LordFall

I mean sure that does happen. New investors overwhelmingly have much worse results than experienced ones with a track record. You can't claim that science does not exist just that it's not absolutely foolproof. It can definitely make mostly accurate predictive models of reality. As a matter of fact it's probably the best method we have of doing so. What is your other alternative? You can even use science in actual dreams and see if what you experience is consistent or falls apart more easily than it does in our current reality. I've had dreams that appeared solid at the touch so it failed the classical hypothesis that usually you can't touch walls in dreams. I still can't really have sex in dreams though so I'll have to conclude that it's mostly impossible to do so until proven otherwise.

This is actually the crux of the issue, thanks for sharing. I'm totally with you guys that science as an ideology has issues and ultimately doesn't understand reality. If we go from that to full on relativity then we're going straight to Monaco and you guys are buying since we can perhaps print billions instantly with our minds now. Unfortunately we cannot do that unless you guys know a guy then invite me. A lot of modern science came out of something similar to what we're talking about here : alchemy. People have been trying to turn bricks and stones into gold for thousands of years and some of them successfully fooling many people. Robert Boyle wrote The Sceptical Chymist in 1661 that refined what was alchemy into the birth of chemistry. I agree that you can't know its gonna stay the same FOREVER but a lot of stuff is repeatable consistently. Advil treats headaches most times pretty consistently. There are some unforeseen side affects in some people but it's pretty consistent. When you can reach your goals. Business is a close intersection between science and art. You can endlessly measure and test things but in business you test the theories that produce the outcome you want and similarly for goals that are not business oriented but it's an easy one to use. If I want to sell $5000 worth of tickets for a concert then I have defined a test size for my efforts. I don't need to sell $50,000,000 worth of tickets to fulfill my experiment. Someone else could say that they could've gotten more money out of those tickets or that they could've sold them faster but that's their own hypothesis to try and test if they want to.

I think you're going quite far with this. Science is a method of coming up with ideas and testing them against reality to hopefully produce consistent results. How is that a complete bullshit fantasy? I just proved it with my discussion with @Hojo. I have a device and my hypothesis is that when I reply to you guys it will go from my home network to a fiber optic cable to the world wide web and then to Leo's database and then update on your screens when you type in his domain address and you will think(hopefully) about my reply and we will be able to communicate. This was not possible not that long ago, it's the epitome of a lot of science. That process could completely fall apart after my next reply and I could start floating in midair while my head turns into a blueberry milkshake but probably that will not happen. That is consistency, statistics and science. The chair example is indeed basic science. We have plenty of intuitions that we think are real that we think are fact and we can choose to turn those hypothesis into tests and see how often they line up with reality. Usually that's done by coming up with a correlation coefficient of -1 to 1 depending on how reliable your hypothesis is. We call urban myths what people call intuitions that they think are true and make sense but are not repeatable consistently outside of their minds.

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).

@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.

Totally its really beautiful. It's what you love in the universe but not necessarily as yourself. A lot of men especially demonize feminine traits because they aim to build themselves in a different way but don't realize that femininity is what they love most in the world the hyper competence/stoicism is just what buys it in the paradigm they currently live in.

@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.

Well for example I quite like the Alex Hormozi books on business. I read the $100M offers so far and it boils down a lot of business down to your offer. Since then I've really separated the different parts of my business from operations/content production to the actual product/service I wanna sell to people and how I'm bundling it. Highly recommend the books!

What makes you think that everything has already happened? I had that sort of thought when in a psychotic state but it doesn't really make sense to me in a sober more logical state. Do you mean that human history is already written and in our day to day life we just removed our ability to know what's gonna happen but ultimately the collective consciousness knows it all already? That sort of makes sense to me but I think there is perhaps still room for spontaneous events or perhaps not hard to tell.

I think polarity is the core concept you point at. The masculine is usually closed off, solving problems and conflict oriented. If you identify with that version of masculinity then a being who's more freeflowing, relaxed and like focused on painting their nails and doing their hair nice is gonna feel like a beautiful and needed contrast to you. It's funny because even in bisexuality I'm mostly attracted to only feminine men. And femboys tend to not really fit in with traditional masculinity and focus more on authentic self-expression. It works for my personality type because I like to spend all day thinking about problems and working on business so the more financially free I am the more I can attract that type of man and women in my life and have them mesh well with me. I can also find those aspects of carefreeness and relaxation in my own self and sometimes it feels good to relax into that and for me it manifests more as childlike enjoyment rather than feminine traits but it can be interpertred in all kinds of ways I guess. Gender roles also have to do with your life goals and identity, it's interesting to deconstruct them. I'm a big fan of performed femininity and usually the cost for that is that you perform masculinity in return. When done right this polarity is pretty fun for both polarities. In a few years when my business cashflow is really solid I don't mind sugaring my partners so they don't have to work and I get their undivided energy. I've met a lot of especially career women who end up jaded bitter and unpleasant due to being stressed and exposed to cortisol all day. I want my partners to perhaps post content and have their own brand but to mostly chill and socialize on their day to day while I worry about paying the bills, the AI revolution and scaling our lifestyles.

I think it's a great model of relationships, I'm glad it's becoming mainstream I hear people talk about attachment styles that aren't super into self-development. I think it's perhaps common to start off as anxious then veer into avoidant and then hopefully fall into secure. It started off that way with me with my ex I was I'd say the more anxious partner and she was more of an avoidant. I spend like 6 years outside of serious committed relationships working on myself and only having hookups and FWBs type of arrangements but I'd say it allowed me to understand myself and my needs more to now be able to enter secure relationships in the future.

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.

Yes I love it, spending time understanding concepts or the fabric of our civilization is one of my favorite hobbies. It's what separates us from the other animals and allows our hopefully endless evolution. Sociology is particularly interesting in how it shapes our class warfare and dating.

That's a weird way of phrasing it though, you could say the scientific method is one of the most anti hallucination process we have. It takes phenomena and breaks it down to make sure you can replicate it to make sure it's not a hallucination. Your main critique of science seems to me that it only allows for a certain percentage of hypothesis to be tested and doesn't allow for stuff that goes against the core incentives of academia or just the overton window. You can't literally mean that life is such a hallucination to the point that it's not worth even conducting experiments and having hypothesis. That ends up in all of us being schizophrenic in a park together like the commies want.

Can you share your Instagram and ideally do you have a video of you talking to a woman like a street interview? It's hard to diagnose a problem while just taking your word for it. Do you approach with wingmen sometimes? Usually a guy that knows what they're doing can spot your mistakes pretty fast. The idea that comes to mind is if you dislike doing cold approach and talking to women when you talk to them you can sound robotic or boring and really skew your success odds. If you do look decent you should be able to get an instagram close from like 5-20% of the women you talk to and a date from like 25% of the instagrams you get so each date you need to talk to anywhere from 20 to 80 women.