Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[gettoefl]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Free tantra massages at Leo's place.

Hotties only.

Can you throw in free scooter pick up?

Might make this a life purpose.

[Princess Arabia]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Free tantra massages at Leo's place.

Hotties only.

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

On 5/8/2025 at 3:37 PM, cistanche_enjoyer said:

 

Leo's Palace is corrupted.😛

[Natasha Tori Maru]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Free tantra massages at Leo's place.

Hotties only.

'hotties only' - we have one constraint identified.

Are we inserting our gender bias as well? Or we going fluid, men, women and anything in between? We don't discriminate when it's absolute love, after all. Just one big pile of flesh 😈

 

[BlessedLion]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Free tantra massages at Leo's place.

Hotties only.

Hahahaha, advertise it on YT and you'll have a line! 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Boomerang-ing back to the remote viewing blog post - this was a good interview with Joe McMoneagle who was a remote viewer for the CIA.

The methods, interpretations and how the mind and consciousness comes into it are broken down at 39.48s.

 

Edited May 13 by Natasha Tori Maru

[Yimpa]

On 5/11/2025 at 7:20 PM, Leo Gura said:

Free tantra massages at Leo's place.

Hotties only.

7 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Hahahaha, advertise it on YT and you'll have a line! 

The first thing that came to my mind was a line of coke.

Edited May 13 by Yimpa

[gettoefl]

On 07/05/2025 at 8:08 PM, bazera said:

@Leo Gura I guess I better get to work then.

Thanks for the answers.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44321378-lsd-and-the-mind-of-the-universe

This is a great book I've read just about that, I found it after watching the interview you posted a long time ago of an academic guy who did like 70+ high dose LSD trips over 20 years or something. He documents each of those trips and it's clearly visible how he goes through the layers of first his persona, then the collective stuff and then higher and higher, and the suffering he goes through. 

It's a great book for everyone interested with these questions.

Another book on LSD tripping and insights, with a free pdf version available

https://www.reddit.com/r/RationalPsychonaut/comments/1kkq2w4/my_7year_project_writing_a_philosophical_memoir/

[CARDOZZO]

 

[CARDOZZO]

What if Ray Kurzweil is a psychic/remote viewer? 

Not only him but all sci-fi writers channeling futures and writing as "fiction".

[Jannes]

I signed up to a remote viewing course introduction a few years ago once and had a multi hour chat with a person. It sounded a bit like a fantasy. Cant tell if it was fake or not from that but I am leaning more in the direction of fantasy.

[Leo Gura]

You're not going to learn remote viewing. This is a genetic ability.

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura Well, you could try. 

[Francis777]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You're not going to learn remote viewing. This is a genetic ability.

How can you know that?

[Thought Art]

43 minutes ago, Francis777 said:

How can you know that?

I wonder. If you have the genetic ability maybe you gotta learn to use it?

[zurew]

The blog post on logic is just wrong.

You can literally give all the axioms and rules of a given logic to a computer and it can apply those rules and give you the results without that computer ever needing to investigate anything in the world or without it needing to know any laws of nature or without that computer having to have any conscious experience at all.

You don't need to do any experiment and you don't need to observe anything in the world in order for those rules to hold up.

You can change all the laws of nature and it will still hold up, it isn't depended on it at all - this is why possible world semantics appeal to laws of logic - because its compatible with an infinite number of different worlds where each world have different laws of nature.

 

 

Do you think when you run a consistency check on someone's view , you actually do an empirical investigation?

 

Tell us, what kind of empirical investigation could establish the rules of inference to be false?

 

Modus Tollens (MT) - If P implies Q, and Q is false, then P is false.

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) - If P implies Q and Q implies R, then P implies R.

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)- If P or Q is true, and P is false, then Q is true.

Addition (Add) - If P is true, then P or Q is true.

 

Edited May 14 by zurew

[nerdspeak]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You're not going to learn remote viewing. This is a genetic ability.

I was able to do something similar with organic DMT (yopo). Which kinda makes sense, a lot of people with “powers” use plant medicine. 

I’m a bit talented with stuff like this already but don’t have these abilities without psychedelics.

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

The blog post on logic is just wrong.

You can literally give all the axioms and rules of a given logic to a computer and it can apply those rules and give you the results without that computer ever needing to investigate anything in the world or without it needing to know any laws of nature or without that computer having to have any conscious experience at all.

You don't need to do any experiment and you don't need to observe anything in the world in order for those rules to hold up.

Dude, who programmed the computer in order for it to work the way it work?

Who had a conscious experience, did the investigation empirically, and then transfered to the computer? Lol

Edited May 14 by Eskilon

[zurew]

24 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Dude, who programmed the computer in order for it to work the way it work?

Who had a conscious experience, did the investigation empirically, and then transfered to the computer? Lol

Aside from the fact that you can give literally any arbitrary set of rules to the computer - I shouldnt have brought up the computer example, because you managed to grab on the irrelevant part  (being conscious). 

Please tell us , what kind of empirical investigation needs to done to arrive at or to check the rules of inference.

 

"Let me empirically investigate the following rule of inference  'if P then Q ; P ; therefore Q' "

What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

Edited May 14 by zurew

[Eskilon]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

I shouldnt have brought up the computer example, because you managed to grab on the irrelevant part  (being conscious). 

No, it's actually the most important part of your post, that's why I quoted.

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

Please tell us , what kind of empirical investigation needs to done to arrive at or to check the rules of inference.

 

"Let me empirically investigate the following rule of inference  'if P then Q ; P ; therefore Q' "

What you are saying doesn't make any sense.

For this rules to work, or for you to even be questioning something like "Rules of inference", you need to be conscious, and not only that, a specific state of cousciousness. Your whole inquiry is pure nonsense to an ant.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

You can change all the laws of nature and it will still hold up, it isn't depended on it at all - this is why possible world semantics appeal to laws of logic - because its compatible with an infinite number of different worlds where each world have different laws of nature.

You seem to think that the laws of nature is not dependent on you, it is. You seem to think that logic just exist out there in nature, it does not. 

Quote

"Let me empirically investigate the following rule of inference  'if P then Q ; P ; therefore Q' "

Someone literally arrived at this conclusion, how? Empirically

How do you know what a P is？ what is a If? and what is Therefore？ what is a Q? 

And if you apply semantics and logic to all this symbols, and acknowledge it's assumptions what will come up of it?

Edited May 14 by Eskilon

[zurew]

42 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

No, it's actually the most important part of your post, that's why I quoted.

Right, because we are going with that level 0 epistemology meme, where we pretend that the things we arent conscious of those things arent true / they dont exist.

42 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

For this rules to work, or for you to even be questioning something like "Rules of inference", you need to be conscious, and not only that, a specific state of cousciousness. 

First thats a claim that you will probably never defend, but regardless, it would be a level 0 mistake to  confuse the things that are needed to for an inquiry vs what is the truthmaker (what makes a given proposition true or false).

"When I think/inquire about sleeping I am conscious, therefore in order to sleep, I need to be conscious "

42 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Your whole inquiry is pure nonsense to an ant.

I have no clue how thats relevant to anything that was said.

But an ant cant conceptualize what gravity is, and yet it still affected by it.

 

42 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

You seem to think that the laws of nature is not dependent on you, it is. You seem to think that logic just exist out there in nature, it does not. And you can empirically become conscious of that.

Never made any claims about what my position on any of that , but good try assuming though.

You still havent answered my question you just asserted some vague notion of 'empirically become conscious of that' - tell us with clarity , what kind of empirical research can be done to test or to arrive at any rule of inference?

42 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

How do you know what a P is？ what is a If? and what is Therefore？ what is a Q? 

And if you apply semantics and logic to all this symbols, and acknowledge it's assumptions what will come up of it?

First some of your questions doesn't even make sense, because the very idea that you would ask 'how do you know', assumes that it makes sense categorically to ask that question, but in this case it doesn't.

Both P and Q are just abstract containers for any content that you want to use. So the idea of asking "how do you know what a P or Q is" doesn't make much sense.

A 'what is' question applied to 'If' and 'therefore' seem to be incoherent as well, or I have 0 clue what is being asked there.

 

Edited May 14 by zurew