Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Leo Gura]

You guys understand what a body of work is?

Of course I am building my own body of work which I expect to be superior to the existing body of academic work. That's not a bug.

Why would I promote the old paradigm I am working to replace?

The premise of Actualized.org is that I believe I can make a better paradigm than anything that exists.

Edited 23 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The premise of Actualized.org is that I believe I can make a better paradigm than anything that exists.

That paradigm will be worth trillions of dollars for those who value the right things in life.

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys understand what a body of work is?

Of course I am building my own body of work which I expect to be superior to the existing body of academic work. That's not a bug.

Why would I promote the old paradigm I am working to replace?

The premise of Actualized.org is that I believe I can make a better paradigm than anything that exists.

 How can a body of work from one individual be better than an academic body of work that involves thousands of people testing it across tens of thousands 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

How can a body of work from one individual be better than an academic body of work that involves thousands of people testing it across tens of thousands 

One integrated Mind is more powerful than a thousand divided minds.

Edited 21 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

One integrated Mind is more powerful than a thousand divided minds.

One of the biggest weakness of actualized.org goes back to the point about language and a lack of shared precise vocabulary and the lack of falsifiability ( and here im only talking about weak falsification, where the only criteria is that there can be evidence against your view, not necessarily that your view can be shown to be false).

 

1) When you have a bunch of vague undefined or ill-defined terms, sure you can dodge most criticisms that comes in your way because you can claim that they miss the target. However, even good faith and good critiques will almost necessarily miss and your work cant benefit from the antifragility that comes from receiving good faith, good quality critiques from multiple different perspectives and angles, because people dont know what and where the target actually is.

This is why most academic arguments are much easier to undermine, because given how the arguments are structured, and given that there is a shared vocabulary the premises are easier to target and the inferences are easier to undermine - which is actually good in the sense that the easier it is to receive attacks the faster you can adjust your inferences and premises.

 

 

2) Some of your criticisms that you apply to science is applicable to your work as well, given how it is structured. Your work isn't really receptive to paradigm change and you rely on needing to provide ad-hoc reasoning to account for the data that goes against your work.

You tell others to test the things you say, but when someone does that and ends up with a different conclusion than you, from that you never ever infer that something is wrong with your conclusions and you always only infer that something was wrong with the person or with their method.

You are completely paradigm locked there, because there isn't any test that can be done in principle that would undermine your conclusions, because you can infinitely use ad-hoc reasoning to maintain your paradigm.

 

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

Maybe there are arguments that can be given why even weak falsifiability isn't a good approach or why it is a limited approach, but in that context it becomes unclear how your work is superior to any other work who uses the exact same methodology and reasoning as you and ends up with different conclusions than you.

Like you can always ask this question "Why cant that other guy mirror your justification and response and with that justify his own unique conclusion"?

 

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

U on that brain training? (😂)

I wish

Edited 11 hours ago by zurew

[Stick]

Do you mean that you are doing something other than science?
Or are you building a different method of doing science?
will you paradigm be able to engineer a plane or a computer?

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

When you have a bunch of vague undefined or ill-defined terms

What terms that I use don't you understand?

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Stick said:

Do you mean that you are doing something other than science?
Or are you building a different method of doing science?
will you paradigm be able to engineer a plane or a computer?

I am not replacing science. I am pointing out errors within the epistemics and metaphysics of science.

Science is always improving itself. I am part of its self-improvement.

Edited 8 hours ago by Leo Gura

[kavaris]

@everyone/all

Regarding evil, in America we have like a bad opiod nd other drug epidemic, where u hav ppl whove never have wanted to get hooked on drugs, nd the doctors or someone~turns them on to something like this, like say after theyve fallin on the job, or theyve hurt their back or something. Then you have like these young 30 or 40 year old dudes who are hooked on drugs cause they originally thought they were on some pain management, not realizing they were subscribing to be a full time drug addict, stuck in a loop of tryina resolve pain + whatever other mental / life dilemma theyre in, and thats how the drugs get ya, especially the life stuff and mental stuff. The pain is like, i mean is the worst, you wanna die, but like, "consenting to something you didnt understand" is real

[Judy2]

i finally made it and watched episode one, currently listening to episode two. 

i think toward the end @Leo Gura was somehow presenting things in a way that rubbed the hosts the wrong way, and this could have been prevented by giving a clearer introduction about how Truth can be understood as the illusory nature of all finite identity - with a couple of examples, and maybe also an explanation of how that ties in with Love. without all the context from your videos, the message did sound stranger than (i believe) it was intended to sound. in other words, for someone who'd never watched a single actualized.org video, i believe it might have been quite hard to follow Leo here. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Judy2

[Davino]

@zurew I think you sometimes underestimate the degree of Leo's understanding of academic philosophy, remember he formally studied philosophy at university and earned his degree in the field.

So I'm just guessing here but it's very likely he has a better grasp of that than you, unless you are a philosophy graduate yourself or have done the equivalent work (aprox. 6.000h to 7.200h) of university level academic philosophy.

[Leo Gura]

It does not matter how much or how little philosophy I have read. What matters is that I became directly conscious of God, and they haven't. So none of their writing matters.

I don't get my insights from humans, I get it from God. I cut out the middleman. That's why the insight is so good. It is God's insight.

No amount of reading humans is good enough to understand God.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Basman]

There's nothing more dreadful than reading academic philosphy. They made the pursuit of truth and knowledge an exercise in deciphering gibberish. It's such a self-congratulatory field.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

@zurew I think you sometimes underestimate the degree of Leo's understanding of academic philosophy, remember he formally studied philosophy at university and earned his degree in the field.

It doesn't take much reading to surpass an undergraduate level of understanding. And if you're genuinely interested in something and you've pursued it for many years, it's essentially a given.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

It doesn't take much reading to surpass an undergraduate level of understanding. And if you're genuinely interested in something and you've pursued it for many years, it's essentially a given.

You aren't reading to surpass undergraduate level understanding. You are reading to surpass Alien Awakening.

Good luck with that. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

So I'm just guessing here but it's very likely he has a better grasp of that than you, unless you are a philosophy graduate yourself or have done the equivalent work (aprox. 6.000h to 7.200h) of university level academic philosophy.

The bar isn't to be more informed than me (although I have good reason to think that when it comes to certain fields he lacks very basic level understanding) ,but in any case the bar is to be better compared to all academics combined in a given field, because thats what Leo set his bar at.

Now tell me how many works do you think Leo is familiar with from here, how many he could read and understand to the point where he could tell you in his own words what the given paper is about and then tell me why do you think that he is anywhere near remotely trained in the field and justified in giving any opinion about what level of understanding academics have related to these subfields?

• Philosophy of Mind (113,100) 
• Epistemology (58,300)
• Metaphilosophy (13,045)
• Metaphysics (65,333)
• Philosophy of Religion (85,645)
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics (464,142)

https://philpapers.org/

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Good luck with that. 

Good luck with the above. 

Edited 4 hours ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Good luck with the above. 

You still don't understand that none of that will give you what I got.

I am in union with God. I don't need any human shit in between.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It does not matter how much or how little philosophy I have read. What matters is that I became directly conscious of God, and they haven't. So none of their writing matters.

I don't get my insights from humans, I get it from God. I cut out the middleman. That's why the insight is so good. It is God's insight.

No amount of reading humans is good enough to understand God.

Of course, I had that in my mind too, but thought it was needless to say 

I didn't study philosophy because it was "history of philosophy" not Pure Philosophy. Same with psychology, it's about pathological psychology most of it, not human self-understanding or development.

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It doesn't take much reading to surpass an undergraduate level of understanding. And if you're genuinely interested in something and you've pursued it for many years, it's essentially a given.

In some ways that's true, but in others it's false.

So given that we agre in what's true I'll point out in what way it's false. You're not gonna understand certain engineering fields without proper mentoring or for example become a Doctor. There's something that university gives you and it's very hard to learn it without it. Your comment also clearly comes from someone who has a degree and therefore being above, we see it's limits. I'm a full two engineering degree graduate and so what, it really tought me very little, but even that little couldn't have happened without the rigour and process of the university. I'll soon enroll in a master, so I still get value from the whole university system.

Edited 4 hours ago by Davino

[Davino]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

 

• Philosophy of Mind (113,100) 
• Epistemology (58,300)
• Metaphilosophy (13,045)
• Metaphysics (65,333)
• Philosophy of Religion (85,645)
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics (464,142)

https://philpapers.org/

Show me a paper that you think is deeper, more complete and better than Leo's videos on metaphysics and epistemology. I'll be delighted to read it.

I do believe he lacks content on philosophy of religion, which I myself have studied to good extent. I have more of a syncretic approach to mystical branches of religion more than refusal or allergy to that whole domain.