Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Jacob Morres]

@PsychedelicEagle pros and cons to it tho, no? Consensus generally has high rates of accuracy and repeatability

[erikchomko]

Quote

God can’t change its own ontology, God cannot change what it is or how Consciousness works. Skeptics love to turn this into a contradiction against Omnipotence. 

If you can't change the structure of your being, how can you be said to be omnipotent? 
 

Quote

No! It’s not a contradiction.

Need better argumentation here 
 

Quote

Truth/Being/Consciousness has a definite nature, an absolute nature. The nature of Truth/Being/Consciousness cannot be changed, not even by God, and this does not contradict Omnipotence.

You haven't explained why this doesn't' contradict it

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, erikchomko said:

If you can't change the structure of your being, how can you be said to be omnipotent? 

Omnipotence means that Consciousness can hallucinate anything it wants. But the ontology of Consciousness cannot be changed.

A TV screen can display any image, but the screen is the screen and its nature cannot be changed by displaying new images.

God is limited in that it cannot not be God. The fact that Consciousness can hallucinate anything cannot change. Skeptics want to use this point as evidence against God, which is false.

Edited Sunday at 09:30 PM by Leo Gura

[trenton]

@Leo Gura you mentioned you were killing mosquitoes and then realized you were committing a genocide.

I just now had a similar problem. I recently learned about the spotted lantern fly. It is considered a parasite that destroys a lot of trees in my part of America. The government and various authoritative sources encouraged squashing the insects and destroying the eggs.

Prior to this information, I simply observed one of these insects and started trying to figure out what it might be. Once I got this information from the government that it was a parasite that it wanted help eliminating, then I started thinking that killing these parasites would make me a good citizen.

I just got back home from my walk. I found one of their breeding grounds and squashed a whole bunch of them. I can't count how many. Other people saw me squashing them and cheered me on for being a good citizen. However, once the dead bodies started piling up, I started having second thoughts.

I started thinking, "oh, this is mass murder." I then started thinking of this behavior was really conducive to higher consciousness. Maybe I was being helpful to ridding parasites from nearby plants, but higher consciousness and being a good citizen come apart easily when being a good citizen means commiting a genocide.

Now I'm thinking about something like a Nazi who was trying to be good by ridding his nation of a parasite only to kill countless Jews.

[Leo Gura]

@trenton Yup, that's the pickle of it.

[Rafael Thundercat]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Omnipotence means that Consciousness can hallucinate anything it wants. But the ontology of Consciousness cannot be changed.

A TV screen can display any image, but the screen is the screen and its nature cannot be changed by displaying new images.

God is limited in that it cannot not be God. The fact that Consciousness can hallucinate anything cannot change. Skeptics want to use this point as evidence against God, which is false.

I was rewatching the episode about why God cant be proven. Is crazy that one cant watch the same many times and every time a new nuance from the whole episode pops up. 

Like this:

There is an assumption within science, for example, that reality is contingent and not necessary or absolute, that, for example, existence cannot be a tautology. Tautology is assumed to be a mistake, but it's not. God is absolute tautology. God has to exist.

God cannot not exist. That's the most important aspect of God. Its existence is absolutely necessary. But this presents a problem to materialists, scientists, and atheists because they are only used to dealing with relative stuff, contingent stuff that cannot exist or exist depending on various circumstances and factors. They've never dealt with it with an absolute before, and so they instinctively react negatively towards this idea of anything being tautological.

Right? Like absolute truth cannot be tautological. Or can it? It must be, because it's absolutely true. It's true under all circumstances.

And all of logic actually hinges upon consciousness and absolute truth, just in ways that are not very obvious. You have to go very deep in your consciousness and in your development to understand how logic arises out of the existence of absolute truth. That's not a simple thing to understand or to explain here, so I won't even try.

But if absolute truth didn't exist and logic couldn't work, that's something I'll explain in the future. This leads us to the problem of self-evidence.

The Problem of Self-Evidence

In the end, there's absolutely no way around at least one self-evident thing. You cannot have any working epistemology or metaphysics or sense making or knowledge without something being self-evident. Whether you're doing science, religion, anything, you need something that's self-evident because without that you couldn't know anything.

So for example, self-evident things that are common within human knowledge are things like reason. Logic is taken as self-evident. The law of non-contradiction is taken as self-evident. The law of identity is taken as self-evident. Analytic statements like "bachelor's are unmarried men" is taken as self-evident. Various primitive mathematics like 1 + 1 = 2 is taken as self-evidence. Intuition can be taken as self-evident. The existence of other people is often taken as self-evident. Scientific method is often taken as self-evident. Direct experience can be taken as self-evidence. Induction. These are just some examples.

You need something like that to have any kind of epistemology. But what is the most self-evident of all things? It's that you exist and that you're conscious. There can be nothing more fundamental than that. Everything else depends upon that. Because if you don't exist and you're not conscious, there can't be logic, there can't be science, there can't be a universe, there can't be other people, there can't be an external world. There can't be objectivity, there can't be history, there can't be time, there can't be space, and there can't be atoms. There can't be anything. All of that assumes that you exist.

So very paradoxically, the reason God cannot be proven is precisely because it exists. Existence cannot be proven because it's the only self-evident thing. It's the self-evident thing. Existence is absolute self-evidence. Existence exists to itself for itself. Not to a human, not to a subject, not to a brain, not to a biological living being.

There's just existence. Existence exists as an absolute. That's what this is. This has been mistaken for something else, which is the illusion that God spins to construct a human life. God is existence. It is not even proper to say that God exists because God is existence. Anything that exists is God.

[Leo Gura]

@Rafael Thundercat Yeah, that's good stuff.

[Nemra]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

God is limited in that it cannot not be God. The fact that Consciousness can hallucinate anything cannot change. Skeptics want to use this point as evidence against God, which is false.

I think that God not being able to change some aspect of itself appears as a limitation on a surface, dualistic level.

The limitation would be God not being able to hallucinate.

If God could be not God, it would make God limited, but God by definition is the only thing.

If God is the only thing, it must be the creator of limitations and not be limited by any external thing; otherwise, it wouldn't be unlimited enough to even create a limit, thus turning God to not God.

For a thing like a visual field, it could be said that it is limited, meaning that there are things that are not visual, and also unlimited, meaning that any visual thing cannot exist outside the visual field. Then if God includes everything ever possible, things like visual field, etc., then God cannot become not God, otherwise it would be limited.

Edited Monday at 12:47 PM by Nemra

[Human Mint]

15 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

But what is the most self-evident of all things? It's that you exist and that you're conscious. There can be nothing more fundamental than that. Everything else depends upon that. Because if you don't exist and you're not conscious, there can't be logic, there can't be science, there can't be a universe, there can't be other people, there can't be an external world. There can't be objectivity, there can't be history, there can't be time, there can't be space, and there can't be atoms. There can't be anything. All of that assumes that you exist.

I grasped this at 18 while on a trip on the mountains. Incredible stuff. 

One of the few things that I was able to contemplate while sober and by myself.

Just out of pure curiosity.

Edited Monday at 12:58 PM by Human Mint

[Rafael Thundercat]

11 hours ago, Nemra said:

For a thing like a visual field, it could be said that it is limited, meaning that there are things that are not visual, and also unlimited, meaning that any visual thing cannot exist outside the visual field. Then if God includes everything ever possible, things like visual field, etc., then God cannot become not God, otherwise it would be limited.

Infinite Visual Field of Consciousness.

 

[relativity]

This reminds me of a German rap song, named "Sockosophie" (like the German word "Philosophie" - (philosophy ofc), combined with the word "Socke" ( "sock") => "sockosophy" would be the title in English).

It contains lines such as:

"In truth, you’re a sock on someone’s hand."

or 

"You are not separate from the source.
You are the source experiencing itself through human form."

or 

"The hand was never separate from the puppet.
The creator was never separate from creation."

I think this was written after a few heavy LSD trips haha. You can really appreciate it when you understand German. It is a masterpiece

[Adrian colby]

On 09/09/2026 at 7:45 PM, PsychedelicEagle said:

Love this — thanks for sharing.

Found the full video here: 

 

Literally just had an argument with some (idiotic shaman) about this.

the reductionist issue I liken to Leo’s “frog in a blender” analogy. Even if we get beyond the refraction limit we’re still isolating components that don’t have an independent existance and at that level we loose the very ‘emergent property’ we’re trying to understand.

 ( I think he actually said something similar in the video) but I use an example of a machine to get this to hit home.

Say you have a machine. You take the machine apart because you want to understand the whole machine better, not because you think the individual components exist independently of the machine. You’re not deciding which pieces you like and throwing the others away. The machine is and works the way it does because of the relationship between everything that it is made up of. So you take it apart, examine the components and understand how they relate/work with one another. But then you put it back together.

And now you understand the whole machine more comprehensively than you did when you were simply looking at from the level of appearance. What it looks like from the outside. Because the machine itself is an emergent property deriving from all those interacting aspects. 

The same goes for everything in spirituality. A lot of people deconstruct but they don’t reconstruct or reintegrate to understand the whole. 
 

I get sick of biological arguments using a single component to prove determination or definition. The component itself isn’t the emergent property or outcome. Sometimes the component isn’t even involved and it has to be a part of a relational and interactive system. 
 

the core understanding behind all of this is ‘relationship’

[Natasha Tori Maru]

But of a tangent; the recent image of duck/lings on the Survival Machines post made me recall a bad time this morning on my ride to work.

I came blasting around a blind corner at roughly 30km/h on my bicycle, only to come face to face with 2 ducks and their brood.

The type of ducks around here have some fucken TESTICLE, I tell you. TESTICLE. They come at you aggressively with no fear, necks jutting and mouths open. They even make this low pitched open, long drawn out 'quuuuuuack' as they jut at you.

Anyway - I killed one. Destroyed by the bike. I almost came off in the process (it was raining slightl) - slammed on the rear break and slid out right across this ducks neck. The male and ducklings lived, and were fine. The female died to me (female ducks of this type, I don't know the name, are plain looking and dull compared to the males) quickly, no pain. Neck twisted at an impossible angle. I stopped to check on her, but she was well gone. C'est la vie

But as I packed up and high tailed it to the office my parting thought was "farewell little one, you died to me on my contraption - a death machine" 

@Carl-Richard Leo posts "survival machines" with a duck and ducklings on the blog - this morning I killed a duck with ducklings and literally recall thinking "I am a death machine". Leo practicing that non-local awareness remote viewing JUJU

Edited 4 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Carl-Richard Leo posts "survival machines" with a duck and ducklings on the blog - this morning I killed a duck with ducklings and literally recall thinking "I am a death machine". Leo practicing that non-local awareness remote viewing JUJU

Without reading the context, you sounded very hungry. Survival machine indeed.

[Leo Gura]

Quack!

[Joseph Maynor]

You guys are hilarious.  Sometimes.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Without reading the context, you sounded very hungry. Survival machine indeed.

I was actually - I forgot to eat dinner and had no breakfast >.<

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Quack!

Ha ha ha! You picked up on something for sure!

[Leo Gura]

@Natasha Tori Maru I was channeling your deceased friend

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@Natasha Tori Maru I was channeling your deceased friend

RIP little girly duck (but damn aggressive girl got her neck snapped for her trouble)

Found her: The Dark Side of Ducks - Australian Wood Duck

That is the exact breed - and if this article is anything to go off, they ARE aggressive fucks

I shouldn't be surprised, everything there is violent

[Leo Gura]

@Natasha Tori Maru I thought Australian ducks were called platypii.