Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[YIDIRYIDIR]

Quote

A dog simply doesn’t understand mathematics. Likewise, a human simply does not understand that human life is imaginary.

If the gap between humans and this understanding is like the gap between a dog and mathematics, then I'm curious why bother with criticizing humans, making explanations and convincing and debating and ranting against rationalists, and going on podcasts and stuff? 

I get that truth has to be said and expressed, by why bother with convincing and holding people accountable for the limitation of not getting it (scientists specifically)? 

 

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, YIDIRYIDIR said:

why bother with convincing and holding people accountable for the limitation of not getting it (scientists specifically)?

Ultimately there is no reason to do anything.

However, unlike a dog, a scientist can realize that science is a human construction, a scientist can open his mind to things I say, and eventually I will get some scientist to realize he is God. And that will be the point.

The point is, at least a few people will realize God from the things I teach. It won't be thousands or millions, but dozens. And that's good enough for me.

All of my work is done for a small number of very serious people who will eventually realize God. But larger numbers of more casual folk will also benefit along the way without going all the way to God.

It is good for scientists and academics to understand epistemology and the limits of their fields. This will help their fields advance. I don't just criticize them for entertainment or clicks, I explain how to think deeper and better.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura