saying that, New York only exists if you have direct experience of it? Isn't it the case that New York and where am for example are both real, because the New York experience is experiencing New York, thus, it is within his or her experience. And with an aggregate of the different experiencers around the world, all those different parts of the world exists too? In in the middle of the desert where there is nobody, no experiencer is there to experience it, doesn't mean it isn't real though, their is just no one in that location to experience everything? I guess this is similar to the philosophical question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? So far, in my life, my experience tells me that feeling (emotional) is limited to sensations within the body, either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral that are triggered my biochemical mechanisms, sometimes triggered by the external environment or internal environment, such as thoughts. Or maybe only by thoughts, which are triggered by many different things. I have a wheel of emotions displaying a large variety of emotions on it, which even myself I have not experienced. There are also feelings the body, or you could say sensations, like getting hit by a tennis ball, will produce a sensation, which is triggered by the tennis ball, and a bunch of biochemical mechanisms that happen within the body allowing you to feel this ball hitting you. I hear Leo talking about love a lot, which he seems to interchange the emotions of love with Love (or infinity) as he like to call it. When he says love is not a human emotions, but maybe he refers to the Love (which I don't have experience of that, whatever it is), it kinda confuses me. He has also said that, for example love is necessary for human development, I'm assuming he means the love not Love, but idk, all seems like word games. @Mason Riggle Well, ever since I remember, reality is explainable, with laws and atoms, which I learned in science class, along with proof for it (in demonstrations), thus questioning it didn't and doesn't seem necessary, because it was already proven. I don't think I'm assuming it, because it has already been proven, with the uncountable amount of times scientists have used the scientific method on reality, in order to understand facts about it. From what I am aware of, the deepest science has gone into the 'rock bottom' is quark (or quarks, idk if it's plural or singular), and everything within the field of quantum mechanics, which is too complex for to understand. That is the limit of human knowledge from what I have been told. And if we discover something wrong about our system of investigation, then we change it, or we get another one. Consciousness is a little harder to study because it's more elusive, but that's what Cognitive Science is for; to understand the mind. Eventually we'll hopefully get to understanding reality. That's my view, which feels objective, because I or anyone that follows the proper method of investigation can test/reproduce them themselves, with chemistry, physics, or biology experiments. @Mason Riggle @Loving Radiance I guess the biggest thing for my right now is questioning reality, ever since I discovered Leo, and his enlightenment stuff, it made reality seem way more fantastical as Leo likes to say. And because I knew that we have not solved everything about reality (because we are still doing research in order to learn about it), It seemed quite appealing. So I am open to these new ideas if you will, however, personally have not had any direct experience of it all being a dream or illusion or imagination. The only thing I have experienced from what I remember (which could be completely wrong from what actually happened) is a moment of calmer mind during meditation along with what felt like a subtle expansion in my awareness. I am pretty sure this is accurate due to the fact that I remember feeling pretty good after the sessions was over (which it ended shortly after this). It could just be a calmer mind, however, allowing me to be more present with the sounds of what was happening around me, however, even thoughts themselves are in the present. I did do a little bit of what I think was contemplating about what is anger, but idk if I was actually contemplating or doing something that seemed like it. I'm just a little skeptical of this awakening, enlightenment, god stuff, because if am wrong, I would be a fool for thinking this is true, and would be considered deluded by others as well. At the end of the day, I'm thinking, but what if this is just non-sense and people trying to convince me of airy fairy things about reality, that don't have any factual evidence within reality. Thank you.

@Loving Radiance I see, thanks for clearing that up. Personally I feel that my mind just does not want to focus on my breath when I meditate. I usually start to think of random stuff without being aware of it, and because of this I have not had any consistent experiences of a silent mind. Possibly because my mind gets bored of like a focused concentration that is not stimulating., so it decides to go off and do other stuff. Are there any tips you have for dealing with this? Truth reveals itself to be self-evidence is very far fetched to me, shouldn't you have to validate that whatever it was, was indeed truth? What is Shamanic breathing exactly, have their been studies on it's benefits and drawbacks? Some weird way of manipulating your breath I'm assuming? How do I know that I am actually understanding myself better by introspection and the like, and not just thinking thoughts that I want to be like or feel that I am? If there is no basis of facts that you know about yourself, how do you know whether you are going into delusion or not? All I can really do is 'feel', what I like and don't like. @Mason Riggle I understand the simple awakening, but profound awakenings are less easy to understand. Isn't the no self synonymous to the self, which is a collection of thoughts feelings emotions, perceptions and memories? Thus, not one thing, but a collection of things? It is hard for me to see how materialism is just a paradigm. The physical world around me is too obvious for me to question it at all; I can't go through walls anything like that. I also can't grasp that reality is only where your awareness is because, in New York for example, everyone living there has an awareness and perceptions of their own, which I have no access to from where I am. I can think thoughts about the reality there but I would have to go ask another individual person about New York's reality if I truly want to know. I don't think that means that New York does not exist out of my awareness, just that I'm not physically there to see it's reality. I could prove to myself that I am not dreaming, or at least I am 99.9% sure that I am not dreaming, because I have woken up in the same reality after sleeping every single day for my entire life. And the reality I have woken to has been consistent everyday too, the world works the same as it did before I went to bed, as well as the place I went to bed. My dreams on the other hand can change and or not consistent. Thus, seems like good enough proof to me. However, I have never questioned if my dreams are dreams while I am in them, and never my waking life while I'm awake, it just doesn't feel necessary due to the latter. @Leo Gura Perhaps you can talk to the people that run the Ketamin experience you spoke about on your blog. Charlie and Ben from Charisma on command did an interview one of the guy from Mindbloom, I think that's the Ketamin psychedelic experience company. The podcast seemed more scientific in nature, however, it could provide better understanding of the science psychedelics and Ketamin specifically. I can't grasp that there is nothing outside of imagination. If all of it is imagination, reality couldn't possibly be so consistent, with laws and dictating how everything moves/preventing me from putting my hand through solid brick. From my awareness and experience it is too obvious that this isn't imagination. But, since your telling me it that it is, I'm not sure what to do if it actually were/found out that it is, or even how to go about proving it. Thank you.

I guess so, @Leo Gura I can't imagine the disagreements that would arise between you and whichever individual you interview or chat with. They'd probably be like, 'you're crazy for saying or thinking there is an Absolute Truth because I and no one that I have met has seen any/had proof of any'. I mean, that's pretty much what the average person would say, from my experience. But, could it be possible that you could be misunderstanding some things that a physicist understands, which could greatly improve your own understanding? They are complex topics after all, right? @Carl-Richard Well, I know there is something there, because many studies have shown the benefits of meditation, however, when it comes to transcendence, enlightenment, and the more abstract things, it's harder to grasp. However, I would not be surprised if other higher states of consciousness were possible to achieve (just very difficult to), due to the power of the mind, and what calming it down to very small levels can lead to. @Arzola I'm not exactly sure what you mean by @Loving Radiance Did you achieve any awakening experience while doing that 10 days retreat, or was it just a significant reduction in monkey mind? Is the concept of enlightenment the same or difference as the concept of awakening? And if you get insights from either how do you know their not true or just your mind imagination and creations? Thanks.

Thank you very much for the replays. This awakening stuff is very confusing. Unfortunately don't understand everything @Adamq8 and @Consilience said, so I cannot really grasp it. And I think you mean @Blackhawk is without the sound waves in the air, there would be no sound? Because from my knowledge, radio waves are what the radio receives as frequency and then it translates that into sound waves. I read this article on psychology today and it seems to make the opposite claim that Leo makes in his videos, that spiritually makes the world more real not less, with references to Advaita Vedanta and Mayan philosophy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201704/the-world-is-not-illusion. There are other about spiritually on Psychology today (etc. The Self is Not an Illusion) but that is one I read. I don't have access to any psychedelics, so I'd have to do something else@Alex_R. The best thing for me to do I guess based on what you all have said is it do 60 minutes meditation everyday, I have a bell that rings every 5 minutes to keep me focused , but even with that I get distracted 90% of the time, and adding 40 minutes of that would probably just add 40 minutes of potential distraction/monkey mind. Retreats (never done this, but considering my level of meditation, this would most likely be extremely difficult), and contemplation, though, when it comes to contemplation, I'm not sure how to contemplate something that feels so obvious to me, such as 'I am a human being' or less obvious, like And even if I do, it's difficult to foresee how it will give me some radical insight, I feel like I'm better of going to ask professor who understands conscious and studies it, because they have hands on experience with it. This is kind of leads to a question for @Leo Gura, if you want to understand consciousness and the quantum physics, philosophy, would it not be beneficial to interview professors and researchers? So that you can double check what you have discovered, you could learn something new from them I guess, because this is what there life is focused on. However, I did also find this video which does suggest that logic and rationality may have flaws, thus making this stuff sound less like empty philosophy. But because I'm not a math professor or have any degree in math (apart from a HS math), most of the stuff in the video was very confusing and hard to understand. Funny enough I posted this video in the forums of a math review course that I was in which is offered to students to help prepare for university math. All in all, maybe I have no clue what's happening or what I'm doing, or maybe my mind is being healthily skeptical, or maybe my mind is looking for an answer that will explain and understand everything Leo is talking, in order to be less confused, I'm not sure. The last thing I'll say is that before I saw any of Leo's videos on awakening or enlightenment, self-deception (all the other more abstract stuff), I didn't think there was potentially anything more to reality than what I see and what people tell me. Thank you.

@tlowedajuicemayne How do you know this isn't a massive hallucination, which triggered emotions so intense you have never experienced before?

Can you share your proof of this please? Thx

I have listened to your video on how on Gender being a social construct and want to say there is a problem with the definition of science, which leads to false conclusions of what science can and cannot do. Science does not only 'measure or record data' as said in the video, that is only a small but necessary part of science. With that definition it is obvious that you cannot do much, such as make categorize male and female based on empirical investigation of what each is. Science constitutes the scientific method; creating a hypothesis, doing the experiment that will test the hypothesis (measuring all the data), and getting to a conclusion to the hypothesis that was predicted, then publishing it (which is not necessary). This is what science entails (however, different methods of these steps can be used to make a study better or worse). And through this, one is doing science, which is way more than just measuring data. So, from this inaccurate definition of science, it is easy to say that science cannot 'prove' the existence of a male of female (or anything really), because apparently that is not what science does. Actually you can, it is what science does. Through the process of the scientific method; A female has a vagina, a male has a penis; Take measurements/observations; and conclude. That's my main problem with the video; an inaccurate definition of science, which allows one say to falsely say that science cannot prove anything. Please correct me if I have misunderstood something. Also, when the above is what happens when you reach Mahasamadhi, why would anyone want to go there? Because as you said love is all of the physical stuff that exists, so if dying is leaving love, it seems counterproductive to want to reach that. Is the infinitely conscious singularity something different from the love that you say is physical reality. Thx

I have listened to Leo's video on how on Gender being a social construct and want to say there is a problem with his definition of science, which leads to false conclusions of what science can and cannot do. Science does not only 'measure or record data' as said in the video, that is only a small but necessary part of science. With that definition it is obvious that you cannot do much, such as make categorize male and female based on empirical investigation of what each is. Science constitutes the scientific method; creating a hypothesis, doing the experiment that will test the hypothesis (measuring all the data), and getting to a conclusion to the hypothesis that was predicted, then publishing it (which is not necessary). This is what science entails (however, different methods of these steps can be used to make a study better or worse). And through this, one is doing science, which is way more than just measuring data. So, from this inaccurate definition of science, it is easy to say that science cannot 'prove' the existence of a male of female (or anything really), because apparently that is not what science does. Actually you can, it is what science does. Through the process of the scientific method; A female has a vagina, a male has a penis; Take measurements/observations; and conclude. That's my main problem with the video; an inaccurate definition of science, which allows one say to falsely say that science cannot prove anything.

I saw this page on rationalwiki about Leo, and who ever made it goes pretty in depth on explaining their issues with Leo and how much of a supposed scam he is. There’s literally a graph of stock phrases he uses when arguing. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leo_Gura

https://www.honnoldfoundation.org/#mission Probably stage green in my opinion.

I just had a few questions I have been pondering? If all that there is is the present moment, and the past and future are thoughts in the present, then what is time? Is time real? If I am conscious, and that which makes me conscious is neurons firing in the brain, than does that make me just a bunch of neurons in the brain? Which makes me my brain? Or maybe I am all of my body (legs, arms, cells). But if I lose my arm, does that mean that I lost myself? I am just curious about these questions. Because it seems to all come down to the consciousness that makes me experience my reality which seems to be physical and always changing in the present moment? Thank you for any answers to help me figure this out:)

Well in one of his newest episode he says that schools don't actually teach kids how to learn, that they just fill kids minds with 'a bunch of ideologies', which is not entirely true, and also kind of a negative way of looking at the education system. Also in his self love video he says that if Aliens come to Earth and provide scientists a message about something important (self-love), the scientists would just disregard it as non-important, which we don't actually know if that is the case, because it assumes all scientists think in only one way. In general, I find that when he gives examples of certain things like how people were raised, or what people that of as being good and bad, he mostly sticks with the negative side, and not so much the positive (living through death, rape, homicide... to become god, while mostly ignoring that brighter side of life), which could be true to one extent, but I feel it to be a generalization that everything in this world is negative and that everyone had negative upbringing, which is not true. I think he just talks too much about the darker side of humanity rather than the brighter side, and frequently assumes that to be true for most if not everyone people.

@Carl-RichardI’ve seen a few of his videos on spiral dynamics, they are very long but interesting. In my opinion he as well as spiral dynamics do make a lot of generalizations and assumptions about people and things which may not always be true. @Osaid I’m trying to find a way I can make it less boring for me to watch the entire video. I think that maybe trying to reflect and think about what the meaning and implications of what he is actually saying could be a good one. Sometimes it’s hard for me to see what he is saying about a topic because he uses generalizations as an example to prove his point or a chosen a specific group of people that seem to fit what he is talking about. I also find that he could be a little bit nicer in the way he speaks, maybe calmer and more polite, like not saying ‘the problem is’, or ‘most people don’t have ...’ or ‘aren’t aware of this’. But enough about my critic of Leo.

Do the stages of spiral dynamics really represent all of society is what I am wondering. This is because there such a huge variety of people in the world. I don't know where I would to place myself, I think maybe green but could be a bit of orange too. My question is if spiral dynamics has actual real life implications (which doesn't seem to be the case due it not being taught in universities or spoken about in society), how do I truly find out where I am?

I would recommend eating fish in moderating, and trying to go for wild caught fish. For example the best tuna to get is skipjack because it has the lowest mercury, I would try to avoid albacore however. Wild sockeye salmon, mackerel (avoid king, Spanish and golf mackerel, get the North Atlantic mackerel), Trout, and sardines are also great.

Great thx, that's something i'll have to watch a well. Currently I'm watching some of the basics, such as the mechanics of beliefs and how paradigms work. However, it does get little boring due to the length of the video and probably also due to me wanting to watch something that is more entertaining than some guy talking about beliefs, and how they work lol.

So maybe I should just not bother to look at the more radical videos? I think the only reason I am even watching them is because they are radical, which is making me question my own beliefs system and the world around me. I kinda see what you mean about On one hand, I may think this god he speak of does not change my life at all, because I can chose to ignore it and not watch any videos, but on the other hand, it means everything, because it literally is my life and everything I have known, know and will ever know. But this feels pretty crazy to me, and I can only conceptual it right now. Are his older videos, like the ones from the playlist Foundations of Self-Actualization good? I feel like they are outdated/not as important as the more profound ones. I guess I'm asking, Are there some video that are not important, or are they all important and I should watch all of them (even the ones on addictions and making girls squirt) @SilentTears Are you asking how I feel like on a daily basis, during the day, or both? I think I seek the God that talks about (which if you were to ask the average person what god they think Leo is talking about they would probably answer, it's Leo's god) because that's what many of his videos stem from as @Osaid said. However, from watching a bit of his Live Enlightenment video, a part of me wants to think that he is acting/faking it, or just in some trance, which repels me from listening to what he has to say. I think the problem I am faced with is if all of what he is saying is true (which it seems to be because, other sources and teaches that I have watched say somewhat of the same thing) than it means everything, but if non of it is true, than it means nothing.

If it's as simple as you are god, and all there is is the present moment and just being, why can't you just start watching the radical stuff because it goes straight to the point of what his entire channel is about?

I think I have a curiosity for the nature of reality because Leo's videos have gotten be wondering about it. However, I still get distracted with life which makes me ask myself why all this matters in the first place when I can just live life, which is what I have been doing my entire life. But if I decide to the pursue discovering the nature of reality, how do I balance it with my life. Does Leo's video on this topic give good insight? It's also hard to become innately interested when no one has spoken to me about this stuff, apart from the occasional person who brings up a philosophical theory during a conversation or something because it can be applied to the situation in some way. I have been watching his brain video, and it does make sense to me, however it's crazy to think about. My dad says that 99% of the material in the universe was created within just 1 second. And that everything started within single point which came from nothing, leading to the big bang. I am having a trouble connecting this to what Leo is, because I don't if the 'nothing' that science refers to is the same as the same nothing that Leo is referring too. I have no access to psychedelics so I'll just stick with the other stuff. However, I feel like the holotropic breathing will cause me to hyperventilate or something. But for meditation, which I have been doing for a while now, and I feel like I have not been making any progress with it due to every day being the same without new insights or anything. How long and how often should I meditate for? Currently I meditate for about 15 to up to 21 minutes per day. Thank you everyone

Would there be other ways of realizing this, I have experienced a sense of oneness during mediation (it was more like a moment of peace you could say). Are there any mystical experiences I can achieve through meditation or practices like self-inquiry. Leo talks about this stuff all the time, I am wondering if I could achieve them through these practices (chakra opening, awakenings). Maybe these will give me some answers I am looking for. Thank you.

Isn't self-inquiry the same as theorizing? I am not sure what means. if consciousness does occur in the brain, how come other animals such as deers and goats (who have smaller brains) are not as conscious as we are?

If brains do not exist because they are created by consciousness, then the scientific paradigm of brains creating consciousness is wrong. However, it has felt/seemed right for my entire life due to my senses and limbs being attached to where we say the brain is, and the perception I have of the 'physical' world around me coming from where we say the is brain (inside the head). The only logical answer I can think of is, I am a variety of different things; my experiences, thoughts, feelings, body, limbs, cells, and spiritual/soul if there is one at all. Which is a mix of physical and non-physical. And if all that there is is present moment, than wtf am I because all of what I just said is a mix of things. I can not point to one being the true me, the spiritual one is a bit erry ferry because I am not sure what is meant when it is referred to. I'll look into self inquiry I just hope that I won't give up because I don't get some radical insight or just get bored of asking questions.

@Dima What does explicit and implicit mean? I have started reading the book Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death by Robert Lanza, do you think this is a good book to read? Or is The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality better? Could there not be only one perspective that is correct? I mean that is what science is trying to find out right? @Raptorsin7 I came here because I started watching Leo's content and found that it he speaks of very radical topics and ideas that I have never heard of, I have two hypotheses for this, first; what he talks about is wrong which is why it is not taught in society (such as the world not being physical), or he is onto something, that is seems outrageously abstract to me. I tried to have a conversation with my dad around these topics and I found that the we identify with our experiences, thoughts, emotions and the decisions we make in our life. This brings in the conversation of time due to what we do going through time, but then again what is time. So in general I did not get a super clear answer from him, apart from the latter. @Carl-Richard That is not logical though. What are the neurons firing in the brain if consciousness creates the brain and not vice versa? @StripedGiraffe I feel like self inquiry would not help, because I would not ever get to an answer.

Happy belated birthday Leo!