Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Yimpa]

6 hours ago, Stick said:

Ans: It is impossible to be wrong.

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That is wrong.

Contemplate harder.

That is wrong.

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

[Thought Art]

I like how Madalyn O’Hair begins her response with how she doesn’t know and that she’s humble… but then claims to know exactly where the answer will come from and where it definitely won’t come from. The isn’t aware of her contradiction.  If you truly didn’t know you wouldn’t appeal to specific schemes or types of science as surely where it will come from. 

[Nemra]

Belief in and about God is the problem.

[Terell Kirby]

9 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Belief in and about God is the problem.

yessss

[integral]

Epistemically Wrong: in chess the beginner tries to prove to himself his beliefs are true, and the master tries to prove to himself that his beliefs are wrong.

The amateur asks "what does this move do for me?" and the master asks "what does this move allow?"

The problem with the beginner isn't just that he gets attached, it's that finding a move feels like progress, so letting go of it feels like losing something. He's chasing the feeling of having an answer instead of the answer actually being correct. For those thirty seconds that move becomes part of his identity, and refuting it would mean admitting he wasted his time.

The master does the opposite, he spends most of his calculation trying to refute his own ideas because that's where the real information is. A line that survives your best attempt to kill it actually tells you something. 

And chess punishes this immediately. One refutation you didn't look at loses you the game, while ten supporting reasons give you nothing you didn't already have. The game rewards falsification and punishes confirmation

The master is building an accurate model of the position before he even thinks about the solution and the beginner is generating solutions from a model he never built, so he's finding answers to a question he doesn't understand or asked.

Most people can't tolerate discomfort of not having an answer yet while the understanding builds.

Edited 7 hours ago by integral

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

55 minutes ago, Stick said:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/humans-gauge-truth-by-social-acceptance


Scientists DON'T gauge truth based on social acceptability. They gauge it based on evidence.
Many scientific discovery contradicted the previous socially accepted answer but since the proof was so irrefutable the scientists were given a price for the discovery. For 'correcting' science.
If you come up with a better theory for gravitation with all the proof, people especially in the science community will regard you highly. That is what happened with Einstein.
Many scientist are introverted and couldn't give two fucks about what is socially acceptable.
Much of the scientific community is very excited upon landing on a new theory that contains proof.
The reason they dismiss spirituality is because
1, there are too make fake dogmatic teachings and
2, there is no proof of GOD outside of GOD. however the scientific method required interaction between 2 distinct entities to operate which is not possible.
Of course, they could realize GOD without the scientific method but they are too rigid for that. Certainly not social acceptance seekers though.
I understand your point in the sense that evidence and proof are directly tied with the social acceptability of a theory but the only thing science has missed to account for is GOD. Which is pretty impressive considering most of the population is still stuck below.

I think it is a fairly safe bet to put scientific explanations above the "but reality is larger than science" sentiment

[integral]

1 hour ago, Stick said:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/humans-gauge-truth-by-social-acceptance


Scientists DON'T gauge truth based on social acceptability. They gauge it based on evidence.
Many scientific discovery contradicted the previous socially accepted answer but since the proof was so irrefutable the scientists were given a price for the discovery. For 'correcting' science.
If you come up with a better theory for gravitation with all the proof, people especially in the science community will regard you highly. That is what happened with Einstein.
Many scientist are introverted and couldn't give two fucks about what is socially acceptable.
Much of the scientific community is very excited upon landing on a new theory that contains proof.
The reason they dismiss spirituality is because
1, there are too make fake dogmatic teachings and
2, there is no proof of GOD outside of GOD. however the scientific method required interaction between 2 distinct entities to operate which is not possible.
Of course, they could realize GOD without the scientific method but they are too rigid for that. Certainly not social acceptance seekers though.
I understand your point in the sense that evidence and proof are directly tied with the social acceptability of a theory but the only thing science has missed to account for is GOD. Which is pretty impressive considering most of the population is still stuck below.

No one agreed with Einstein, they thought he was a crack pot. That slow, sluggish dragging of your feet to accept a new profound way to look at the same thing is the paradigm lock. They think right now they're model of the universe Is one of the highest models and they don't understand they're just sitting in a hole and can't see above it.

More evidence and more rational thoughts does not get you there

Measuring every banana in the tree will not get you to understanding reality, this is the materialism monkey bubble.

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[vibv]

You're all in for some major twists.

[Yimpa]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It lies!!! 😅😅😅

Leo also hallucinated a wording error, specifically a  grammatical blunder (not a logic error?) 

https://www.threads.com/@leogura1/post/DZO0rcdlK8X

Quote

responaibility

🤯

Edited 6 hours ago by Yimpa

[Yimpa]

3 hours ago, vibv said:

You're all in for some major twists.

 

[ryoko]

IDC how inefficient science is. Science is the closest thing to magic we got. Tangible means to manipulate matter. If you don't like how people lose their holistic life to science, think again. Would you ever destroy your life that way just to add a tiny droplet into the ocean of scientific knowledge?  Humans may live by consensus and social acceptance. But don't judge true scientists by what you see on social media. Scientists who appear to the public are generally those who value and follow consensus to very extreme degrees. Think about it. How well received and successful an eccentric scientist is going to be, for public speaking? These days, even the ones who see themselves as eccentric, even you, are deeply rooted in consensus reality. God-speak is a part time job. You're not god all the time, you're Leo. And that's, alright..

Edited 1 hour ago by ryoko

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

6 minutes ago, ryoko said:

IDC how inefficient science is. Science is the closest thing to magic we got. Tangible means to manipulate matter. If you don't like how people lose their holistic life to science, think again. Would you ever destroy your life that way just to add a tiny droplet into the ocean of scientific knowledge? 

Humans may live by consensus and social acceptance. But don't judge true scientists by what you see on social media. Scientists who appear to the public are generally those who value and follow consensus to very extreme degrees. Think about it. How well received and successful an eccentric scientist is going to be, for public speaking? These days, even the ones who see themselves as eccentric, even you, are deeply rooted in consensus reality. God-speak is a part time job. You're not god all the time, you're Leo. And that's, alright..

That bit about scientific worldview being deeply rooted in social consensus is so funny, given how essentially nobody cares or wants to think about the geeky scientific shit, there are scientific populizers such as Neil deGrasse Tyson who are suppose to make science feel like it's fun (and only talk about the most incredible, mindblowing and interesting parts of science that are easy to sell, not the usefull, boring, complicated and hard to understand engineering we are all dependent on) and even he is being regarded as a geek lol. I truly, truly believe that if all our technological progress dissapeared overnight, along with the architecture and all the information/knowledge mediums, those who'd survive would revert back to the most primitive form of farming, if not straight back to hunter-gathering

[ryoko]

If you're talking about science, you're not doing science, in that moment. And if you're talking too much, you never doing science. 

[CARDOZZO]

People misunderstand what Leo is talking about when he is criticizing science. He is not anti-science, he is just pointing out how science is limited.

 

[ryoko]

There are dangerous biases in where science gets applied to. The context gets hijacked by what's socially acceptable. There's no denying that. 

Most scientists are not rebels. 

I am reminded of Rich Sutton, he's the father of RL, yet, his vision of making true RL is underfunded because of what's bringing in money from investors and what's trendy. This basically stalls and destroys the possibility of RL ever becoming a reality.

Edited 1 hour ago by ryoko

[ryoko]

Most scientists are just doing what they think is right, to survive. 

In the case of Rich Sutton, he admits something like, he's old and he's been "awarded" and acknowledged, and he can do whatever he wants. Most of the scientific world is not like that, apparently. But look at the irony, he's still underfunded, it doesn't matter if he's acknowledged at the end of his life when he's left with little power.

Most normal scientists have spent decades of their lives into academia, a slip up could ruin their reputation and career. They're not allowed the live a life beyond the consensus if they want to keep the perks, and their job.

I don't think this will ever change on it's own. Definitely not by raising consciousness. Because "raising consciousness of the world" is an absurd concept. It's the other way around, systems evolve to match the world's current consciousness. 

Ultimately, one can only raise one's own consciousness. 

Edited 1 hour ago by ryoko

[ryoko]

 

These will explain why true RL is seen as a threat. He's trying to build information processing "entities". He's not interested in feeding them human biases. That's not economically profitable. 

RL is a rabbithole. I like the concept of reward hypothesis, it's a simplied reduction of how human brain operates. It's quite elegant. 

Edited 27 minutes ago by ryoko

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, CARDOZZO said:

People misunderstand what Leo is talking about when he is criticizing science. He is not anti-science, he is just pointing out how science is limited.

It'd be warranted to point out how sloppy and fantastical most of spirituality is, especially by followers - virtually everyone.

Some basic rigor and critical thinking are often sorely missing in this domain. Self-rigor could be thought of as the antithesis of the spiritual world, to use hyperbole.

There's a reason why it's much, much harder to sell snake oil as a mathematician or physicist than as a spiritualist or guru. I wish this difference were more emphasized, for what it's worth. Especially since it hits home and isn't always about  "the other."