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 23 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 21 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 15 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 15 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. 

[vibv]

5 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

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?

As I understand that would've gone beyond the scope of that episode, but it must be based on a lot of contemplation, which is a very intimate process.

Quote

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.

It becomes a burden by limiting your apparent possibilities in a given situation. As example you're not able to make easy money by selling AI slop or making Mr. Beast types of videos on YouTube.

It's a burden in terms of what you can do to survive. Survival isn't your top priority anymore and that can be difficult to accept. You're ready to die for Truth, so to speak.

Quote

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.

Books and retreats don't *have* to be part of your process, but they probably are.

Quote

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.

Truth always leads to Love, because ultimately they are the same. But it won't be what your ego thinks it wants. Which means you have to be ready to be totally annihilated by Truth.

You will love Truth because that's the only thing that truly matters. Everything else is deception and ultimately worthless in the face of Truth.

Quote

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.

You are God. You can of course choose to live as a normie and just live your life, but then you're really wasting your limited invaluable time here.

You are God who's lost in the dream. Thus the only thing worthwhile is AWAKENING and helping others to do as well.

Quote

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?

Everything you think you know isn't the Truth. You can't ever know Truth as a concept, but only by becoming conscious of it. All concepts are ultimately self-deception. Especially when they are confused for Absolute Truths, which is kind of the default.

So, drop all your concepts of what you think you know and become totally unknowing. Then you will see. Making concepts is necessary for communication, but you have to learn to drop them again and again, which can and will be difficult sometimes. Especially regarding the most beautiful ones. We are like painters of concepts, artists able to produce amazing pieces of art. But by confusing our ideas for the Truth they become stale and ugly very quickly, which is what happened time and time again.

Science produced a lot of beauty in the past, but it got ugly by holding onto it for too long. Beauty is something that has to come from Being Alive. We've just been not intelligent enough to see that yet. As soon as we try to *own* it, it dies and withers. The same goes for all ideas, concepts & beliefs about Reality.

Being Alive means you have to be ready to completely Die again and again. That's the only path that leads to Beauty. Death = Beauty = Love = Truth.

Then, and only then, can we begin to appreciate what's being offered to us by Life. We've been living Life all wrong up to now, which is why the world looks like it looks right now.

 

[oOo]

Pope says, Priests response to epistemic responsibility is, “AI said to say ‘Rain-check on THAT!’”, so he thumps his crown jewel:

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/pope-priests-ai

Great work Leo.

My opinion here hasn’t changed however; I’m sure explanation isn’t needed. There’s a tremendous bias there, and it comes across as really irrational in the context of a subject you otherwise delivered well. In general, I think even if it’s sometimes good as a persuasive tool, in the context of such deep subjects like these striking generalisations like those you made about science, comes across as irrational. There are over ten million scientists in the world, at most two million are from 🇺🇸, however in the greater STEM fields there are over thirty million in the USA. In the context of where you’re talking about a subject that is its own implicit academic discipline in the people or area in which you’re criticising, sweeping statements however well intentioned or even where they validly apply to say popular scientists on YouTube, reflects a lack of rigour. Moreover, I am sure that on your forum alone I am not the only person here that can detail numerous scientists that are on the record from YouTube that reflect the exact opposite of your statements. That said, it also shows a lack of clarity present in your view of science around the world, from all different religions, faiths and general cultures, it seems like you overly focus on American culture, and that in itself can blur the very vision that reflects mainstream western culture in general. Irrespectively, I think it would help you more going forward if you adopted more differentiated views as we head to increasingly more complex diverging views into the future as opposed to language that alienated and detracts attention from those that otherwise genuinely wanted to engage with your content but now view yiu as lacking open mindedness when it comes to developing a more nuanced perspective on the demographic you’re criticising.

Parallax perspective. A new word to my vocabulary by the way. Appreciated.

Sincerely, thank you. It’s much needed in our culture and that was one of your better videos so just expressing gratitude. You did good.

[bazera]

Master Debaters 😂 Leo's been watching South Park

 

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, bazera said:

Master Debaters 😂 Leo's been watching South Park

Bro, that is the most overused joke is human history. South Park didn't invent it.

I have not watched South Park in 20 years.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

This is one of the hard-hitting episodes.