Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[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 Wednesday at 08:45 PM by zurew

[Nemra]

26 minutes ago, zurew said:

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

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?

Edited Wednesday at 09:07 PM by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Note that Einstein didn't know about you and about your metaphysics.

Note that science still progressed without your system.

And Newton didn't know about Einstein and science still advanced before Einstein.

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 understanding of reality.

1 hour 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. 

Its hard to really pin point how metaphysical understanding affects practical science and vice versa. Its not obvious to me how enlightenment would make me a better practical scientist.

It is not my position that enlightenment will necessarily make better practical scientists. Maybe it makes for worse scientists because you stop even caring about science. Makes no difference to me.

The things I teach are so profound that to measure them with the yardstick of practicality is an insult to intelligence.

Whether something is practical or not is irrelevant to me. Which is not to say that there are no practical implications here for science. There certainly are. But they are subtle, not as cartoonish as landing a man on the moon.

This whole argument is like saying 300 years ago: "But what are the practical implications of Non-Euclidean geometry? It's all just abstract metaphysical junk and we don't need it to sail a ship around the world."

Just look at the logic of it. It's so myopic.

ANYTHING TRUE HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE!

Whether you are intelligent enough to see the implications or not is irrelevant. Whether it helps you jerk off on the moon is irrelevant. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't.

"But Leo, you said science is limited. But I can still get my dick sucked on Mars so why does it matter?"

This is the level of logic here.

Edited Wednesday at 09:04 PM by Leo Gura

[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 Wednesday at 09:05 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:08 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:19 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:26 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:51 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:55 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:49 PM 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 Wednesday at 09:55 PM 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.