Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I don't think science as a method is horrible at all.

It's more horrible as an institution and a sub-culture. The whole academic science machine.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Science is not some pure abstract thing. Science is whatever today's scientific consensus believes it is.

Science can be much better, but only if the consensus shifts.

Hmmmm... Gotcha, but couldn't the same thing be said about philosophy? You could say, "As of now, the common consensus around 'philosophy' is very much not it."

I suppose that's kind of what I mean with science. The "purest" form of science is what I described earlier. The same applies to your idea of a "pure" philosophy. It's just that the mainstream now corrupts all of these things.

Yet they still have a pure form underneath all of that, or at least I'd argue they do.

Not arguing against your point. I agree that science, as it currently exists in mainstream culture, is very far from what it could be and "should" be.

Edited 4 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Hmmmm... Gotcha, but couldn't the same thing be said about philosophy? You could say, "As of now, the common consensus around 'philosophy' is very much not it."

Of course. Academic philosophy is as corrupt as science. Maybe moreso. At least science produces useful technology and advances the economy.

Quote

I suppose that's kind of what I mean with science. The "purest" form of science is what I described earlier. The same applies to your idea of a "pure" philosophy. It's just that the mainstream now corrupts all of these things.

Of course there is an ultimate, final version of science which integrates mysticism, God, philosophy, epistemology, ontology, and spirituality and ends in Omniscience. That would be true science. That's what I'm trying to help create. But the consensus is so far from that today that I don't even call that science.

There is the science of today, and there is the science of 500 years from today. I am 100% for the science of 500 years from now. I am against the science of today.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

It's hilarious to think just how woo-woo, "irrational", and mystical science 500 years from now might seem to current scientists. Kind of like how Jesus would probably be (is) rolling in his grave, facepalming at the current opinions of "religious conservatives," hehe 😄

Edited 4 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

It's hilarious to think just how woo-woo, "irrational", and mystical science 500 years from now might seem to current scientists.

Yup. Exactly.

[Nick_98]

Regarding Leo's last blog post about deep questioning. 

I wanted to know in my own experience how can I distinguish between genuine questioning and going through the motion. 

I sometimes question the aspects of reality but as I do that , I think to myself" hey that was not really genuine questioning". 

How can I start deeply genuinely questioning and stop bullsh*ing myself

[Davino]

@Nick_98 A good rule of thumb is to keep going till a question suddenly shocks you and makes you really pause and contemplate.

Get a fifth sense for this killer questions, they'll lead you straight to an insight.