I understand the science rant now.

[Stick]

As usual I was reading the blog and as usual it was about science and scientist.
I was like well whatever lets get this over with I already know all these stuff.
But today as I was reading the science rants again, I started to feel a different vibe. 
It grew deeper and deeper and in a couple of seconds, I had this sudden epiphany of how openly wrong science is.

Scientists have invented a paradigm they themselves dont follow. They are supposed to back everything up with evidence yet ignore the most evident thing of all!
GOD is the most fundamental axiom. It is more rudimentary than the axiom of equality (if a=b and b=c then a=c).
can you prove the equality axiom?? well it must be false then. the greatest 99 percent of phd holders dont believe in the a=c axiom so its statistically false.
Science is just a circle jerk that produces some result because it can be partially applied to some aspects of reality. It is not the truth.
Hahaha I had no idea I was still so deeply a believer of science before this realization.
"I can't see any evidence of god so it must not exist"
Meanwhile god is right in front of your eyes laughing at your silly ass.

[Leo Gura]

Well, Hallelujah.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Science don't exist at all. Realize it's all a fantasy like religion. 

It's hard to get off the water. 

Experience is louder than talk.

Science is a bunch of schizo following signs

[Yimpa]

The highest truths cannot be discovered through a group consensus in a controlled setting, in the human domain.  It’s gotta come directly from God/Love/Truth. 

https://youtu.be/XK_p6F5hFmU?is=j_-2jqaxjMmZbxIw

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:39 PM by Yimpa

[Carl-Richard]

51% of scientists believe in God and/or an universal spirit or higher power.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

"But scientist doopid" 😛

Edited Tuesday at 08:53 PM by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

Prove something in science wrong. You literally win a million dollars. Do it, do it....

Theory of evolution

Theory of gravity

Cell Theory 

.....

Science is epistemology

 

Quote

Scientia comes from the present participle of scire. Some linguists theorize the ultimate root verb meant "to cut" or "to split" (akin to a pair of scissors), implying that knowing requires "cutting through" or discerning the differences between ideas.

 

Quote

its core, epistemologists attempt to unpack what it actually means to "know" something. Going back to the time of Plato, traditional theory holds that knowledge is Justified True Belief (JTB). For a claim to count as knowledge, three conditions must be met:

Belief: You must actually believe the proposition is true.

Truth: The proposition must align with reality.

Justification: You must have a rational, valid reason or evidence to support your belief.

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:48 PM by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

There is a pre-trans way of critiquing science, as with anything. Both pre-trans with respect to your own knowledge of the topic and also the people you're labelling as supposedly stupid. 

Many people think all religious people are stupid. Yet you'll discover there are smart religious people and that it's more that stupid people are stupid. That can come from deepening your understanding of religion or just finding people who are not "stupid" and are religious. You can also find stupid atheists, as well as smart ones.

Same with science. It's easy to label all scientists as stupid once you get a taste of something else. But then you might discover that there are scientists who share your understanding and that those who seem stupid are stupid people in those clothes. "Scientist" in the sense of "scientism" is not the same as "scientist" in the sense of "scientist". Just like a religious person is not the same as a dogmatic literalist fundamentalist who knows no alternative.

Try asking what Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake, think are the limitations of science. They are scientists, yet I will confidently bet they will give an answer that is not just on par but 10x better than Leo. If you don't know something deeply, you don't know its full limitations. You can be blind to it by immersion, of course, but even granting that, these people I listed I will bet you a lot of money dwarf Leo despite that.

You can spend 20 years contemplating what are the limitations of a wooden structure like the Kon-Tiki and you will miss all the knowledge you'll only get from sailing it across the Pacific, or heck simply getting an education as a carpenter that can build it.

Edited Tuesday at 09:38 PM by Carl-Richard

[AerisVahnEphelia]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is a pre-trans way of critiquing science, as with anything. Both pre-trans with respect to your own knowledge of the topic and also the people you're labelling as supposedly stupid. 

Many people think all religious people are stupid. Yet you'll discover there are smart religious people and that it's more that stupid people are stupid. That can come from deepening your understanding of religion or just finding people who are not "stupid" and are religious. You can also find stupid atheists, as well as smart ones.

Same with science. It's easy to label all scientists as stupid once you get a taste of something else. But then you might discover that there are scientists who share your understanding and that those who seem stupid are stupid people in those clothes. "Scientist" in the sense of "scientism" is not the same as "scientist" in the sense of "scientist". Just like a religious person is not the same as a dogmatic literalist fundamentalist who knows no alternative.

Try asking what Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake, think are the limitations of science. They are scientists, yet I will confidently bet they will give an answer that is not just on par but 10x better than Leo. If you don't know something deeply, you don't know its full limitations. You can be blind to it by immersion, of course, but even granting that, these people I listed I will bet you a lot of money dwarf Leo despite that.

You can spend 20 years contemplating what are the limitations of a wooden structure like the Kon-Tiki and you will miss all the knowledge you'll only get from sailing it across the Pacific, or heck simply getting an education as a carpenter that can build it.

all religious people are stupid atheist included. 

 

[LordFall]

I think Leo makes some good points in his critiques of science but throws the baby with the bathwater in the process and in a lot of his blog posts is a critique from below not above. 

What he is doing himself with this whole site and his whole Youtube channel is following the scientific method for philosophy. 

I found this blog post on who gets to define science a bit silly

https://actualized.org/insights/who-gets-to-define-science

Sure on an ultimate level anybody can share their truth. Being able to take random ideas(hypothesis) and testing them in a rigorous way that produces reproducible results and doing that over a career in a specific field is what makes a credible scientist. If has an idea that sounds right to them but won't test it rigorously or falls for common cognitive bias that's what we call pseudoscience of half-baked insights, the scientific community mostly does its job in not letting people like this gain credibility in academia. 

There are a few bad apples that fall along the cracks or even structural corruption in academia but how we get to more truth and better epistemology is more rigorous science; not by saying science is stupid and obsolete. 

 

[Hojo]

Yes a scientist says that the brain is copying reality inside if their mind and they are alone in their mind but they don't act like it.

Science has to admit all its measuring is a screen in the brain not objective reality but they won't. They would have to admit this data coming into their brain is God but they won't.

It would show them that science is a shared hallucination or indoctrination.

They openly say something is a fact while not even understanding the facts they are shoving into others.

Edited 4 hours ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

@Hojo It's sort of irrelevant if reality is a hallucination projected by God, you'd still use the scientific method to break it down and understand it. Just like you're reading this post on a device built using advanced computer science and semiconductors all built by science and the scientific method. You didn't decide to telepathically connect to the forum.

I don't understand why we're trying to not understand this fact and bypassing the wonders that science brings us. The fact that it has problems is worth highlighting but not recognizing its strengths is a bit silly. 

[Hojo]

@LordFall science does work and bring us nice things but its fundamentally ignoring the fact that we don't know where these nice things are coming from. Outside your retna is a big question mark. We cant know wether these things are coming from science of God is just creating them and giving them to us.

 

Science denies the fact that science isn't objective its completely subjective and outside of your body science does not exist because you cannot prove it objectively.

In a way science does us a favor by proving without a shadow of a doubt that you cannot prove anything objectively. But they are completely ignoring this fact and chaining people to a structure that only exists in subjective view. Ultimately disconnecting people from God.

Science is showing that our brains are creating the physics that science says is objective and all our brains are wired in the same way to perceive physics the same.

The thing thats supposed to expand our conciousness and understanding is actually limiting our conciousness and understanding.

Any understanding you get from science is a personal understanding that only comes when you get further from science and closer to God.

The big aha moments are actually the person coming out of the brainwashing of science and understanding something science is covering up.

Edited 3 hours ago by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

all religious people are stupid atheist included.

I predict your definition of "religious people" is not very well thought through.

[LordFall]

@Hojo Science proves plenty of things objectively, that's kind of the whole point. In 1915, Einstein used mathematics to predict the existence of gravitational waves. Human brains couldn't perceive them, and we didn't have the technology to measure them. One hundred years later, in 2015, we built the LIGO detectors and found them exactly where his equations said they would be.

You can gravitational waves are part of the hallucination but that doesn't disprove science if anything it proves its necessity as a mechanism to define our shared reality. This is where I feel like Leo is lacking a bit of intellectual integrity and letting himself sip the kool-aid too much. If we don't agree to abide by the rules of science then why don't we type our forum posts on a goat and then ride it to Saturn? A laptop and internet are such limited technologies for an infinite mind!

To be serious people in this nonsense filled space spirituality and new aged delusion I would say one of the strongest and only mechanisms we have to ground ourselves with is the scientific method.

I have went into long lasting psychosis before and basically experienced what a full awakening is like and it's not a joke. Grounding mechanisms are necessary. Another dude on the forum jumped out of his window when I assume tripping on psychedelics. Only science tells you that this is not a good idea because it can be replicated that gravity will take you to the ground and your bones and flesh will break and you will be left in agony with your life permanently altered because you thought it was a good idea to listen to dudes on the internet telling you that your life is a hallucination.

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I predict your definition of "religious people" is not very well thought through.

 any fundamental belief in a fixed truth is religion. 

[Joshe]

If you contemplate some complex and coherent framework long enough, it eventually clicks. Careful not to mistake the feeling of the "click" for something other than what it is. 

 

[Hojo]

34 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Hojo Science proves plenty of things objectively, that's kind of the whole point. In 1915, Einstein used mathematics to predict the existence of gravitational waves. Human brains couldn't perceive them, and we didn't have the technology to measure them. One hundred years later, in 2015, we built the LIGO detectors and found them exactly where his equations said they would be.

You can gravitational waves are part of the hallucination but that doesn't disprove science if anything it proves its necessity as a mechanism to define our shared reality. This is where I feel like Leo is lacking a bit of intellectual integrity and letting himself sip the kool-aid too much. If we don't agree to abide by the rules of science then why don't we type our forum posts on a goat and then ride it to Saturn? A laptop and internet are such limited technologies for an infinite mind!

To be serious people in this nonsense filled space spirituality and new aged delusion I would say one of the strongest and only mechanisms we have to ground ourselves with is the scientific method.

I have went into long lasting psychosis before and basically experienced what a full awakening is like and it's not a joke. Grounding mechanisms are necessary. Another dude on the forum jumped out of his window when I assume tripping on psychedelics. Only science tells you that this is not a good idea because it can be replicated that gravity will take you to the ground and your bones and flesh will break and you will be left in agony with your life permanently altered because you thought it was a good idea to listen to dudes on the internet telling you that your life is a hallucination.

Science cannot prove objective facts. Science is proving that you are measuring your own subjective field not objective reality. Science is proving that we are experience a second order reality. First order reality can directly contradict second order reality and it does exactly that. 

Even if someone tells you that they are seeing the exact same thing as you, that cannot be proven to be true, as you are witnessing them saying it from a second order reality, and can never verify with the 1st order reality. They are in their second order reality talking into 1st order reality and you are then witnessing 1st order reality from your own seperate 2nd order reality. You dont even know if you are in the same room as the person you are talking to is in and can never verify that as a fact of reality.

Einstein derived his physics from his own headset.

All scientists are researching reality from a box that is closed off from reality and are only given certain information. The information is given to them by other closed of boxes that science proves cannot be true.

When information is given to you its proven to not be true by science. Science says that you cant have correct information about whats happening in reality. Donald Hoffman math says that you are precisely 0 percent correct about what is happening and cant have more.

Even if you have 1000 scientists observing the same thing collectively, they have 0 information about whats happening in reality.

This is including all the knowledge I am saying.

 

Science dosent know how your computer is working. They just banged their head into a wall until something worked and then made up a logical explanation after the fact and then they claimed it to be on purpose.

Yes it works but science dosent know why or how or what is working.

Every time science claims to have discovered something they actually just bashed their face into a wall until God created something and then they claim they did it and claim that it was there the whole time. Every time they bash their head into a wall and nothing happens they claim it to not be anything but it was the exact same experience.

 

If I fully had control of my imagination and body, I could type on saturn to a forum, and a chicken would come out, in my reality ,and you could too, and then you could make up that this place is any different and real science is happening.

I do not hate science i love it but they are not being realistic to what science is saying. If science was realistic to what its saying we could all be crazy right now and creating crazy shit but they are purposefully lying about it.

 

You admit you wont beleive this cause you are scared your mind might go out of control. Thats not truth thats fear of God power. 

Edited 31 minutes ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

If you honestly believe what you just wrote, then why are you still acting like the rest of us exist? Why are you typing words to a "box" in a room you can't verify exists?

This is the ultimate hypocrisy of radical solipsism. You claim science knows nothing, that we can't prove we are in the same room, and that it's all a closed-off illusion—yet you still look both ways before crossing the street, you still use a computer built by quantum mechanics, and you still treat your own physical body as if it's completely real.

Donald Hoffman himself says that while our senses show us an "interface" rather than objective reality, you still have to take the interface seriously. If you see a train icon on your desktop, you don't drag your files into it, and if you see a physical train, you don't step in front of it.

Pretending the interface doesn't exist isn't "high consciousness"—it's just functional insanity. Science is the systematic mapping of the interface's rules so we don't die. You can call it a "second-order reality" all you want, but if you jump out of a window, that second-order gravity is going to give you a very first-order broken neck. At some point, you have to stop playing word games and respect the reality you are actually forced to live in.

That was my entire point with typing on a goat instead of a computer, the points don't make sense they are easy to disprove in 5 seconds. If you and me are literally having the same being having a discussion from two different parts of the world and experiencing duality but it's ultimately an illusion that still doesn't invalidate science and I can still prove that you cannot type a forum post on a goat! Unless you've been doing it the whole time and I'm stuck with inferior laptop technology then fuck bro I am indeed really lost you gotta teach me. 

I think it's the difference between ontology and epistemology. Ontology (the ultimate, metaphysical nature of what things are, which he defines as God)—and Epistemology (the study of how we measure, test, and predict the behavior of things).

[AerisVahnEphelia]

13 minutes ago, LordFall said:

If you honestly believe what you just wrote, then why are you still acting like the rest of us exist? Why are you typing words to a "box" in a room you can't verify exists?

This is the ultimate hypocrisy of radical solipsism. You claim science knows nothing, that we can't prove we are in the same room, and that it's all a closed-off illusion—yet you still look both ways before crossing the street, you still use a computer built by quantum mechanics, and you still treat your own physical body as if it's completely real.

Donald Hoffman himself says that while our senses show us an "interface" rather than objective reality, you still have to take the interface seriously. If you see a train icon on your desktop, you don't drag your files into it, and if you see a physical train, you don't step in front of it.

Pretending the interface doesn't exist isn't "high consciousness"—it's just functional insanity. Science is the systematic mapping of the interface's rules so we don't die. You can call it a "second-order reality" all you want, but if you jump out of a window, that second-order gravity is going to give you a very first-order broken neck. At some point, you have to stop playing word games and respect the reality you are actually forced to live in.

That was my entire point with typing on a goat instead of a computer, the points don't make sense they are easy to disprove in 5 seconds. If you and me are literally having the same being having a discussion from two different parts of the world and experiencing duality but it's ultimately an illusion that still doesn't invalidate science and I can still prove that you cannot type a forum post on a goat! Unless you've been doing it the whole time and I'm stuck with inferior laptop technology then fuck bro I am indeed really lost you gotta teach me. 

I think it's the difference between ontology and epistemology. Ontology (the ultimate, metaphysical nature of what things are, which he defines as God)—and Epistemology (the study of how we measure, test, and predict the behavior of things).

- concepts aren't a "real thing"

- langage is inherently paradoxical

- Science is complete bullshit fantasy like Jesus christ

- we can't prove causality, even less results

- consistency & statistic isn't real

 

- none of what I m saying you're going to understand, because you're making up & generating what is being said from your own data training, words do not bring real experiences beyond the experience of words.

Edited 18 minutes ago by AerisVahnEphelia

[Hojo]

18 minutes ago, LordFall said:

If you honestly believe what you just wrote, then why are you still acting like the rest of us exist? Why are you typing words to a "box" in a room you can't verify exists?

This is the ultimate hypocrisy of radical solipsism. You claim science knows nothing, that we can't prove we are in the same room, and that it's all a closed-off illusion—yet you still look both ways before crossing the street, you still use a computer built by quantum mechanics, and you still treat your own physical body as if it's completely real.

Donald Hoffman himself says that while our senses show us an "interface" rather than objective reality, you still have to take the interface seriously. If you see a train icon on your desktop, you don't drag your files into it, and if you see a physical train, you don't step in front of it.

Pretending the interface doesn't exist isn't "high consciousness"—it's just functional insanity. Science is the systematic mapping of the interface's rules so we don't die. You can call it a "second-order reality" all you want, but if you jump out of a window, that second-order gravity is going to give you a very first-order broken neck. At some point, you have to stop playing word games and respect the reality you are actually forced to live in.

That was my entire point with typing on a goat instead of a computer, the points don't make sense they are easy to disprove in 5 seconds. If you and me are literally having the same being having a discussion from two different parts of the world and experiencing duality but it's ultimately an illusion that still doesn't invalidate science and I can still prove that you cannot type a forum post on a goat! Unless you've been doing it the whole time and I'm stuck with inferior laptop technology then fuck bro I am indeed really lost you gotta teach me. 

I think it's the difference between ontology and epistemology. Ontology (the ultimate, metaphysical nature of what things are, which he defines as God)—and Epistemology (the study of how we measure, test, and predict the behavior of things).

I didnt say objective reality dosent exist. Us doing science proves objective reality exists but its not what we are describing. The one good thing science is doing is proving that God (objective reality) exists. But the other thing science is proving is that we arent doing science. Anything science is doing is akin to the tower of babel. Just a bunch random sounds describing something that was experienced.

You are saying jumping out a window is science when its not science. I knew the ramifications of jumping off high places before I knew about science. How can that be possible? Because science is just claiming first person experiences are objective facts then denying the subjective experience exists at all to know.

Pretending the interface dosent exist is the highest conciousness thing to do its what every high level person tells you to do. Just close your eyes and ignore everything and everything will literally disappear and dissolve including you.

They say the interface isnt real. Its like having a folder on the computer open thinking its the main home screen.

If what science says is real its like we are in subfolders communicating via text files about the desktop screen that we are all looking at.

Edited 13 minutes ago by Hojo