Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

Maybe next time you could be more insistent on the topics you're going to discuss

It really isn't up to me. They are the hosts and they are the ones leading the conversation. If I try to control it then it looks bad on me.

I did try to prep them for a deeper conversation over emails, but they insist on doing things their way. That's just the nature of the format. If I'm on someone else's show I can't control it and structure it properly like I do on my own channel. So you cannot expect the level of depth you get on my channel when I appear on other channels. My channel is deep because I put a lot of thought into structuring it that way, but no interviewer knows how to do that or even has the interest to do that.

This is actually a nice demonstration of the difficulties of discussing these topics with scientists. The scientists don't even know the depth of what is being discussed so they can't know the right questions to ask. This is a structural issue. The shallowness of science doesn't even allow for the depth necessary to understand Truth/God/Consciousness/Love. Just getting the discussion off the ground is a challenge. When you are on my channel all of those issues are bypassed, which is what makes Actualized.org uniquely powerful. But if I am talking to a normal academic, hours would be wasted just getting them into the right territory because they would keep getting distracted by tangents.

My attitude for podcasts is to just keep it chill and go with the flow. Not to over-think it or try to control it. I have given up on that idea.

I am satisfied with how I answered all their questions. If their questions were not deep, that's on them. I am not going to fret over it because that kind of depth is only possible on my channel -- which is why my channel exists.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I am not surprised by the hosts raising and pivoted around morality.

Whenever someone in my personal life comes across Leo, or is introduced to his works through me, morality & ethics are their primary concerns.

[Elliott]

Great appearance!

[LambdaDelta]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It really isn't up to me. They are the hosts and they are the ones leading the conversation. If I try to control it then it looks bad on me.

Tough position to be in for sure. Welp, in any case it's nice to see you talking to different kinds of people. Congratulations on getting the ball rolling. 

 

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am not surprised by the hosts raising and pivoted around morality.

Whenever someone in my personal life comes across Leo, or is introduced to his works through me, morality & ethics are their primary concerns.

I'm not surprised either per se, it's more of a performative surprise, like expecting your child to be more mature but knowing deep down they can't and won't. In theory scientists would be more rigorous, but then practice deviates; which itself is a cute little Q.E.D. for irrationality of science. 

[LoneWonderer]

1 hour ago, LambdaDelta said:

Dios mío, staying awake on such a flight must be torture. I'd just pop a benzo or something to teleport through time.

Business class baby and I shall sleep like a baby! 😉 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

Congratulations on getting the ball rolling.

Thanks!

5 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Great appearance!

Thanks!

[LambdaDelta]

4 minutes ago, LoneWonderer said:

Business class baby and I shall sleep like a baby! 😉 

So now we know what all the money you save on Audible memberships goes towards 😏

Edited 4 hours ago by LambdaDelta

[Leo Gura]

I think we can do another podcast with them in the future and go deeper into metaphysics, epistemology, science, and consciousness.

Maybe next year.

I will propose that to them after some time passes. I like talking with them. We just need to get into deeper questions. Hopefully I can build a nice long-term relationship with them, so we can cover many topics in the future.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[bazera]

One thing I noticed in the whole conversation the girl was acting and talking as though she was understanding what Leo meant, and finally in the end, maybe jokingly, but still, she said maybe she's already Awoke.

@Leo Gura Is that like a defence mechanism or what? Like, "duh, I already knew all that, you've just put what I already knew in different language". 

And in reality, they have no I idea, they haven't even started scratching the sufrace of not-knowing for example.

Do you get that often?

Btw, great conversation, it was interesting and also fun to watch. Hope seeing you in these kinds of conversations more often.

[LoneWonderer]

1 minute ago, LambdaDelta said:

So now we know where all the money you save on Audible memberships goes towards 😏

Jajajaja you got me!

Edited 4 hours ago by LoneWonderer

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, bazera said:

 Is that like a defence mechanism or what?

Well, to be fair to her, I don't know what she knows. Perhaps she is a closet hippie.

But of course, in my opinion, she is underestimating the depth of the stuff we were speaking of. Of course the ego-mind underestimates Reality/God/Truth/Love/Infinity. That's the whole problem with science. Scientists act like they are humble but in fact they are extremely arrogant when it comes to serious existential questions. That's what it means to be stuck in a paradigm. The paradigm cannot see its own limits. If she understood what I understand, she wouldn't be a scientist. So it's a Catch-22 situation. She can't admit to her entire worldview being wrong. No ego can admit that. Especially in public, but even in private it is too painful.

Every scientist grossly underestimates Reality. They think they have Reality almost figured out.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

You're talking past each other.  This kind of conversation can't be resolved.  

[Yimpa]

The black shirt is so back 🖤

[bazera]

@Leo Gura

Quote

But of course, in my opinion, she is underestimating the depth of the stuff we were speaking of. Of course the ego-mind underestimates Reality/God/Truth/Love/Infinity. That's the whole problem with science. Scientists act like they are humble but in fact they are extremely arrogant when it comes to serious existential questions. That's what it means to be stuck in a paradigm. The paradigm cannot see its own limits. If she understood what I understand, she wouldn't be a scientist. So it's a Catch-22 situation. She can't admit to her entire worldview being wrong. No ego can admit that. Especially in public, but even in private it is too painful.

Yea, she was actively trying to fit everything you were saying in her own existing worldview and explain it away in her own way, and not having that aha moment of wait, maybe this Leo guy is telling me something more structural, much more profound.

But of course, that can't happen easily with a single conversation. Maybe they start to watch some of your content for deeper understanding.

If they do, and you manage to set up a conversation next year as well, it will be much more interesting. Maybe by the second convo they have their own glimpses of the Absolute too.

[bazera]

@Leo Gura If they asked How questions, would you direct them to psychedelics? Would you tell them to contemplate during 5-meo-DMT trip?

Won't that repel them due to psychedelic stigma?

Or you would just direct them to more like a Ralston's approach, sober contemplation and deconstructing.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, bazera said:

@Leo Gura If they asked How questions, would you direct them to psychedelics? Would you tell them to contemplate during 5-meo-DMT trip?

Won't that repel them due to psychedelic stigma?

Or you would just direct them to more like a Ralston's approach, sober contemplation and deconstructing.

I would explain all the methods to them. Psychedelics are part of that, but it's not limited to psychedelics.

I'm also pretty sure they've done some kind of psychedelics. Maybe they don't want to admit it publicly.

The key is telling them that the truths we are speaking about are not just trips, as that's too easy for a scientific mind to discount as hallucinations.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I think it would be worth continuing the conversation. Most people cannot be expected to drop frame immediately when presented with new ideas that challenge them. It is only this place I expect that  

I think their lines of questioning, and the fact they are artists, will naturally steer the conversation in interesting directions. I want to hear how it might marry up with beauty and creativity. While sometimes it felt as if it lacked some structure due to many tangential points / interruptions, many people enjoy these conversational type talks. More authentic and un-crafted. Based. Like a conversation between friends.

This runs with the caveat of some points not being fully fleshed out - which can lead to misunderstanding. You can see some of this happening in the comments on pt1. Pt2 next on my lunchbreak AHOYYYYY! Skipping mediation for this 😈

 

[Joseph Maynor]

I would just focus making your own videos,

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Most people cannot be expected to drop frame immediately when presented with new ideas that challenge them.

Of course I don't expect them to change their worldview for me.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

Finished the first episode. I think the issue is that they don’t understand what an absolute is, so they can’t make sense of Reality/Existence/God/Good. But that’s to be expected of people who haven’t done the work 

Overall good job by Leo trying to present a worldview that’s alien to them. And also avoiding a landmine when the girl was like “You don’t care about humans?” 😱

On to the next episode…