Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Davino said:

I do believe he lacks content on philosophy of religion

Lacks religion?

Haha.

Actualized.org is True Religion.

I created True Religion.

What did you think I was doing?

Edited 15 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Davino]

Touché

I once told you Actualized.org is the religion of the future but you disliked that comment

I was thinking more on content talking on religion or different religions for example. What is true about hinduism and what's bullshit, etc. Or a holistic video talking on the religious sentiment or on different mystics. Something like your second video of Infinity. 

[Basman]

53 minutes ago, Davino said:

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.

Yup. Though you do learn a lot of valuable rigor and general philosophical knowledge, studying academic philosophy is more like learning to be a scholar in philosophical history than original thinking and contemplation.

1 hour 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)

A lot of these are response pieces, or responses to responses. A lot of energy is spent on the technical minutia of the definition of words. Not necessarily bad in it's own right, but it quickly becomes kind of a circle jerk. The arcaneness of academic philosophy obscured insight. The average person cannot derive much value from these texts, let alone muster the will to read them.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Davino said:

but you disliked that comment

When others use that word I reject it because I don't trust them to know what true religion is.

[Sincerity]

3 hours 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.

Preach 🔥

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Same with psychology, it's about pathological psychology most of it, not human self-understanding or development.

I wouldn't say that's true. It's more that treatment in psychiatry and clinical psychology is pathology-focused. Psychology is much more wide and diverse than just clinical treatment. I learned a shit ton of stuff that positively impacted my self-development. If you ever get the chance to take a course in psychology of religion, or positive psychology, or even social psychology and personality psychology, it might actually be worth your time.

 

1 hour ago, Davino said:

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.

What makes engineering so special?

When I started reading neuropharmacology in my MSc courses, I can honestly say I already knew 85-90% of it, and that's from me reading for a few years when I was 17-18 on my free time, just because I was interested (and because I felt it was an obligation because drugs are dangerous mkay).

Edited 14 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

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.

Whats the response to the questions I asked you ?

 

You are using predicates in your question, that are vague and thats not how you compare theses in metaphysics and epistemology.

Here is one thing I can tell you most academics wouldnt do - they wouldnt give internally incoherent statements like what Leo gave in his infinity of Gods video.

 

19 minutes ago, Basman said:

A lot of these are response pieces, or responses to responses. A lot of energy is spent on the technical minutia of the definition of words. Not necessarily bad in it's own right, but it quickly becomes kind of a circle jerk.

Yes a lot of it is responses to responses which is good, because that can give depth to the issues and that can force the authors to defend underyling assumptions and to produce supporting arguments to the given premises.

Now I dont think that the circle jerk issue is any bigger than whats happening here on this forum. For you to be able to actually respond to the given argument  you need to understand what the premises mean in the argument and what kind of inference is used. You need a shared vocabulary for that and you need to be trained to understand how arguments work.

People on this forum would rather not study technical words and would rather pretend that a shared terminology automatically means a shared understanding , when thats clearly not the case.

This forum includes a lot of ideologically driven groupthink trashing scientist and academics without any underlying substantive understanding of the views academics are holding and assuming that every scientist and philosopher is just a new atheist rationalist.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@zurew Have you watched Deconstructing Rationality parts 1 and 2?

It seems like you haven’t learned the lessons. Academic philosophy is a huge trap. 
They don’t understand how truth seeking works. The entire epistemic paradigm is wrong.

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

Here is one thing I can tell you most academics wouldnt do - they wouldnt give internally incoherent statements like what Leo gave in his infinity of Gods video.

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the statements "in" the video itself were incoherent. I don't care to refresh my memory on this, but he does after all go on about saying how he is challenging a prior notion (the very notion in question: the supremacy/absolute "aloneness" of God) and then he goes on this step-wise process of deduction.

The problem of course is that "God" the way it is usually used, even by Leo himself, presents it as absolutely supreme. No twoness, no separation, no "other" outside of it. So when you say "Infinity of Gods" in this context, it is incoherent. So it's more "externally incoherent" than "internally incoherent" (although again, I could be wrong, I can't be asked to check through the whole video again).

Nevertheless, the problem is using language in an incoherent way, and all for exploring a particular exposition of infinite regression (and if you were to take my advice, "Infinity of Demigods" sounds trivial, because it is, as trivial as "Infinity of Turtles").

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

@zurew Have you watched Deconstructing Rationality parts 1 and 2?

It seems like you haven’t learned the lessons.

That's a feeling you have, I see no argument for why that is.

 

25 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Academic philosophy is a huge trap. 
They don’t understand how truth seeking works. The entire epistemic paradigm is wrong.

The baby in the bathwater is that making concise and precise statements (e.g. not making imo trivial expositions on infinity; "infinite infinities"), and being coherent in how you use language ("God is one" ≠ "Gods"), be it inside a single video or across your entire framework, can be very helpful for communicating your ideas. It's ok if you consciously don't want that, but I probably won't stop talking about it (unless you make me).

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard Nothing that I say about God is ever trivial.

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I wouldn't say that's true. It's more that treatment in psychiatry and clinical psychology is pathology-focused. Psychology is much more wide and diverse than just clinical treatment. I learned a shit ton of stuff that positively impacted my self-development. If you ever get the chance to take a course in psychology of religion, or positive psychology, or even social psychology and personality psychology, it might actually be worth your time.

I got the feeling that most psychology degrees are very biased towards the pathology branch. I do like the work of Jung. Thanks for the advice on those courses.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What makes engineering so special?

You need many special equipment that costs too much to make as a personal investment, you cannot spend 10k for every other subject; that infrastructure is provided by the university to put an example. If you study biotechnology, you're not gonna have a bioreactor home or a full chemical lab, etc. Just to put an example of what I mean.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

56 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's a feeling you have, I see no argument for why that is.

See, the expectation that I have to make an argument is part of the rationalist paradigm.
 

56 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The baby in the bathwater is that making concise and precise statements

Making precise statements is fine, but academic philosophy overemphasizes this. There's a tradeoff between technical rigor and actual understanding. If you get too technical to the point of qualifying and defining every statement, you're missing out on actual understanding. And the irony is that you can never get a perfectly defined statement because reality is infinite and undefined-- which means that even attempting to define a part of reality will fail. That's why rationalism is an illusion of rigor. Sure, it can be useful in some ways, but its far off from genuine Pure Philosophy.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

This is Pure Philosophy, for those who haven't seen it.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/introducing-pure-philosophy

[Yimpa]

7 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

This is Pure Philosophy, for those who haven't seen it.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/introducing-pure-philosophy

Nice, I love working on my PP!

[Siedah]

I felt they largely missed or minimised the points you were making and what was with Shylo half dozing off throughout the podcast  maybe towards the end she started getting it a bit but Shylo was sleeping  You were talking about pears, they kept going back to bananas- completely stuck in human paradigm. 

I think you should do a lot more podcasts like this Leo . It was handled beautifully with humour as well. 

Awh, i really wish to see you in Diary of CEO one day  

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Siedah said:

Shylo was sleeping

I didn't feel that from him at all.

He was tracking everything I said. By the end he was moved. He was listening. He just has a chill demeanor. He was more open than Ana.

Oh, Shilo was also recovering from surgery, so he might have been in some pain or on painkillers. No worries.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

33 minutes ago, Siedah said:

I think you should do a lot more podcasts like this Leo .

I would also like to see them slap dem bongos to create Beauty and Music together.

https://youtu.be/bJy1ExwH9HI?si=O6qSsG2_skdgyIQj

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Yimpa

[RisingLane]

52 minutes ago, Siedah said:

i really wish to see you in Diary of CEO one day

That'd be huge! Steven already had Sadhguru on, so he might be interested in having Leo, too.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, RisingLane said:

That'd be huge! Steven already had Sadhguru on, so he might be interested in having Leo, too.

I need to figure out how to contact him.