Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is as silly as believing in unicorns.

It can be silly, but not logically impossible - and hence the frame can be forever maintained and one can always say that there is a corner in the Universe where there is one unicorn or that there is a hidden dimension or that the Unicorn is invisible etc.

Edited Thursday at 05:55 AM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

That just seems to validate what I said about not needing to drop certain things.

That is wrong.

The materialist belief is a huge paradigmatic frame which limits the mind's ability to understand reality.

Understanding reality is much more than merely what can be demonstrated in a lab experiment. Science is not just a collection of facts. It requires understanding.

Mind requires the right frames to reach new heights of understanding.

For example, if mind insists that time and distance are absolute, not relative, then General Relativity can never be discovered. It is crucial to realize that time is not an absolute as everyone naively believes.

Likewise it is crucial to realize that there is no external world behind Consciousness. Without this insight reality will be misunderstood in profound ways.

Edited Thursday at 06:14 AM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, it's useless when your ambitions and view is so selfish and finite

To be clear - originally the way you framed things and the implication was that having your metaphysical frame is whats necessary to do science to work and to progress in science.

Now we walked that all back into  - in the vast majority of pragmatic cases, you dont need any of that and you can have mutually exclusive metaphysical views and still progress in science and achieve great things.

 

Now you even walked back the idea that for a TOE to work in physics you would need to know all metaphysical truths and framed establishing a TOE (the way it is usually defined by physicists) as "shallow" .

 

The gravity of your orginial claims are almost non-existent now when it comes to the pragmatic evaluation and implication of things. Notice that when you are cornered about issues of pragmatism, you resort to the rhetorical move of labeling it shallow and other things, because you realize that none of your thing is pragmatically necessary and shit can work perfectly well without you and your fancy work.

[zurew]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

For example, if mind insists that time and distance are absolute, not relative, then General Relativity can never be discovered. It is crucial to realize that time is not an absolute as everyone naively believes.

Thats an example where it does have practical implications, but its not at all clear thats the case with the other question or with all questions and stances.

For that to work you would need to have only one logically possible hypothesis, but thats just never the case.

And even general relativity is subject to reevaluation and recontextualization

Edited Thursday at 06:41 AM by zurew

[Rishabh R]

@Leo Gura I once had an insight that materialism is an illusion. 😂

Edited Thursday at 06:31 AM by Rishabh R

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, zurew said:

Now we walked that all back into

I walked nothing back.

I am done casting my pearls before you.

Your attitude is completely inappropriate for the seriousness of these topics. You have no respect for the seriousness and subtlety of what I teach. So I will no longer engage with you.

Edited Thursday at 06:39 AM by Leo Gura

[Alexop]

Give a microphone to everybody, give the same coverage to all opinions and you will have a mess of nonsense. Hierachies have to exist in almost everything. But how do we create a meritocracy on a comment section or a forum? 

Is a comment section architecture of the most liked comments rising to the top a real meritocracy? I bet Leo's most jucy ideas won't raise to the top of a mainstream comment section on the most serious topics. His ideas are so advanced the most people won't like his comments and his reputation will go down with time.

Is an online forum the best solution? I thought about that, you could just ignore the low quality comments and focus on the high quality ones, but you have to maybe read lots of nonsense comments. And maybe this is what we have to do, decide ourselves what is right instead of being spoon fed by a popular influencer.

Edited Thursday at 07:10 AM by Alexop

[Leo Gura]

@Alexop Filtering through human noise is half the task of life.

In the immortal words of Steven Bannon: "Flood the zone with shit."

You are in a battle against the Devil, who will use every trick in his arsenal to distract you from God.

Edited Thursday at 07:11 AM by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

I am done casting my pearls before you.

I get Kanya West vibes here. 

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your attitude is completely inappropriate for the seriousness of these topics

Your own attitude is not in alignment with brotherhood. That disqualifies you from having any genuine conversation. 

Edited Thursday at 07:34 AM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

This act of dismissiveness and playing the high card of "being too good for others" is not a quality of an open heart. It's an ego defense mechanism. 

Edited Thursday at 07:55 AM by Salvijus

[Someone here]

 

@Salvijus  he must do it this way he can't indefinitely entertain people's constant bullshiting and splitting hairs or people  can't  get to the core of all reality. The ultimate Truth.

I get why people have a problem with his style. I think it's important to remember he is human and on his own path just like the rest of us..and as a teacher is doing the best he can to share his knowledge with his students.

 

[Salvijus]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Salvijus  he must do it this way he can't indefinitely entertain people's constant bullshiting and splitting hairs or people  can't  get to the core of all reality. The ultimate Truth.

You can justify all you want, but I smell ego not the will of love in this scenario. 

Edited Thursday at 08:04 AM by Salvijus

[zurew]

So to recap one more time

 

No argument was successfully made that would establish how knowing all metaphysical truths is necessary to progress in science.

No argument was made that would show how having the stance that definitions cant exhaustively describe things is relevant to science and to the progression of science.

There was no good response to the issue of adapting frames forever and hence why never needing to drop certain metaphysical beliefs. The response was "there is no good reason for x" - but even if that is granted, that doesn't necessitate dropping the frame, because you don't establish contradiction in their view - so the frame can be maintained further.

 

There were certain things established that are all non-controversial, trivially true things that no one challenged in the firstplace. The idea that one needs to question their paradigm is a completely non-controversial claim that anyone who is even remotely into philosophy of science understands.

[Someone here]

@Salvijus first of all ..your posts are extremely short so it's difficult to have a discussion with you based on those short offshoots. You just make a statement without explaining further what do you mean and run away 😂. 

Second..please go build a business..a website ..a youtube channel worth 1M subscribers and become one of the most intelligent people alive today and start a community and let us see you dealing with people softly all the time and entertaining their shit .

[Nemra]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But, say, 10 people saw a ghost and reported it to you. How would you study it?

You gonna call them all deluded? That's bad science.

@Leo Gura, first, I would try to learn who those people are and understand their reasoning.

[Leo Gura]

@Nemra Well, when you catch that ghost, you be sure to let us know

[AION]

I don’t think a paradigm shift in science from secular to non secular would cause a major catalyst since science pertains to the material world. 

[Someone here]

@zurew  watch his series " deconstructing the myth of science ". All this shit was explained there . You are  reinventing the wheel here .

Yes as you say nothing in science is ever assumed to be 100% true.. but has survived falsification. But that's the key: We constantly keep falsifying everything in science. We keep testing and try to find and correct all the holes in our theories. That's not something done in metaphysical level. Metaphysics is trying to get to the core of existence AS ITSELF. I don't know how to phrase this in English but as Kant have said "the thing in itself ". Not as a particular theory or particular configuration..but just "thingness " period .

 

 

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nemra Well, when you catch that ghost, you be sure to let us know

Maybe the ghost only chooses me. 😏

It's basically the same thing as you saying God exists and a religious person saying God exists. It becomes more obvious that it's some radical thing when I hear you explaining it.

[zurew]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

But that's the key: We constantly keep falsifying everything in science. We keep testing and try to find and correct all the holes in our theories. That's not something done in metaphysical level. Metaphysics is trying to get to the core of existence AS ITSELF.

Yes and hence why you can never solve deep metaphysical disagreements with the method of falsification.  And you can falsify further and further and maintain a bunch of metaphysical beliefs.

When you use falsification you already pressupose that thats the right epistemic way to go about things. If someone presses you why you take falsification over any other thing, you are stumbled (even though thats where the substance and interesting thought-provoking debates would be) - for clarification by "you" im not talking about specifically you there.

Edited Thursday at 08:38 AM by zurew