Leo Gura

Administrator
  • Content count

    60,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leo Gura

  1. One of the most important trips I ever had was one of my first bad mushroom trips.
  2. Of course it's a matter of trade-offs. The more "credible" and "authoritative" your sources become, the harder they will be to poke holes in, but also, the harder they will be to dislodge if they are wrong, and you will believe them without question. Your point is that there is a certain wisdom-of-crowds effect within science. Yes. But that also comes with a certain stupidity-of-crowds effect. Two sides of the same coin. In general it is safe to trust institutional science on non-cutting-edge topics. But bad to trust it on cutting-edge topics. For example, the reason I trusted the vaccines is because vaccine science is pretty well established now. Of course mRNA vaccines are pretty new, but not new enough that we should let a flu virus killed millions of people on its own. Vaccine science is good enough at this point that I trust that if a new vaccine was gonna kill over a million people via side-effects, the scientific protocols we already have in place will spot it early into testing. This much scientists are good at doing. What they are not good at doing is coming up with totally new solutions to subtle problems which are difficult to quantify. In short, science sucks most at all the problems which less and less material. I never claimed that my conclusions would satisfy the existing methods and social norms. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. That doesn't make my discovery any less a discovery. It becomes a social game of how to convince others most effectively. Maybe I can win that game, maybe I can't. And maybe I don't give a damn. Convincing closedminded people is a hard game to win. But it can be won if you really devote yourself to it. No, it does not mean abandoning critical thinking. All my work is based on critical thinking. Neither science nor any institution has a monopoly on critical thinking. In fact, their problem is precisely a lack of critical thinking. Scientists do not know how to think. The problem is that "critical thinking" and "logic" are much-loaded terms which are culturally defined by human institutions, so that even bad thinking gets called "good thinking", "critical thinking", "logical", "reasonable", and "scientific" via group-think. Group-think just IS a lack of critical thinking. But there is an even deeper issue here. The desire to ground everything "rigorously" presents a subtle but significant bias which itself skews your ability to understand reality. The deepest levels of reality cannot be formalized in the ways that current science considered necessary and "proper". For example, if some geek at MIT expects a formalization of God then the proper response is not to bend over backwards to appease him but to tell him to fuck off. Current scientific method is like a claw machine that can only grasp crude objects but cannot grasp a needle. If you want to grasp a needle then you will need to change your mental machinery. Most of my claims are either falsifiable or verifiable, and I give my methods. So that's not the issue. The issue becomes one of initial incredulity and lack of motivation to actually follow the method and do the experiment. If I tell some Harvard psychology to snort 5-MeO-DMT for 30 days straight, he's simply not going to do it. Even though my method is fully scientific and valid, even under current scientific method. Well, this is where you have to think more holistically to see that in science everything is interconnected. Your metaphysics informs and biases your empirical work. With a bit of critical thinking you should be able to see that if the metaphysics of all the psychologists at Harvard is so wrong, that there will be much else wrong in their science. Because it all boils down to lack of good thinking. The reason their metaphysics is wrong is because at the root they are bad thinkers. And if they are bad thinkers then their empirical methods will also be lacking. It is not possible to design an empirical experiment and proper interpret its results without good critical thinking. The reason that something like 50% of all social science studies fail to validate is because of lack of good critical thinking by those scientists who designed them. So many ways. For example, enormous scientific advances could be made in understanding and helping people with mental illness and mental disorders like multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia if the scientists working on these problems realized that these disorders constitute different non-ordinary, non-material realities within consciousness. Whereas right now scientists assume that there is a base, material reality and that these disorder are just some frivolous anomalies. Another example: it is impossible for psychologists to explain religious experiences without understanding that science is imaginary. Stuff like NDEs, out of body, astral projection, remote viewing, clairvoyance, paranormal, derealization, depersonalization, mystical experience, healing, angels, demons, God, DMT elves, etc. All of these fields are badly stagnating because the current metaphysical paradigm is deeply flawed. Do you not understand why Einstein is considered the best scientist of all time? Because he realized that absolute time was imaginary. Which lead to a whole generation of new science which could not otherwise be possible. DO NOT underestimate how much interpretation scientific experiment requires. It's way more than any scientist realizes.
  3. Realizing Truth is easy relative to the consciousness I am talking about. But even so, your understanding of Truth is quite weak. You've reduced Truth down to some kind of formless atom, as the Buddhists and nondualists do. This is not a complete understanding of Truth and leads to much self-deception. I'm perfectly clear on what Truth is. You're not fooling me with such gambits. No. But that sure is a nice way for you to rationalize to yourself that you have outsmarted me. I find it interesting how easily you guys take me for an idiot. You really think I haven't thoroughly considered this? Like I just overlooked it like some kind of bumbling amateur? Consciousness comes in many degrees. You are confusing this with the notion of Truth. Your entire nondual enlightenment spirituality is anthropomorphic and human. You don't even understand what a non-human consciousness is. What I talk about is the least anthropomorphic thing any human has ever talked about. I never claimed it was. You just don't understand my position on Truth.
  4. No, you literally can't see alien red because your mind is so utterly brainwashed with all the human nondual nonsense you've learned. But as someone who has seen alien red, it's perfectly clear to me that you have not. And no amount of your gaslighting will change that. This is so obvious because your mind is not even open to the idea of it. Nevermind actually doing the work necessary to reach it. And so, by your own infinite power of closedmindedness and self-deception you will remain only seeing red. And from your POV that's all there will ever be. But you made it that way. I offered you the alien red pill and you slapped it out of my hand. Okay. Stay human.
  5. Everyone is different so you gotta decide for yourself what you need to spur you along. The human stuff is fine as long as you don't trapped in it. But everyone I know does. But maybe human is all you want. Don't just blindly copy me. Figure out what it is you want out of spirituality. It's like a buffet out there. Just cause I dine on alien chicken wings doesn't mean you have to.
  6. I'm not trying that hard. It's pretty easy. If I didn't tell you, how would you know? Would you be smart enough to figure it out yourself? You think you're smarter than Ralston?
  7. That is a nice achievement. However, there's more. Alien Consciousness What you have so far is merely human.
  8. Lol. Scam-o-rail. @jimwell If you invest in that shit I hope you lose all your money.
  9. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm God. I'm trying to convince you that you're God. Meanwhile others are trying to convince you of the opposite.
  10. Of-fucking-course! Everything I talk about in this domain is not just a direct awakening but direct awakening on top of direct awakening until you are shitting blood on the floor. You guys cannot begin to imagine my awakening. Bliss is a valid thing, but it is not the same thing as realizing that Consciousness is Love. You can have one without the other and vice versa. Bliss is best associated with feelings. Bliss comes and goes as a feeling.
  11. Have you not heard that God is Omniscient and God is Love? Even Christian dopes know this. Yet you expect me to believe you are somehow too "enlightened" for this?? Lol. Ralston is too enlightened for this?? Don't gaslight me.
  12. As I have said many times, my vow is to consciousness, not to your human games. Stop spreading bullshit on my forum. Your enlightenment is bullshit. I reject it categorically. You do not understand what Consciousness is, what God is, what Love is. And you are infecting others with your ignorance.
  13. It has EVERYTHING to do with it! You lack the intelligence necessary to understand CONSCIOUSNESS. The only genes that matter are your smarts. All your meditation is bullshit. You will NEVER meditate your way out of lack of intelligence.
  14. @Inliytened1 Your only problem is that you've actually managed to convince yourself that you are smarter than me. No one here has out-awoken me, out-smarted me, out-meditated me, out-enlightened me. You've just fooled yourselves. Over and over again you make the same mistake.