Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Miguel1]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

There is nothing to make a counter-argument to, because you havent made an argument - all you have done so far is a vague gesture towards "scientists stupid and bad, cause they dont follow my metaphysics"

You can’t be serious.

And you are a long time member here?

[Vynce]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department - since when do you think that one cant hold onto a physicalist metaphysics and make progress in science or since when do we think that observations and equations will just break down under different metaphysics?

Like all of this is nonsense and stupid and this is all besides the fact that you strawmanned the fuck out of a lot of people without being able to back up any of it.

Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

You seem like a chill guy. 

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

You can’t be serious.

And you are a long time member here?

Long time member doesnt mean glazing at everything Leo does or says.

Why is it that you have nothing to say when Leo uses a 100 different rhetorical tricks and when he  bellitles people , but you are immediately hung up on when someone treats Leo like a normal human being who is not above anyone else?

Edited June 4 by zurew

[Miguel1]

8 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Humans would meditate 1000h a year and do weekly 5-meo sessions, if that meant better practical science. Yet the best practical science came from pretty non-spiritual folks. 

If most people were Turquoise level conscious, practical science & practical survival would be 1000X (at least) better and more efficient, yet we struggle to even go past blue.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

Do you have data what metaphysical and philosophy of science views do scientists have? No you dont, but you build your whole argument based on your intuition on this.

This is a common thing with Leo. There will be an intuitive grasp of concept that isn't properly founded on solid points that build to it. Many times it is recursive.

Can't be sure but I suspect Leo is the type of thinker who intuitively grasps a concept, and then understands the details of it. Rather than someone who understands details and works up to an intuitive insight. But I cannot be sure, just my guess & observations of deep thinkers and their methods. Both ways have flaws if not addressed.

Like running a loop on a track - you run the same path and can get to the same outcome. But one jogger going clockwise will see something totally different to the jogger running anti-clockwise. They both get there in the end, but different methods.

Edited June 4 by Natasha Tori Maru

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is a common thing with Leo. There will be an intuitive grasp of concept that isn't properly founded on solid points that build to it. Many times it is recursive.

Can't be sure but I suspect Leo is the type of thinker who intuitively grasps a concept, and then understands the details of it. Rather than someone who understands details and works up to an intuitive insight. But I cannot be sure, just my guess & observations of deep thinkers and their methods. Both ways have flaws if not addressed.

Yeah sure, its just that the gravity and the framing of the arguments would be different.

If I would want to make a "profound" blogpost I would do my due diligence beforehand and not just purely rely on my intuitions , especially if those are central to my argument.

[Miguel1]

Just now, zurew said:

Long time member doesnt mean glazing at everything Leo does or says.

Why is it that you have nothing to say when Leo uses a 100 different rhetorical tricks and when he  bellitle people , but you are immediately hung up on when someone treats Leo like a normal human being who is not above anyone else?

Brother, if you are a long time member here, then you should know his deepest and most fundamental thoughts and position on science.

He doesn’t need to and should not write his 10-hour series on deconstructing science + all his improved thoughts and insights since the series, everytime there is a new thread discussing science.

-

And check your tone with which you are discussing here. As someone else pointed out, you are getting heated out of proportion.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Vynce said:

You seem like a chill guy. 

Good engagement again, Vynce.

Tell me the false things that I said.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@zurew

* Nodding * 

To be clear I agree with you 🙏

Adding in my insight into how different thinkers work and their various flaws that need addressing 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

He doesn’t need to and should not write his 10-hour series on deconstructing science + all his improved thoughts and insights since the series, everytime there is a new thread discussing science.

Yes he has that series and I agree with some things that he said there but not all things and he made specific claims in his blogpost and here(in this thread) and I replied to those and now we are here waiting for him to back up his claims about his metaphysics being fundamental to doing science and about knowledge about metaphysics being fundamental to doing science or to any progress in science.

Now notice again with your tone policing - you have never ever called out Leo on anything, even though there are many examples where he belittles people and where he uses rhetoric without using substance to substantiate his claims.

[Vynce]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Good engagement again, Vynce.

Tell me the false things that I said.

Where does this anger come from? Why pollute this place with so much restlessness.

[Vynce]

14 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

If most people were Turquoise level conscious, practical science & practical survival would be 1000X (at least) better and more efficient, yet we struggle to even go past blue.

You forget how dangerous, tricky, risky and heavy, development up the spiral can be.

We stay at blue, because thats the most efficient stage to be right now. Humanity would crash if everyone woke up woke tomorrow. 

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@zurew

* Nodding * 

To be clear I agree with you 🙏

Cool, looking forward to reading your posts  ( not because you agree with me here, but because you have things to say that are outside from the usual things most actualizers have to say).

[UnbornTao]

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Where does this anger come from? Why pollute this place with so much restlessness.

When it comes to the substance based on the things you have said so far, you seem to agree with me and you seem to disagree with Leo.

Notice that he wont make an argument that establish how his metaphysics is central to science or to the progression of science. 

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

If most people were Turquoise level conscious, practical science & practical survival would be 1000X (at least) better and more efficient, yet we struggle to even go past blue.

How does being turquoise helps with doing science?  

Edited June 4 by zurew

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Oh yes you can, and you can still send a rocket to the moon without ever studying anything about metaphysics.

So no  - its not foundational at all.

Don't some scientists question assumptions, gain insight, and develop new theories that can be applied by other scientists to create practical applications?

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Don't some scientists question assumptions, gain insight, and develop new theories that can be applied by other scientists to create practical applications?

Yes but they dont necessarily need to question metaphysical assumption for that , and they certainly dont need to switch from being physicalist to be idealists or vice-versa.

[zurew]

For example - you can be a Christian and be a scientist who discovers new things.

None of this is controversial.

Progress is compatible with a big chunk of different frameworks.

Edited June 4 by zurew

[zurew]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You would be laughed out of any philosophy of science department for even trying to imply any such thing

If a Christian would have said what Leo implied (that his specific metaphysics [in the Christian's case Christianity] is whats necessary and fundamental to the progression of science), none of you would have objected to the above.

You would understand how silly it is to make the progression of science exclusive to one very specific metaphysical framework.

Edited June 4 by zurew