Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Basman]

I guess driving is the American version of going for a walk.

[Leo Gura]

Walking is for Boomers 

[Eskilon]

5 minutes ago, Basman said:

I guess driving is the American version of going for a walk.

Bro's so obese and lazy they can't fathom what a walking even means

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew Don't make excuses for people who insist on thinking about God is stupid ways.

It is Stephen Fry's responsibility to know what he is speaking against.

Then attack the interviewer and not the guy who is being asked the question. (Unless you think its a better move in the context Stephen was in,  to just dodge the interviewer's  question)

Its your responsibility to recognize the obvious fact that Stephen Fry wasnt talking about your notion of God. Its not like you have a monopoly on what meaning should be behind the word "God" (and if you are not autistic, then you are sensitive to the fact how different words are used in different ways by different people). 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Walking is for Boomers 

Damn Americans and their car centric lifestyle. In Europe you can actually WALK to your destination.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

12 hours ago, zurew said:

Constantly switching between existential language (where Love is metaphysical and doesnt have anything to do with action) vs action/agential language  (where love is cashed out by what an agent  does and not by its nature) is a big mistake.

Fair criticism. It would be nice to see Leo be more precise with terms sometimes. Although there's also a tradeoff because you won't make as many interconnections in your mind as if he equates Love, Truth, God, etc.

13 hours ago, zurew said:

You cant deduce anything specific from something being Absolute

No. That's the point. It seems like you're treating "absolute" as a property, which it isn't. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

11 hours ago, zurew said:

Leo's solipsism doesnt explain anything btw, it leaves you with an infinite number of unexplained brute facts. Its the most vacuous thing you can ever go with.

You're assuming that what makes a paradigm good is that it can explain a lot of things. This ignores two possibilities: 1) that what you're dealing with isn't a paradigm, and 2) that being able to explain a lot of things is what makes a belief/paradigm true. The focus should be on what's true, not any secondary consequences. So if Leo's solipsism is true, it's true, and it doesn't matter how much it explains.

[UnbornTao]

@zurew Just say that it is your direct experience whenever you make an argument here. 

Seriously though, belief is a fascinating topic. 

[zurew]

5 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

It seems like you're treating "absolute" as a property

No Im not, what im saying is that there is a variety thats never appreciated and acknowledge here  -  from God being absolute you cant deduce that God is love and that God is non-agential and other stuff. None of those things trivially follows from God being absolute so there is clearly an underdetermination and variety problem there.

You can have an infinite number of different positions affirming that Consciousness is absolute and then disagree on other details.

5 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

The focus should be on what's true, not any secondary consequences. So if Leo's solipsism is true, it's true, and it doesn't matter how much it explains.

Yeah but all of that is applicable to any other paradigm as well (they can claim that they are true and it doesnt matter what issues you cook up against them, because whats true is true regardless your issues and criticisms against them). Also  notice that all of you are making arguments against other paradigms using proxies other than just an appeal to truth  (sometimes you guys appeal to internal contradictions and appeal to your own seemings and to your experiences etc).

If you make that kind of "it doesnt matter how many unexplained brute facts are in your paradigm" move then a physicalist can just say that "It doesnt matter that I cant explain Consciousness, because its just a fact of the matter that Consciousness is just emergent from physical processes, but dont ask me how and why, because it doesnt matter how, what matters is just whats true bro".

And even further anyone can say against solipsism ,that "it doesnt matter how many  assumptions I make, because there isn't any rule in reality that making more assumptions makes my view less probable, because what matters is just whats true bro".

There isn't also any apriori rule in reality that only the things that can be validated by direct experience is whats true, unless you assume that to be the case. You cant escape this, but for some reason most of you dont question this and for some reason most of you guys think that you managed to  escape and solve these problems.

 

 

What you guys call "direct experience" is what christians call "revelation" and but most of you will reject that with a knee jerk reaction, because that goes against your "direct" experience. But we can use any other religion or paradigm that has its own unique ways to justify why its allowed to beg the question against other views. 

Appealing to direct experience wont solve this, because again other mystical traditions can have direct experience as the main epistemic foundation from which everything is built, but they will disagree with each other on which things or experience should be categorized as direct experience.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

Just say that it is your direct experience whenever you make an argument here. 

Thats the ultimate move that can make you win any argument instantly here 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Stephen Fry wasnt talking about your notion of God

Of course he wasn't. That is his problem, not mine.

With a mind as dense as his, it is not possible to know God.

[zurew]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course he wasn't. That is his problem, not mine.

Do you often do this obnoxious notion swapping move in other contexts as well just to win arguments against other people ?

I imagine the moment someone tells Leo that they didn’t like the taste of the food they ate yesterday (lets say they are referring to onion soup) , then Leo immediately goes ahead and swap his own notion of food in and corrects them that it must have been delicious because by food he means his own food (referring to something other than onion soup) and that he has a monopoly on how the term "food" has to be used in his univocal way.

Edited 6 hours ago by zurew

[Butters]

16 hours ago, integral said:

Cancer is good for cancer. God loves cancer equally to god loving children. this is logic that does not require awakening. You are so selfish you want your child to live and you want the cancer to die.

Well that's easier said than done. If you love your child you would not see it this way and you'd probably ask exactly that same question.

[Butters]

2 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Damn Americans and their car centric lifestyle. In Europe you can actually WALK to your destination.

Rascal scooter 🛵 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Do you often do this obnoxious notion swapping move in other contexts as well just to win arguments against other people ?

I imagine the moment someone tells Leo that they didn’t like the taste of the food they ate yesterday (lets say they are referring to onion soup) , then Leo immediately goes ahead and swap his own notion of food in and corrects them that it must have been delicious because by food he means his own food (referring to something other than onion soup) and that he has a monopoly on how the term "food" has to be used in his univocal way.

If someone's idea of food was a dead skunk they scooped up from the road, then I would make fun of them just like Stephen Fry's notion of God.

And you would be here trolling me about it, defending the eating of dead skunks.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If someone's idea of food was a dead racoon they scooped up from the road, then I would make fun of them just like Stephen Fry's notion of God.

And you would be here trolling me about it, defending the eating of dead racoons.

interviewer: "Hey Stephen, what do you think about food, and more specifically about eating dead racoons?" and then him answering with "I think eating dead racoons is disgusting and unhealthy" and then you clipping that and creating a forum post with the title "Lol, the pathetic and ignorant Stephen doesnt know what food actually is and how healthy it can be".

[Rigel]

10 hours ago, Basman said:

I guess driving is the American version of going for a walk.

Typical American behaviour. Take something that makes sense and improves your life on every level and make it more stupid, less effective, more ugly and more noisy.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

interviewer: "Hey Stephen, what do you think about food, and more specifically about eating dead racoons?" and then him answering with "I think eating dead racoons is disgusting and unhealthy" and then you clipping that and creating a forum post with the title "Lol, the pathetic and ignorant Stephen doesnt know what food actually is and how healthy it can be".

No. That is the wrong analogy.

The right analogy is if he identified all of food with dead raccoons. Which would be stupid.

[Rigel]

Americans did the same thing they did to walking to politics😂

I’m joking, anyone would be corrupt with all that power. We shouldn’t allow that much power in the first place.

edit: They also did it to food, omg

Edited 3 hours ago by Rigel

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The right analogy is if he identified all of food with dead raccoons.

I dont know why you would infer that from the clip. 

If your version would have been specified and spelled out in question form , then im pretty sure his anwer would have been different.

And again, the question wasn't generic, it was framing it towards the christian god specifically, given that the interviewer started his question with "you are in front of the pearly gates".

 

[Leo Gura]

When Stephen Fry reaches the pearly gates he will realize what a massive fool he has been.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura