Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your logic is so bad that it doesn't warrant a serious response.

The reason I don't bother to respond to your points, point by point, is because you're not even in the same ballpark of what I'm trying to teach. You make very shallow and uninteresting rebuttals which, if I took seriously, I would have become a typical clueless academic.

Do you comprehend that to reach the level of understanding that I reached I had to be ruthless with dismissing all of these typical materialists, scientistic talking-points? To me what you're doing is not serious. It does not lead to profound levels of God-Realization.

@Miguel1 Waiting for your tone policing here. Surely this is not belittling and pure rhetoric , right?  Like just notice it and think about how the smart enlightened guy didn't provide any substantive response to any of the critcisims. 

Like you read all that and think "hmm yeah, thats a completely normal response from a guy, who supposed to be very intelligent, secure and highly-conscious"

 

@Leo Gura Dude, dont worry I understand it now, I am a little bit slow, but I get it now -  we are supposed to be here to jerk you off, and to validate all your takes, and to validate how conscious and intelligent you are.

Like yeah dude, the reason why you don't respond to the criticisms and questions - is surely not because you don't have any response , it can only be because you are above it.

[Leo Gura]

"Look, Leo, I discovered a new rock on Mars! So why do I need you? What good are you? Look at this new rock! I can be a Satan worshiper and still discover new rocks!"

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

"you need to use my glasses to see any object"

But I see objects without those glasses

"But my glasses are fundamental, you stupid guy, you havent had your god realization yet, and I dont need to explain or respond to your objection , because im above it"

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

"you need to use my glasses to see any object"

But I see objects without those glasses

You should direct that silly bit of logic at Einstein, Newton, and any other scientist or philosopher you revere.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You should direct that silly bit of logic at Einstein, Newton, and any other scientist or philosopher you revere.

"Look scientist had metaphysical disageements". You think I object to that?

Still waiting for you to substantiate and establish how taking the view that finite definitions are possible and that thinking that reality is not infinite prevents scientist from making any progress in science.

Because those were your original claims that you are working so hard now to pivot as far away from as you possibly can, so that you dont need to address any of it.

[Leo Gura]

Contemplate this, and you will have the answer you seek:

Why is it fundamentally important to thoroughly understand the limitations of the current methodology of science?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

prevents scientist from making any progress in science.

I never said such a silly thing. You invented this strawman.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I never said such a silly thing. You invented that.

 

 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Quote

Please explain, what is your quarrel with Science exactly? You say that reality is undefinable, I agree, and so do they, so they just skip this step and go on with progress.

They don't understand that reality is undefinable. They think they are defining it and they are missing all the most important aspects necessary for understanding reality.

You can't just skip all the stuff I talk about. It's all fundamental.

 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

11 hours ago, Vynce said:

Why would understanding of „only mind“ reality undermine your scientific potential to do great thermodynamics, medicine or tech? 

After all, science was always just a tool for practical measures. And if a non-dual scientist delivers better science, science will become non-dual.

It does matter because science has wrong epistemology and wrong ontology, which limits science.

Science is fundamentally about understanding reality. Their ability to understand reality is very self-limited.

Understanding cannot be reduced to practical measures.

Edited June 4 by zurew

[Vynce]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Contemplate this, and you will have the answer you seek:

Why is it fundamentally important to thoroughly understand the limitations of the current methodology of science?

At what part or domaine of science do you see the largest room for practical improvements, with better epistemic and ontological understanding?

[Nemra]

57 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Don't you think that being Christian would influence how a person frames questions, what they consider worthwhile to study, and what conclusions align with Christianity?

@zurew, what do you say?

[zurew]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why is it fundamentally important to thoroughly understand the limitations of the current methodology of science?

Your claim wasnt just "philosophy of science is important for the progress of science" , because thats a trivial , non-controversial claim and people with completely different metaphysics to you can agree with that.

You made specific metaphysical claims ,but didnt connect it back how adopting/understanding those specific claims are relevant to the progression of science.

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, zurew said:

It does matter because science has wrong epistemology and wrong ontology, which limits science.

Yes, it limits science. This does not mean all science stops. You can keep doing limited science for a long time into the future.

If I tell you that the speed of your car engine is artificially limited, this does not mean you can't drive it.

Again, this is a failure of basic logic.

Physics was limited by Newtonian mechanics prior to Einstein. This does not mean physics didn't make new discoveries and developments between Newton and Einstein.

Paradigm shifts are necessary for science to advance, but much science can still be done within old paradigms. Just because scientific discoveries are still happening is not proof that a new paradigm isn't needed. A new paradigm unlocks new domains of science without stopping research in the old domains.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Vynce said:

At what part or domaine of science do you see the largest room for practical improvements, with better epistemic and ontological understanding?

Understanding of consciousness and paranormal phenomena.

Understanding of psychedelics.

Understanding of mental illness.

Understanding of alien minds, communication with aliens.

Understanding of spirituality, mysticism, religion.

Fundamental physics.

Psychology and sociology.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

Don't you think that being Christian would influence how a person frames questions, what they consider worthwhile to study, and what conclusions align with Christianity?

No, not necessarily because they can adapt their frames. They can redefine what they think Christianity is (this is one reason why a good chunk of them accept evolution now).

But regardless , your question doesn't interact with the original point - which is the idea that Christianity would be a necessary foundation to do any science - which is obviously a silly claim.

Edited June 4 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

You made specific metaphysical claims

Any true claim, of any kind whatsoever, is relevant and necessary to the advancement of science.

Otherwise there would exist aspects of the universe which are real but science cannot account for, explain, predict, or manipulate.

You can say my metaphysics is false. But if anything in my metaphysics is true, it must is relevant for science.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

Just now, zurew said:

But regardless , your question doesn't interact with the original point - which is the idea that Christianity would be a necessary foundation to do any science - which is obviously a silly claim.

I didn't say that you must be a Christian in order to practice science.

1 minute ago, zurew said:

No, not necessarily because they can adapt their frames. They can redefine what they just Christianity is (this is one reason why a good chunk of them accept evolution now).

So what?

They can adapt for some things and not for other things for various reasons.

It's possible that they adapt to be considered as good scientists, regardless of whether it is true or false.

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, it limits science. This does not mean all science stops. You can keep doing limited science for a long time into the future.

If I tell you that the speed of your car engine is artificially limited, this does not mean you can't drive it.

Again, this is a failure of basic logic.

Physics was limited by Newtonian mechanics prior to Einstein. This does not mean physics didn't make new discoveries and developments between Newton and Einstein.

There are certain metaphysical claims where its somewhat clear how they would limit the application of science -  but its in the vast majority of the cases they don't seem to be relevant at all.

For example, you can have any view you want on the metaphysics of free will - it wont change anything relevant how science is done.

You can think a traditional God created the world, you will still run the experiments, and this is also the case if you are an atheist.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I didn't say that you must be a Christian in order to practice science.

I said that (as a point to outline how silly it is to claim that one specific metaphysical stance is necessary to practice or to progress), not you -  that was my original point that you responded to (where I outlined what issue I had with Leo)

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

So what?

They can adapt for some things and not for other things for various reasons.

It's possible that they adapt to be considered as good scientists, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Thats right "regardless whether its true or false" - thats my point. It doesn't matter what kind of metaphysical beliefs you hold (at least in the vast majority of the cases), you still need to run those experiments and you still need to make those calculations etc.

 

Edited June 4 by zurew

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But if anything in my metaphysics is true, it must is relevant for science.

I dont think thats true. Some of it will be relevant, but not all of it.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

but its in the vast majority of the cases they don't seem to be relevant at all.

An irrelevant point since in the vast majority of cases no two facts about the universe are relevant to each other or any scientist. But they are still scientific facts.

Science is advanced by making very specific correlations between very specific truths and data.

You cannot ever know which piece of data (which truth) will be relevant to your next breakthrough discovery.

Just because you can't foresee the relevance of a truth does not mean it is irrelevant. That's just a lack of vision.

Quote

For example, you can have any view you want on the metaphysics of free will - it wont change anything relevant how science is done.

It will change science as long as the view is true. If the view is false then it won't. Although even false views can advance science.

Quote

You can think a traditional God created the world, you will still run the experiments, and this is also the case if you are an atheist.

If atheism is false (and it is) this must affect science. It's only a question of time.

If God exists (and it does) this must affect science. It's only a question of time.

Anything true affects science, since anything true is real, and science is the study of reality.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura