Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Someone here]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

One problem is equivocation. He uses the term in two different senses which leads to confusion. (for example in his blog post, he said that scientists would stop being scientists if they would recognize what he says - how could that possibly be the case if he uses a definition of science that encompasses the things he said about epistemology and metaphysics). 

The other issue with his equivocation (that isn't applicable in this specific case, but in other cases it is), is that he isn't reponding to the position others have, because he uses the same terms with a completely different meaning . If you have a position that I would want to criticize I would first want to make sure that I respond to your position (the way you mean it and the way you use those terms) and not the way what I would prefer certain terms to mean. If by X you mean your horse and you say that X has 4 legs and I respond with "you stupid guy , how could my finger (X) have four legs?", then  Im not really interacting with your claim, I created a completely new separate claim that you dont even hold. 

 

The other obvious issue is with the normative part, thats where the meat of the issue is and thats where the substantive debate is "what it means for science to be proper and what it means for a scientist to be a good scientist , what kind of epistemic norms should science be defined by" - you cant just grab the label "proper" and put behind the epistemology that you intuitively like, thats not how debates work and thats not how establishing a truth claim works.

 I will tell you the difference between doing traditional science and Leo's Science aka metaphysics.  Science is about empirical knowledge.. metaphysics is a priori knowledge .

Science is about contingent facts... Leo's  work is about necessary truths 

Science is about physical objects..Leo's also about physical objects but also abstract objects if they exist..like God..and its up to you to believe if such thing exist 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss  Leo's definition of science by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

Edited Thursday at 02:19 PM by Someone here

[zurew]

44 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 I will tell you the difference between doing traditional science and Leo's Science aka metaphysics.  Science is about empirical knowledge.. metaphysics is a priori knowledge .

Science is about contingent facts... Leo's  work is about necessary truths 

Science is about physical objects..Leo's also about physical objects but also abstract objects if they exist..like God..and its up to you to believe if such thing exist 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss  Leo's definition of science by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification

Im not sure how any of that responds to the issues I brought up. The issue isn't  that he uses a unique definition, the issue is that he uses two different definitions for the same term (equivocation). 

Btw the funny thing is that Leo would object to almost everything that you said there. He rejects the apriori aposteriori, and the analytic synthetic distinctions. He would also reject your characterization of God , because when he invokes that term he doesn't mean an abstract object.

The other funny thing is that Leo would be categorized as a hardcore empiricist - he is the one who holds the position that you can solve and settle metaphysical issues  with purely empirical investigation (and validate  things for yourself) and there is no need for arguments and debates.

57 minutes ago, Someone here said:

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss  Leo's definition of science by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

I think you conflate  "modern  epistemologists "  with casual scientists (and even there I would be catious what positions they hold), but as you outlined scientists are generally not philosophers and not into epistemology and philosophy of science - but philosophers who are into those things , they also study metaphysics , so im not sure what would be the futility in engaging with them.

The general notion how philosophers are characterized on this forum is just wrong.  This is thanks to Leo's charaterization of them, where we pretend that most academic philosophers are retarded , white belt atheists or theists, but thats just not the case. 

[OBEler]

Leo on his blog some month ago: "My deepest and most revolutionary ideas are still ahead.

Crazy-deep videos are baking in the oven and I am already high on their sweet fumes.

Actualized.org will soon enter a new era of intelligence. Up to this point all of my work has been the caterpillar. This year the butterfly will emerge from its cocoon."

Leo I just want to say you keep your promise. You deliver delicious deep insights so far - especially the blog post about wrong state. Although I know this already somehow you expressed it so well and directly and focused on how important that is -  no one else did this so far. And that's extremely valuable. Thank you! 

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

 

Edited Thursday at 08:56 PM by OBEler

[Someone here]

@zurew I'm speaking my mind .I could be wrong .also I'm not at the same level of accuracy and technicality as you . Sorry 🙏 I have nothing to add to this conversation anymore. 

[Miguel1]

39 minutes ago, OBEler said:

http://www.actualized.org/articles/wrong-state

Link doesn't seem to work. Can you check the correct link?

I want to re-read it.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

Science is about empirical knowledge.. metaphysics is a priori knowledge .

My metaphysics is empirical.

Don't act like science doesn't have a metaphysics. It does. It's just shitty.

Edited Thursday at 05:47 PM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

Leo on his blog some month ago: "My deepest and most revolutionary ideas are still ahead.

Crazy-deep videos are baking in the oven and I am already high on their sweet fumes.

Actualized.org will soon enter a new era of intelligence. Up to this point all of my work has been the caterpillar. This year the butterfly will emerge from its cocoon."

Leo I just want to say you keep your promise.

I haven't even released the stuff I was talking about there.

The blog is just scraps and crumbs of half-baked ideas.

I should rename the blog: Rat Crumbs

Edited Thursday at 05:50 PM by Leo Gura

[Daniel Balan]

My biggest fear is that Actualized.org will be banned, either in my country because it will become like Belarus, or because the US will shut down Leo's YT and website for being a threat and undermining their grip on power! What I mean is that the US government will fear that too many citizens will be exposed to actualized.org and this could destabilise the grip on power of the corrupt elites! 

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura, I remember that my math teacher gave us a problem to solve, and after a while of understanding it, I just said the answer because it made sense.

The teacher just laughed at me and said, You are right, but how did you solve it?

Then the teacher got disappointed. 😁

[Joshe]

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Leo Gura

Most recent blog post on intuition - enjoyed!

Big intuitive leaps really mess with types who work in other ways. It is really one of the most common reasons for misunderstanding.

It is like the ability to see all possibilities, the connections between them, and all deductions that result. Without getting stuck on one single detail. This processing occurs in an unconscious way.

The flip side is it can (as you point out) be difficult to elaborate precisely how you came to this conclusion. Often with intuitives it is hard for them to understand how their own intuition works, because it is such a baked in 'default' way of thinking. It is, in my experience, a rarer trait. 

You would probably have a heaps chill time with other intuitives

I'm an intuitive. It's really quite baffling to witness it. It's as if 20 variables and their implications are being processed in the background and when the process is finished, which is often in milliseconds, the final result exists as a single, formless knowing, with no symbol to represent it, and I have no idea how I know, but I just know. Over time, as it develops, if you have high metacognition, you get good at knowing when the results are incomplete or totally accurate. 

It can be frustrating to know something but not know the logical pieces that construct the knowing. Also, I've felt like an intellectual fraud (not that I'm an intellectual) because I don't sit down and work my ass off in collecting knowledge piece by piece. I just observe what grabs my attention and somehow, much understanding seems to be just handed to me on a silver platter. Of course, I have a high NFC and am always collecting information, but I don't work to organize any of it. I don't take notes for study. It all just goes into the brain bucket.

Figuring out how I know things becomes an interesting puzzle that requires decoding the things intuition serves up, but it's a task to figure it out. I have to leave my default world of wide-gazed perception and engage my Te (extraverted thinking), but before I do that, I ask my intuition where the intuition came from, then run the answer through the Te filter until I'm satisfied, then add the result back to the database for further intuition.

My working memory isn't the best when I'm engaged in linear thought but there seems to be a subconscious memory that tracks all the things. I ahve high pattern recognition of knowing where I've been before, so I think that has something to do with it. 

Also, I think it takes an intuitive to know one. I don't think you can really know what it's like if you don't have it as your default mode of operation. Like you said, even for those who do have it as their default likely don't understand it. 

It's a really interesting phenomenon. I've been learning a lot about it lately. 

Edited Thursday at 05:57 PM by Joshe

[CARDOZZO]

@Leo Gura

Can you point a single human being who is on that path to full autonomy of mind? 

I would like you to talk more about innovation, pioneering work, creativity, new levels of cognitive development, mind programming, how to become an inventor/pioneer.

Is there a science to engineer human geniuses?

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

@Leo Gura

Can you point a single human being who is on that path to full autonomy of mind? 

Ralston is the best example I know besides me.

Few people have this as a goal.

Quote

I would like you to talk more about innovation, pioneering work, creativity, new levels of cognitive development, mind programming, how to become an inventor/pioneer.

Yeah. I will. It takes time to build up to it. It requires a deep scaffolding.

Quote

Is there a science to engineer human geniuses?

That's iffy.

But there are definitely principles and methods.

I don't view it as engineering geniuses. I view this whole path as understanding reality, oneself, and mind. The deeper you understand Mind the more genius gets unleashed.

So it all revolves about building up insane understanding of the most fundamental aspects of reality. The more fundamental, the better your mind becomes.

Ralston's and my work focuses on the absolute fundamentals, which everyone else tends to skip over.

Your best chance of becoming a genius is devoting yourself to the deepest fundamentals even when they don't seem practical.

When everyone is telling you that metaphysics is not important to science, that's exactly why you should master metaphysics. This is how a genius thinks.

Edited Thursday at 07:45 PM by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Miguel1 said:

Link doesn't seem to work. Can you check the correct link?

I want to re-read it.

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

 

[Miguel1]

18 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

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

 

Where the hell did you pull out that ”articles” part in the original link 🤣

[UnbornTao]

28 minutes ago, Miguel1 said:

Where the hell did you pull out that ”articles” part in the original link 🤣

Not me

But it happens. I think the videos use "/articles."

Edited Thursday at 08:02 PM by UnbornTao

[OBEler]

@Miguel1 I fixed the link. https://www.actualized.org/insights/wrong-state

@Leo Gura I am digesting your sweet insights one by one. What else you have you baked in your oven you didn't put on the menu? I like it also bitter sweet. 

My wish list:

Alien mind

AI for development 

Black pill

Solipsim for dummies 

 

Edited Thursday at 09:18 PM by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, OBEler said:

What else you have you baked in your oven you didn't put on the menu?

Over 100 videos it the oven slowly roasting like chickens, dripping with juices.

Edited Thursday at 09:35 PM by Leo Gura

[Miguel1]

@OBEler Thanks

I think Alien Mind is for the advanced course.

Inspired by your wish list, for years my big wish has been: Creativity !

Edited Thursday at 09:49 PM by Miguel1

[Vibes]

@Leo Gura What about that faint memory I have of a distant maybe dreamed up course you might have talked about?

[Leo Gura]

@Vibes It's all on my long to-do list.