Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Salvijus]

35 minutes ago, Someone here said:

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 .

As if being arrogant is the most effective way to communicate with others about truth. That whole story of being too good is just an ego move to hide from interactions that threaten you.

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Someone here said:

Did you even read what I said ? 

I did, did you?

7 hours ago, zurew said:

for clarification by "you" im not talking about specifically you there.

 

 

6 hours ago, Someone here said:

That's what science is. I'm saying Leo isn't doing science. He is doing metaphysics. 

I agree that thats what science is, Leo disagrees, he likes to use a definition of science that ecompasses all philosophy and he is normatively loading it with the label "proper" science.

And I also agree that he is doing metaphysics not science.

Edited June 5 by zurew

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

As if being arrogant is the most effective way to communicate with others about truth. That whole story of being too good is just an ego move to hide from interactions that threaten you.

"Arrogance "is a big word . What's wrong with some drama and spicing things up a lil bit ? 

Be grateful that Leo is available (Almost ) 24/7 here to even chit chat with you . You see idiots like Bentinho Massaro ..Mooji..Rupert Spira hiding themselves behind paywalls and they aren't even close to Leo's level. 

If it seems like I'm jerking Leo off then rest assured I'm not. I'm saying things as they are .

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

I agree that thats what science is, Leo disagrees, he likes to use a definition of science that ecompassess all philosophy and he is normatively loading it with the label "proper" science.

OK I see .

Well..obviously science has a very specific technical definition.  Leo just thinks that that definition is wrong and should be updated and expanded to include metaphysics..occult ..supernatural phenomenon etc. 

What is the proplem here exactly? 

[Salvijus]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

"Arrogance "is a big word . What's wrong with some drama and spicing things up a lil bit ? 

Be grateful that Leo is available (Almost ) 24/7 here to even chit chat with you . You see idiots like Bentinho Massaro ..Mooji..Rupert Spira hiding themselves behind paywalls and they aren't even close to Leo's level. 

If it seems like I'm jerking Leo off then rest assured I'm not. I'm saying things as they are .

You're putting a lot of effort to defend what is not in alignment with truth. I don't see the point but okay. 

Edited June 5 by Salvijus

[gengar]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Imagine a scientist who had a metaphsyics that Satan was real and that splitting atoms might release Satan into the Earth.

There are people in our government right now who believe UFOs and aliens are demons sent by Satan.

How can you do science on aliens if you believe they are Satanic?

You haven't yet seen the reality of Satanic things.

You have no clue.

Don't speak of things you have no clue about, but stick to your own domain.

[Leo Gura]

@gengar I have no issue with Satanic things.

Stop demonizing Satan.

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

Some next level koans here 😂. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Leo Gura

Most recent blog post on intuition - enjoyed!

Big intuitive leaps really mess with types who work in other ways. It is really one of the most common reasons for misunderstanding.

It is like the ability to see all possibilities, the connections between them, and all deductions that result. Without getting stuck on one single detail. This processing occurs in an unconscious way.

The flip side is it can (as you point out) be difficult to elaborate precisely how you came to this conclusion. Often with intuitives it is hard for them to understand how their own intuition works, because it is such a baked in 'default' way of thinking. It is, in my experience, a rarer trait. 

You would probably have a heaps chill time with other intuitives

[Alexop]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

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. 

You cannot just explain the same shit to a dumb donkey your whole life. You will go insane. Especially that Leo has a masculine personality of cutting bullshit and telling people what they need to hear. If you are not tough enough for this work then become feminine and be cute or whatever, let this work be done by real men.

I remember when Leo insulted leftists hardly on his blog then apologized. That was an accumulation of frustration because he cared too much about their stupid bullshit. Anger and frustration accumulates over time and you have to decide what is acceptable and what is not long term for your mental health.

I am much happier now that I decided to not entertain the stupid hippie bullshit of an old friend and stopped letting him gaslight me with feminine vipassana empathy nonsense.

[gengar]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@gengar I have no issue with Satanic things.

Stop demonizing Satan.

Never did I demonize Satan in my post. Assumption

You simply have no clue about Satanic realities just like I don't have experience with the Alien.

Although if you did, you'd realize not demonizing Satan is not such an easy undertaking as you make it out to be.

All humanity ends in an infernal state of mind.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Leo just thinks that that definition is wrong and should be updated and expanded to include metaphysics..occult ..supernatural phenomenon etc. 

What is the proplem here exactly? 

One problem is equivocation. He uses the term in two different senses which leads to confusion. (for example in his blog post, he said that scientists would stop being scientists if they would recognize what he says - how could that possibly be the case if he uses a definition of science that encompasses the things he said about epistemology and metaphysics). 

The other issue with his equivocation (that isn't applicable in this specific case, but in other cases it is), is that he isn't reponding to the position others have, because he uses the same terms with a completely different meaning . If you have a position that I would want to criticize I would first want to make sure that I respond to your position (the way you mean it and the way you use those terms) and not the way what I would prefer certain terms to mean. If by X you mean your horse and you say that X has 4 legs and I respond with "you stupid guy , how could my finger (X) have four legs?", then  Im not really interacting with your claim, I created a completely new separate claim that you dont even hold. 

 

The other obvious issue is with the normative part, thats where the meat of the issue is and thats where the substantive debate is "what it means for science to be proper and what it means for a scientist to be a good scientist , what kind of epistemic norms should science be defined by" - you cant just grab the label "proper" and put behind the epistemology that you intuitively like, thats not how debates work and thats not how establishing a truth claim works.

 

There are other issues with lumping all scientists together and assuming what metaphysical stance and what philosophy of science stance they have.

There is also an issue with him not being able to substantiate certain claims  - like the claim that not knowing all metaphysical truths  will limit how much you can do with science.  He took issue with me saying that only certain metaphysical truths have relevance to how science is done and how much can be achieved with science.

Edited June 5 by zurew

[gengar]

23 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Leo Gura

Most recent blog post on intuition - enjoyed!

Yes, this was an absolutely genius explication.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is like the ability to see all possibilities, the connections between them, and all deductions that result. Without getting stuck on one single detail. This processing occurs in an unconscious way.

I think that intuition can mislead you, and one reason why is because you are precisely not aware of all the possible deductions that can be made from one claim or from a set of claims. (not just consciously unaware, but subconsciously unaware as well - there are limits to the subconscious mind)

You narrow down the possibility space (pre-judge where the relevant things will be) and you run your intuition within that narrowed frame and you draw your conclusions from there , but the conclusions that you draw are not necessarily deductively valid (you give up on 100% certainty - but most cases we dont even need that level of certainty anyway).

Thats the price that you pay once you purely rely on intuition. This is why your intuition can quickly become bias and can mislead you. The way John Vervaeke would say - the things that make you adaptive are the things that make you prone to self-deception.

Intuition makes us really adaptive, but it also makes us prone to self-deception and bs.

 

Thats not to say that intuition isn't really powerful and useful - it is, especially if it is specialized - there are reasons why experts dont need to formalize things and cant often times explicate how they do the things they do or how they solve problems so effectively - they can use vibes and say "obviously thats the issue" and then proceed to solve a problem that a team of newbies couldn't figure out and where the solution isn't at all obvious to them.

Edited June 5 by zurew

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura, what do you refer to by the word Satan?

[Terell Kirby]

Lots of great content on the blog as of late- great stuff for those who like to contemplate. Thanks Leo !

Edited June 5 by Terell Kirby

[Starlight321]

@Leo GuraI noticed what you wrote in your blog post about severing the umbilical cord of society a lot recently. 

First a little introductionabout the situation where you can see a general problematic trend in the progressiv world view.

I'm volunteering in a group that has the goal to give affordable access to art and culture and workshops in my city and we are driven out from our present location in a tiny forrest to make room for a tourist visitor center from an attraction around the corner and I know that my progressive friends don't see clearly during the negotiations with the local goverment how pragmatic survival is. They are optimistic to the point of naivity that we don't have to take proactive actions and look for donors for the relocation even though the city doesn't have 80k for this and won't give free hand outs easily in our current austerity and also the government is clearly stalling the negotiations. The members of our collective are thinking that the benevolent department head who gives us good proposals but has no power will safe us even though two proposals he made were denied by the mayor before. In my oppinion they are too honest and blind to see how good we are gamed by a conservative politician who deals with such problems every day. I also noticed that they fight the founder of our project who had the vision and talent in organising the whole thing including building structures and cooperations and set up the structure and negotitating with the government. She doesn't have that much time for the group any longer but she clearly cares and tries to keep her vision alive but from the groups perspective she isn't special and regarded as arrogant and dangerous for trying to influence us and accused of building a hirachy through leadership.

Now about the blog post. The thing I noticed is that when I think for myself at home I can clearly comprehend what's happening to us by the local government and can think critically but when I'm there I become stupid and feel the urge to comform.  Actually it's more than an urge, it's like a force that adjusts my thinking and behaviour. Additionally it's hard to explain how survival happens, what ego developement and selfishness is, especially because it goes against our group's core values of equality and fairness. It's also an effort to frame the problem and solutions in a certain way so that my explainations don't trigger someone, especially because I'm more direct. Also our meetings are also not meant to go that deep in philosophy and they think they already know how stuff works.

In general I also noticed that in conversations with other people I care that I frame things in a likeble way even if it bends the truth to fit the situation.

I was shocked when I saw how I bend the truth to max survival but then I've seen that everybody does that to different degrees and I cannot truth bomb people because nobody likes it to hear even though in some cases it would be a real and more sustainable solution to the problems.

It differs in degree from group to group and person to person but it's a general trend in left groups that you have to use their wordings and if you critisize the subject or idiology you get easily smeared and outcast as I have seen with other people. 

All this is the summary from my observations.

 

[Someone here]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

One problem is equivocation. He uses the term in two different senses which leads to confusion. (for example in his blog post, he said that scientists would stop being scientists if they would recognize what he says - how could that possibly be the case if he uses a definition of science that encompasses the things he said about epistemology and metaphysics). 

The other issue with his equivocation (that isn't applicable in this specific case, but in other cases it is), is that he isn't reponding to the position others have, because he uses the same terms with a completely different meaning . If you have a position that I would want to criticize I would first want to make sure that I respond to your position (the way you mean it and the way you use those terms) and not the way what I would prefer certain terms to mean. If by X you mean your horse and you say that X has 4 legs and I respond with "you stupid guy , how could my finger (X) have four legs?", then  Im not really interacting with your claim, I created a completely new separate claim that you dont even hold. 

 

The other obvious issue is with the normative part, thats where the meat of the issue is and thats where the substantive debate is "what it means for science to be proper and what it means for a scientist to be a good scientist , what kind of epistemic norms should science be defined by" - you cant just grab the label "proper" and put behind the epistemology that you intuitively like, thats not how debates work and thats not how establishing a truth claim works.

 I will tell you the difference between doing traditional science and Leo's Science aka metaphysics.  Science is about empirical knowledge.. metaphysics is a priori knowledge .

Science is about contingent facts... Leo's  work is about necessary truths 

Science is about physical objects..Leo's also about physical objects but also abstract objects if they exist..like God..and its up to you to believe if such thing exist 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss  Leo's definition of science by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

Edited June 5 by Someone here

[zurew]

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 I will tell you the difference between doing traditional science and Leo's Science aka metaphysics.  Science is about empirical knowledge.. metaphysics is a priori knowledge .

Science is about contingent facts... Leo's  work is about necessary truths 

Science is about physical objects..Leo's also about physical objects but also abstract objects if they exist..like God..and its up to you to believe if such thing exist 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss  Leo's definition of science by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification

Im not sure how any of that responds to the issues I brought up. The issue isn't  that he uses a unique definition, the issue is that he uses two different definitions for the same term (equivocation). 

Btw the funny thing is that Leo would object to almost everything that you said there. He rejects the apriori aposteriori, and the analytic synthetic distinctions. He would also reject your characterization of God , because when he invokes that term he doesn't mean an abstract object.

The other funny thing is that Leo would be categorized as a hardcore empiricist - he is the one who holds the position that you can solve and settle metaphysical issues  with purely empirical investigation (and validate  things for yourself) and there is no need for arguments and debates.

57 minutes ago, Someone here said:

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss  Leo's definition of science by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

I think you conflate  "modern  epistemologists "  with casual scientists (and even there I would be catious what positions they hold), but as you outlined scientists are generally not philosophers and not into epistemology and philosophy of science - but philosophers who are into those things , they also study metaphysics , so im not sure what would be the futility in engaging with them.

The general notion how philosophers are characterized on this forum is just wrong.  This is thanks to Leo's charaterization of them, where we pretend that most academic philosophers are retarded , white belt atheists or theists, but thats just not the case. 

[OBEler]

Leo on his blog some month ago: "My deepest and most revolutionary ideas are still ahead.

Crazy-deep videos are baking in the oven and I am already high on their sweet fumes.

Actualized.org will soon enter a new era of intelligence. Up to this point all of my work has been the caterpillar. This year the butterfly will emerge from its cocoon."

Leo I just want to say you keep your promise. You deliver delicious deep insights so far - especially the blog post about wrong state. Although I know this already somehow you expressed it so well and directly and focused on how important that is -  no one else did this so far. And that's extremely valuable. Thank you! 

https://www.actualized.org/insights/wrong-state

 

Edited June 5 by OBEler