Leo Gura

There is no objective measure. You sense it by experiencing it. It's like you're asking me, how do you measure the depth of an orgasm? The answer is, you just experience different levels of orgasm and you know some are deeper than others. It has given me insane understanding of how consciousness works and what it is, and many other insights. As far as some permanent boost in my happiness, not really. Other than that I understand things better.

Any sufficiently complex system which is capable of self-reference can create statements such as: "This statement is false", which creates contradiction and inconsistency. Any complex system can be hacked to eat itself. If you want to understand this, read the work of Douglas Hofstadter: Godel Escher & Bach and I Am A Strange Loop. In short, strange loops will fuck up any interesting formal system you make. I have videos explaining all this.

Because what I'm talking about requires a deeper understanding of the epistemic and metaphysical implications of Godel's theorems than is classically taught, which I have videos on. It requires you to actually use your mind to make new connections, not just parrot someone's theory. Godel showed why the project of logicism is impossible and why formalization of mathematics in set theory is impossible. Yes, Russell's Paradox destroyed the possibility of formalizing set theory due to self-reference problems. Russell then invented a contrived form of set theory which outlawed self-reference in order to make it consistent. Gotlieb Frege tried his best to formalize arithmetic and he failed because of Russell's Paradox. And then Godel came along and put a nail in that coffin. Go watch my video: What Is Paradox, which I explain this.

Of course it can work. There is no magic opener that gets you laid. An opener is just a way to start a conversation.

Psychedelics states are not permanent for the vast majority of people. There is a tradeoff between level of consciousness vs permanence. The higher the state the less permanent it can be.

@zurew Set theory is inconsistent as soon as you allow self-reference. Self-reference will always make your system inconsistent. Because Self is infinite and none of your systems can handle Infinity. The reason you guys keep getting hung up on the technical details is because your entire way of thinking is too narrow.

Start appreciating reality.

New low for Putin.

That is not high consciousness and it is not awakening. These are human parlor tricks, not serious consciousness of anything.

No, I made precise statements about the limited nature of formal systems. Your formal system doesn't contradict itself because you made it so limited. If your formal system actually tried fo grasp any significant amount of reality it would contradict itself. It must, because you cannot formalize Infinity. All you can do is avoid Infinity. Which is what all your systems do. Contradiction and completeness are connected. If your mind tries to grasp Infinity it will run into contradictions. Your system simply isn't trying to do that because it is so narrow.

So what. This is life, not some stupid game. You guys have become completely spoiled.

Silly and shallow.

Demonization

His beliefs are irrelevant because he has sold his soul to the devil for power. What you are doing in that position is playing power games and self-enrichment.

Shela was a devil.

As Godel showed, you can get consistency at the cost of completeness. But if you care about completeness you will lose consistency. Your system is only consistent because it is so incomplete and feckless. Maybe you should study the implications of his theories rather than telling me to study logic. Any system that is capable of self-reference will contradict itself. And systems which cannot reference themselves are not really meaningful or powerful.

Necessary??

They are only consistent through artificial limits. If the system is anything complex it will become self-referential and inconsistent unless you ban self-reference a d other such mental gymnastics. As I said, unholistic thinking can appear consistent by ignoring higher inconsistencies.

I doubt that any finite system can truly be consistent. Such systems are fudged into psusedo-consistency through mental gymnastics and unholistic ways of thinking.

That is Mexican Day of the Dead pizza.

Don't follow others blindly, rather listen to your own body. People have different metabolisms.

So point to us where math is failing to represent reality accurately. The sun pooping out planets really has nothing to do with inconsistency in math. That's just a different model of how planets form. You don't need to change math to have various models of planet formation.

5-MeO-DMT does not guarantee anything. You can use it to increase ego and build up whatever fantasy you want. I don't know anything about the guy or his intelligence. To me just the high level of what he's doing seems off base. These Silicon Valley tech-bros live in their own bubbles surrounded by yes-men and their own kind. It's all too easy to bullshit oneself with such things.

It's better than anything some fool on a podcast conjures up in his basement. It's not like there don't exist non-convential versions of math and logic within the field of academic mathematics. You can go study those crazy, weird sub-fields if you want. But that's a lot harder than spitballin on a podcast.

It's not metaphorical, it's literal. ONENESS.