Leo Gura

@Natasha Tori Maru Let us know when Zeus tells Aubrey that he must impregnant you.

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you would make a great extra wifey for Aubrey. Make it a foursome. You can be our spy from the inside and report back how wonderful it is in there.

Aubrey Marcus joins the chat. Lol

Science is all about using the mind. Everything I teach opens up the creative capacities of the mind to crazy levels. Anyone doing science is negligent by ignoring the fundamental operating dynamics of the mind. Whole new fields of science could be unlocked by learning these fundamentals. Visionary science is very rare and just what we need. I could write a whole book just for scientists on how to upgrade their epistemology, ontology, cognitive development, requisite variety, creativity, and insight capacity. Nobel prizes are there to be discovered. We could have a science revolution. These ideas are so fundamental and so clearly superior to current science education that they will become the default education paradigm in 50 years, unless AI replaces us all. It's just a ton of work to lay out my whole circiculum for science. It requires years of writing thick books. I'm throwing out scraps on my blog for now since the books and courses are years out. I have thousands of pages of insights for books and courses. It's just a matter of organizing it all for mass consumption.

@Joshe It was a question to give you guys something to chew on, so I give less answers. Your answer isn't wrong, it's just kinda shallow and one-dimensional. A lot could be said on the topic. Motivation is a big factor.

Yeah. Never buy anything that isn't Bitcoin Never buy when everyone else is buying. When you see Bitcoin prices roaring on CNN homepage, never buy.

Hahaha It's more complicated than that.

But, say, 10 people saw a ghost and reported it to you. How would you study it? You gonna call them all deluded? That's bad science.

Openness certainly has a genetic component but so much of it is cultural and how you were raised. Openness is very influenced by environment.

Like clockwork: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164056

Awww...

Guilty as charged.

No doubt that is a factor, but most heavy thinkers still never surpass the rationalist stage. Why not? Heavy thinkers are not so rare. Basically all academics. Yet high stages of cog dev are exceptionally rare. The question is not why ballet dancers and strippers aren't high cog dev. The question is about academics.

Namaste!

I won't speak on his metaphsyics as I don't want my heart broken, but he's very intelligent from that AI doomer debate. I like him. But he has a strong gym-rat bias.

I have read and answered over 100,000 comments over the last 10 years. I certainly must dismiss some as unworthy as otherwise devils would exploit this loophope to distract me from teaching about Godly matters. I am wise to these sorts of tricks and distractions. But I agree with your larger point that I must remain open to feedback and criticism. It's because I read and answer thousands of anonymous comments that I must have filters.

No doubt. You nailed that.

Maybe check before spreading ugly gossip about people.

Don't kid yourselves, this problem goes far beyond silly Christians. There are scientists who believe ghosts are impossible. How can you do science on a ghost if your metaphysics says it can't exist?

Imagine a scientist who had a metaphsyics that Satan was real and that splitting atoms might release Satan into the Earth. There are people in our government right now who believe UFOs and aliens are demons sent by Satan. How can you do science on aliens if you believe they are Satanic?

Again, you keep setting the goal too low. If you set such narrow, finite goals, then you may not need any special fancy philosophy from me to reach it. But can't you see that SCIENCE -- the ENTIRE field of SCIENCE -- cannot be circumscribed by any collection of your finite practical goals, whether it's flying to the moon or unifying GR with QM. These are all just tiny aspects of SCIENCE. My concern is with the whole of SCIENCE, not any finite result, technology, TOE, or model. You are behaving like a chemist who locked himself inside his department at MIT and says, "Does your philosophy help me understand hydrogen molecules? No? Then why should I care? It's useless." Yes, it's useless when your ambitions and view is so selfish and finite. But ALL OF SCIENCE is my concern. Not your chemistry or whatever. Whether my insights help advance your pet science project is just not relevant. If all you care about is what's relevant to you, that's an extremely limited notion of science. Don't you see that the scope of my concern is infinite? Don't you see why it must be infinite?

A proper TOE is actually Omniscience. You are concerned with silly goals like flying man to the moon. I am concerned with guiding mankind to Omniscience. That's why my decisions and manner don't make sense to you. My mind has a much greater responsibility than yours. Which is why I'm paid the big bucks (I wish)

You should know by now that nothing I say is trivial. If I am talking about it, and I say scientists don't understand it, then it is highly non-trivial.

The goal is total understanding of reality. Not anything less.

Well, I do spent time showing the world problems with materialism, Marxism, Nazism, Zionism, rationalism, atheism. But I consider this different from debunking.