LordFall

Yes most people don't like ambiguity and fair enough it's quite scary. Much more appealing to get a worldview in a box like mainstream religions. I've done it a few times but mostly for mild topics like meditations and sometimes psychedelics. I think with good reason, what exactly is your purpose for bringing heavy topics on a first date? It's not really a spiritual thing, people don't tend to do that in general and repeatedly bring up like starving children in Africa on first dates. Some people do like bleeding heart leftists and to be fair it'll heavily screen out people that aren't super passionate about these topics but for me it's not a top priority. In my mind overly spiritual people are using it more as a coping mechanism for being unsuccessful in real life rather than being actual deep thinkers so I would be likely to be turned off if a girl was particularly new agey. I don't mean successful like make a lot of money but even being a responsible, dependable and consistent adult that's ready for a healthy relationship is often times lacking in those circles in MY personal experience. Also most people are not intellectuals they don't enjoy discussing abstract concepts, they deal more in tangibles. If are heavily involved in your business/career in a spiritual industry that would be one thing but if you just like the videos and enjoy discussing it then it's a whole other thing.

I think looking at it as an "invented concept" misses the point of what frameworks like Spiral Dynamics are actually doing. Original researchers like Clare Graves were trying to map out an objective, shared reality of human development. They were pointing to evolutionary patterns in consciousness that escape most people in ordinary states of awareness. By studying self-actualization and doing the actual practice, we’re able to tap into the exact same terrain those researchers discovered for themselves, rather than just playing with words. I myself find the spiral dynamics model incredibly useful for me in understanding the ways other humans think because I often fall into the trap of thinking everyone thinks the same way as me.

Models is pretty good it shares the core fundamental principles of having a healthy outlook on pickup. In my mind the best game program ever released is the social circle blueprint 1 and 2. It's not really about pickup per say more around social circle and status building. The stuff in it is so powerful it can be said it's too powerful to just pickup women you might as well use it for business and political aims. RSD Luke is massively underrated. Now the course is on Youtube so enjoy, highly recommend it.

Right but in that view AI only improved their ability to do art for fun. They can still draw whatever they want and they now just got improved tools to change it if they want to or give feedback. A top AI image generator doesn't stop anyone from sketching a drawing in pencil. I think the money part is core to AI fear, people are worried about being able to pay their bills with cheaper and cheaper AI workflows coming on especially with morons like the current american administration in charge. Some people I think(like @Leo Gura ) are offended at the very notion that a program can come up with greater intelligence than they can after a lifetime of work but that's just how evolution works. AI has made me so much smarter already, so many concepts I'm able to debate with it; I'm full on the boat of seeing it as a tool not as a competitor. We are gonna need a UBI or subsidy response for AI layoffs though that's real.

Perfect bro now that you're enlightened perhaps you can help us solve some global issues. How do we solve the last-mile distribution crisis of perishable nutritional yields in conflict-ridden, infrastructure-deprived regions like the Horn of Africa without relying on centralized military escorts that inevitably siphon off 40% of the aid? Since you have the 'Buddha eye' and can see into the closed-door meetings of the human realm, let's test a highly critical, active security negotiation. Right now, there is an intense diplomatic effort regarding the escalating grid collapses in Ukraine and the catastrophic threat to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant’s cooling systems. Which two Western nations actually drafted the landmark resolution on this crisis (GOV/2026/25), and why is it being negotiated through the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna rather than the UN Security Council in New York? What is the specific technical 'shutdown' status required for Zaporizhzhia's Unit 1 and 2 reactors under this framework until the cooling and off-site power crisis is resolved? Which major Western superpower—traditionally Ukraine’s biggest ally—surprised the delegation by refusing to support this specific March 2026 resolution? Surely an enlightened being who can communicate across entire cosmic realms can easily read the text of a resolution sitting on a desk.

AI slop is a bit of a useless term One of the core definitions of slop on Merriam-Webster is : a product of little or no value Most things in existence are of little or low value. We use economics and business to measure what things are worth paying for in terms of our time, energy and money. Most of what AI produces you would not pay for but neither would you buy what most random people on the street offer so why do we not call most of what humans do slop? We don't because it's redundant. Very arguable, most of it is in the public domain and none of it was stolen it's still there. A lot of artists that get mad that AI can now do what they do are just too lazy to learn project management and entrepreneur skills. In their time they had a monopoly on drawing lines on a paper and filling it with a color in a way that was appealing and now AI can do it. Farmers had a monopoly on knowing how to toil soil before tractors and industrial agriculture turned them into heavy machinery operators and logistics managers. Now they're better off for it and so we will all be from the AI revolution. Hopefully

I mean I answered this in my other post on dreams but yes of course, why wouldn't the scientific method work to transcend reality? As a matter of fact how could any other method? If you blink and there you stand in your chair but you are now floating in a red space with multiple planets and strange creatures around I'd argue the first thing you would do is use the scientific method to make sense of what's happening. You would raise your hands in front of your face and touch your body in bewilderment probably. That's a hypothesis that usually you have a body and hands and you are testing if they are still there. You'd perhaps reach into your pockets and see if you have objects that you usually carry like your phone and wallets. I think you guys are underestimating how core the scientific paradigm is to our reality, it's the foundation of rationalism. If you claim you are now post rational you have to describe a framework that's superior to empiricism and the scientific method to explore reality. Remember that the paradigm we used before science was basically just the wisdom of the elders. If you're born and your parents tell you that you should bow down to a bush everyday because "that bush is the sacred God Ozabara and if you do not worship him we are all doomed!" then that's what you did. Until Abrahamic religions that took this random faith and centralized it into the one God and made everything else paganism which only started to unravel in 1543 when Copernicus observed that the earth seems to orbit the sun and not the other way around so perhaps we are not the center of the universe. The scientific method is basically the only tool we have to stop random people from putting their wild random beliefs in our heads. We can test if those beliefs are true and produce the same results that other people have claimed. That's it. You guys throw all this other wild ideology and dogma into Science but there's the method and then there are governments since that time that have sponsored various career scientists to investigate various fields of life since then. @Hojo Plenty of people have talked about having an experience of God without being locked up, it's pretty common for even mainstream people to say that God directly talked to them and revealed mysterious secrets about their life or reality to them. Science described shared reality phenomena that we can observe and replicate and calls that the basis for rationality. Some scientists are christians. Some scientists are muslim. Some scientists are atheists(not even most btw.) Their ontological belief has not much to do with their scientific findings and the stuff they are able to achieve in reality. If you don't believe that Elon says you're the one with faulty epistemology. This is ORBCOMM-2 on December 21, 2015, the first time in human history a orbital-class rocket booster was recovered intact which completely revolutionized the space industry. Now that you've awakened to your true nature as God almighty itself, can you also build and land an orbital-class rocket booster? Probably not bro. Me neither bro but we don't need to, we have Elon to figure it out for us. If you're gonna call him out on some of the shenanigans he does that's fair he deserves it, he also deserves the recognition for this otherwise you're pretty much 100% delusional there's no other way to spin it.

@AerisVahnEphelia That's true it's good to open one's mind to new possibilities. I'll try harder usually I wake up just as its happening or something weird stops it. You're not using the scientific method properly though. If you say that becoming God is your belief then what does it entail? What can you now do that you can demonstrate to others? Or even to yourself? Not saying this is your case but a lot of times spiritual people use spiritual jargon to wave away their lack of skill in life. For example if you can't make money it's because you're not corrupt like those capitalistic pigs or you're concerned about greater concerns than shallow materialistic concerns. It doesn't really matter if someone ultimately define yourself as God or a random dude. If they can't affect reality then they're pretty useless or pretty far from godlike in my book. People like to hate on Elon Musk but he seems like he's the one getting us close to Saturn. It's the culmination of many great minds as well before he got involved but science, engineering and business at scale are not easy to do. Much easier to pretend that you're beyond it and then 5 mins later complain about the economy.

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.