Claude AI’s argument the Great Pyramid is actually very unusual.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

What about combining the archaeological record AND interpretation of myths? That's when you get a pasta party a'la Hancock style💃

DUDE I have listened to him... and as a ex-chronic I-skull-fucked-the-doob weed lover - he needs to put the joint down lol

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

as a ex-chronic I-skull-fucked-the-doob weed lover

💀

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

DUDE I have listened to him... and as a ex-chronic I-skull-fucked-the-doob weed lover - he needs to put the joint down lol

Listen to Sadhguru and you will be even more fucked 

The old duder unironically pushing the 'advanced reptilian beings were on Earth' hypothesis - Nagas (its just that in this case they are not the bad guys, like how they are typically portrayed in conspiracy theories)

[zurew]

@Bashar its funny btw that you think you are saying something new or something that wouldn't fit in my "worldview".

I personally followed dudes in the past who planned mediation retreats in Egypt for spiritual reasons (and these dude werent originally from Egypt). The idea was that you meditate inside the pyramids at a certain time (the time was planned astrologically), and you can have mystical experiences there ( or at least thats what a bunch of people reported who went there)

The background narrative is that the Pyramids were built for spiritual reasons , so that you can mediate there and recharge your energies and your  aura. They also believed that Thoth was an alien and that the emerald tablets actually described valid things.

Just as how this typically works, the dudes were hardcore into conspiracy theories (constellation of beliefs, you can predict most of their views and beliefs on almost anything), but the reports about the retreat were positive and many people who attended reported mystical experiences.

 

I know a lot of random shit like this (including channelers like Bashar and other shit like that), its just that my epistemic process is again not to default to the alien hypothesis ( when I dont necessarily have a good alternative hypothesis in mind). You should be much more rigorous and you should study the alternative hypotheses, or just  sit with not-knowing.

For the inference gap to be properly filled for the alien hypothesis you will need to do much more work than just "you dont have a good alternative, therefore aliens". Like do you have any independent evidence that the blocks were actually moved by sound or that those aliens were actually on land (without appealing to Bashar or to the Law of One) ?

Edited 9 hours ago by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Listen to Sadhguru and you will be even more fucked 

Last time I checked in on him it was 1 hour of 'All bad dirt, your problems, bad dirt. Get better dirt' and 'Your problems are mind-diarrhea'  

I've also gone heavily into the LoO material and Bashar's channeling. But ultimately, it is all unverified hearsay and I just can't. Doesn't stop me really getting into it (and alternate history theories / theories in general). And plenty of it has a lot of cross-over. There is a possibility it is real - but for now there isn't enough there to justify any of it as alternate explanations for the pyramids / human origin. LoO is a lot denser, so I see people into that a lot less, as Bashar is quite accessible converting his stuff into actionable steps 'Follow your highest excitement' and the 5 laws.

I just default back to not knowing. Or settling on 'most likely', but never conclusively.

Edited 3 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

TBH I think most people are only invested in perceived 'truth' insofar as it either gives them some functional solution, or nice feeling.

[Ramasta9]

Why is it so hard for people to believe that we can move things with sound vibrations?

Its really quite simple if you have the correct tools that can emit the correct vibratory frequencies.

Everything in physicality (matter & location) has a 'signature frequency', and if you have the technology to find that out what that frequency is, and then also have the technology to generate that frequency, it MUST move or shift to the location of the generated frequency.

Bashar actually spoke of this and makes total sense. Idk why its hard to accept that advanced civilizations existed before us, and possibly wiped out our knowledge and history. I play didgeridoo and shamanic drum often and people have transformations just by listening to them. Cause they don't just listen, they feel them, there is shifts that occur in their cellular matrix thus consciousness.

I don't intellectually understand what is happening, nor i think we are meant to, but you feel things and things shift and lives change.

That speaks more to me than figuring out the intricate details of who what when where how.

Edited 3 hours ago by Ramasta9

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Ramasta9 Any of what you proposed could be it, that is for certain.

The essence of the debate becomes what IS most likely with current knowledge.

And I say this as an experiencer, so I always have an extreme open mind.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Last time I checked in on him it was 1 hour of 'All bad dirt, your problems, bad dirt. Get better dirt' and 'Your problems are mind-diarrhea'  

I get the feeling that he is engaging in the "I verified some things from the Puranas, therefore most if not all of it is true". He is like a sneaky apologist who constantly jumps between "oh its just a myth and it should be interpreted as a myth" and between "No those things are literally true and should be interpreted as such"depending on what the audience is and whats convenient for him. Like be clear, which one do you want to go with, or do you want to go with both, where it both literally happened and it also has mythical import in some kind of very weird Richard Dawkins + Jordan Peterson synthesis style or what?

Even when it comes to science stuff, his narrative is "Of course scientits now saying that x,y is true, the yogic sciences predicted this thousands of years ago" and I think a good chunk of that is bias and dishonest, because again other apologists play these games, where the Bible should be interpreted as a science book and when its inconvenient its suddenly not a science book anymore. 

Its very clear that some of the things that are mentioned in the book are phrased in a very vague way, to the point where it almost becomes impossible for it not to be compatible with what scientist will say in the future. Like the scientist could be saying wildly different things than what they are saying now and the Puranas would still probably be compatible with it.

 

I think as much as I say this , this still isn't pointed out frequently enough when it comes to "authority figures" or pioneers. A good chunk of the work is necessarily based on making a web of inferences and not on directly verifying things, and when it comes to gurus making inferences, they are usually very bad at it, because most of the time they are uneducated and some amount of education is necessary to make more precise inferences with less jumps in logic. And of course being educated isnt enough, but creating very tight arguments is very very hard, where you can point out all the foundational assumptions you go with and where you can walk people through how and why you get to the conclusion. 

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its very clear that some of the things that are mentioned in the book are phrased in a very vague way, to the point where it almost becomes impossible for it not to be compatible with what scientist will say in the future. Like the scientist could be saying wildly different things than what they are saying now and the Puranas would still probably be compatible with it.

Or you can just infinitely do the move of "ohh its incompatible with it now, therefore its either the case that future sciences will agree with it or this part of the book should be interpreted in a non-literal way".

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I just default back to not knowing. Or settling on 'most likely', but never conclusively.

I dont think we usually have a well thought out epistemic process when it comes to approaching and evaluating these things.

But I can tell you one specific instance where I would definitely favour the alien hypothesis over the other one.

So when it comes to the Jesus resurrection hypothesis, and him healing people and walking on water and other stuff like that (lets just take those to be facts for the sake of the argument), the alien hypothesis is actually better than Jesus being God. The alien hypothesis is better because you dont need to inflate your ontology with things that are outside of time and space. So if you have a set of things that needs to be explained and one explanation can explain the data without needing to propose new layers of ontology, then you should go with that one over the other (if all else is equal).

 

----------------

 

I think we usually lack the epistemic tools so much that we really arent equipped to categorize things in a precise way. I think John Vervaeke is right that some of the imported frameworks we are working with are making it harder or sometimes impossible - so for instance, the subjective-objective divide really breakes down when it comes to categorizing certain entities and issues, and you need to construct new categories to deal with those problems (and sometimes you need a new metaphysical frame for that). And it doesnt help that  scientist  usually just unconsiously import modern philosophy . Some ways of thinking are so ingrained in us from culture, that you need to spend years to just gain the ability to reflect on those things, because they are completely invisible and they seem axiomatic and necessary - @Carl-Richard's crypto materialism thread just confirms this. Just because you are team Idealism, that doesnt mean that you managed to overcome those ways of thinking.

If you cant explicate what epistemic process you go through when it comes to categorizing these things, that should be a good hint that you are doing it in an unconscious manner - and this applies both to scientist and to woo people.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

Idk why its hard to accept that advanced civilizations existed before us, and possibly wiped out our knowledge and history.

It's not hard to accept. There is just no conclusive evidence (as far as I can tell). There is no hidden city discovered where you find intact chainsaws and computers and corpses of internet porn-addicted incels.