New Episode: Epistemic Responsiblity - Out Now!

[Sempiternity]

Video is definitely sped up. Noticed this on the last video too. I'm sure it has something to do with today's audience short attention spans, or conforming to some YouTube algorithms, but it's just disappointing to see the change.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Sempiternity said:

Video is definitely sped up. Noticed this on the last video too. I'm sure it has something to do with today's audience short attention spans, or conforming to some YouTube algorithms, but it's just disappointing to see the change.

Nothing is sped up. Check your player settings.

Edited 13 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

I am even afraid of start watching it. Then I know I will be responsible for having watched it. 

[Yimpa]

15 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

I am even afraid of start watching it. Then I know I will be responsible for having watched it. 

Don’t just take ER for whatever comes out of  Leo’s mouth. Take ER for EVERYTHING!

Wee woo Wee woo Wee woo

Edited 11 hours ago by Yimpa

[vibv]

24 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Don’t just take ER for whatever comes out of  Leo’s mouth. Take ER for EVERYTHING!

Wee woo Wee woo Wee woo

I love your humour.

[Yimpa]

Just now, vibv said:

I love your humour.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

Just finished it, deep episode. It aligns with some things I’ve realized about truth-seeking. 

It also made me wonder if I’m way more epistemically irresponsible than I thought. Will be contemplating this one.

[Rafael Thundercat]

This episode is a call to being sovereignt into everything. 

[Yimpa]

5 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

This episode is a call to being sovereignt into everything. 

And dropping everything that's BS.

[RisingLane]

Wow, what an episode! It really moved me.

[LoneWonderer]

Looking foward to watching 🙂

[r0ckyreed]

One thing I notice in Leo’s communication that could be improved is his tendency to overgeneralize science and assume the worst in scientists.

For instance, Leo critiques science as if science is just a stagnate methodology that isn’t improving itself. Science is constantly improving and the domain of science is so vast that it is difficult to criticize the whole thing. Newton looking through a telescope and testing his observations is science. Science doesn’t have to be done in a group or within the domain of academia. Me sitting in my armchair contemplating and testing my observations and insights is as much science as academia. Academia science may be more rigorous than an Ethnography or philosophical contemplation but it’s still science.

Leo tends to assume scientists are lazy, biased, atheistic, and dogmatic. This may be true of a lot of academic scientists. But it’s still a big generalization full of assumptions about a group of people. There is never any mention of a Tier 2 scientists. I am sure there are more great scientists out there than Leo may acknowledge.

Leo assumes scientists don’t account for relativism or don’t take philosophy seriously, but I don’t think this is true. I bet there are a lot of scientists that think deeply about philosophy. I understand Leo’s critiques and have seen the dogma myself but have also seen the opposite.

I just notice this bias to reduce science down or assume the worst. But there are probably great truth-seeking awakened scientists in the world today. Why couldn’t an awakened person be a scientist? What even counts as a scientist? A true capital S Scientist is one who cares relentlessly about Truth. So in a way, all of Leo’s critiques of science are of small s science and not capital S Science.

Edit: How is me taking psychedelics and noting/testing my observations and insights any different from Newton looking through a telescope and noting/testing his observations/insights? They are both science.

I still enjoyed the episode.

Much love. 🙏

Edited 6 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[AtmanIsBrahman]

I came up with a few questions about this episode. For @Leo Gura or anyone else who wants to chip in.

1) At the beginning of the episode, you said that developing an epistemic process is key, but you can’t tell us what it is because we would believe it. Why not have more trust in the viewer and share the basics of an epistemic process? It doesn’t have to be belief based. I feel like the episode How to Discover What’s True started to do this but didn’t fully flesh it out. Maybe an update could be helpful?

2) Does truth seeking have to feel like a burden, or is it just ego? Maybe the burden framing is problematic, because it assumes you don’t care about truth in the first place.

3) How important is it to read books or attend retreats? This on the list of things that are epistemically responsible. It feels like a double-edged sword because it’s a somewhat belief-based activity, yet you likely do need to take in some information. Maybe it depends on your level of progress in this work: you start out with lots of reading and learning from different sources, then you rely more as yourself as you get more advanced. The challenge then is accurately pegging how advanced you are.

4) What if you don’t love reality? I genuinely care about truth, but I wouldn’t say I love reality. Definitely not in every moment, only in peak states— to say otherwise would be dishonest. I don’t understand the idea that truth-seeking necessarily comes from a love of reality.

5) The episode frames epistemic responsibility as something that’s important for everyone, but what if that’s not true? Maybe it’s only important if you care. For example, if you have a “normie” mind and you just don’t care about truth maybe there’s nothing wrong with just living normally. The counterargument might be that not caring about truth will lead to suffering, but I’m not sure that’s true since lots of people are happy while being deluded (such as Trump probably). The best move might be to accept the radical relativism that, yes, there is an absolute truth, but if people aren’t interested in it then it’s their dream and their choice.

6) The end of the episode mentioned that even with epistemic responsibility, you won’t avoid self deception. Does this apply just to relative things or even the absolute? Obviously you can be wrong about individual things like politics, but can you be wrong about the absolute/God? In other words, can you have an absolute consciousness of God but at the same time be deceived about it?

Hopefully these are interesting for discussion/contemplation.

Edited 5 hours ago by AtmanIsBrahman

[bazera]

The need for more epistemic repsonsibility is apparent today more then ever with the advent of AI. All of us have a chatbot in our pockets that answers literally any question. I think sooner or later people won't be able to tie a shoelace without first asking ChatGPT.

Personally, this technology benefits me a lot, but when it comes to epistemology, I think it has a potential to rotten my mind, make it lazy and essentially irresponsible.

[Basman]

Can't wait to listen on my favorite podcasting app Spotify.