Point Out My Bias

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am really disappointed by some of the replies.

No worries. You can always make more replies.

[integral]

@Natasha Tori Maru Hold on, but I don't think Leo expects any of us to be able to point out his epistemic holes all that well.

Most people are out of their depth and we're Shooting a bow with a blindfold on.

Edited 2 hours ago by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, integral said:

@Natasha Tori Maru Hold on, but I don't think Leo expects any of us to be able to point out his epistemic holes all that well.

Most people are out of their depth and we're Shooting a bow would a blindfold on.

It is a me problem.

[integral]

Leo has thick epistemic skin like an alligator.  No need to worry

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I am really disappointed by some of the replies.

I do not see that you have replied yourself to Leo's question.  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I do not see that you have replied yourself to Leo's question.  

Really

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Really

Yes.  I reviewed the thread and I do not see that you have answered the question.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Yes.  I reviewed the thread and I do not see that you have answered the question.

Then that's on your interpretation.

[PolyPeter]

Coming from someone who knows consciousness is the absolute, fundamental reality:

I think to some degree, "survival" and "illusion" work as explanation-stoppers for you.

Materialists say "just atoms bouncing around" and think they've explained the world.
They haven't.

But "it's just survival" or "it's all God imagining form from infinity and pure love" stops in the same place.
It tells me what everything is, not why it's this way and not another.

The mechanism, I think, is that you jump between levels without marking it.

There's what something is (ontology)
how we know it (epistemology),
how it appears (phenomenology),
and
how this particular form came to be and keeps going (its genealogy: evolution, family, history).

"It's all imagined" is true at the first level. the ontological. 
But, the mistake is to use it to answer questions that belong to the last one, where it doesn't answer anything.

Example: from your video Reproduction Is An Illusion.

The core point is that needing to reproduce isn't true, it's survival.
But that skips the interesting questions:
why is reality built so that forms persist by copying themselves at all?
Why that regularity and not another?

Calling it survival puts a name to it, but it doesn't immediately tell you something about the cosmic value of reproduction.
Hell, if there weren’t such a thing as reproduction, you wouldn't be here making posts or reading this.
Like, think about the conditions of possibility for your own existence.
There is a certain and very specific cosmic structure allowing for matter to exist right here and now, which then allows for other kinds of form, such as galaxies, planets, animals, humans. 

When you know Consciousness is Truth, the "hard problem of consciousness" isn't consciousness (duh).
It's regularity.

I've heard you say something like this: "God imagines reality through infinite love, with infinite imagination"
It is a powerful description, but it lacks "body" to be a fully exhaustive explanation.

[PolyPeter]

8 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

The mechanism, I think, is that you jump between levels without marking it.

To make the level jump more concrete, from the same video:

Right after "don't get me wrong, if you wanna have children, have children," you call it a myth that something important gets lost if you don't reproduce.

From the absolute, sure, nothing is lost.
But at the level of form, something is: a lineage that took billions of years of very specific conditions ends right there.

Then your example is infertile people, especially stage blue, spending decades feeling they failed their lineage. Sure, that guilt is an illusion.
But "it's survival" gets used as if that ranks it low, as if it were the same kind of thing as someone stealing ten bucks to buy bread. It isn't.

Reproduction is survival so deep and so far back in the chain of material existence that without it there would be no form here to talk about.

"That guilt is an illusion" and "reproduction is one of the deepest regularities in reality" can both be true.