EternalForest

To the contrary! You can learn just as much from fiction as you can from non-fiction, if you read mindfully. The lessons and insights gained from great works of literature are priceless.

@Leo Gura I'll hold my peace until the next episode, and ponder what you said in the meantime. Thanks for responding.

@Carl-Richard You're right, true scientists are pretty rare. @commie I genuinely don't know what you're getting at. @Leo Gura I watched your video twice before writing what I wrote. Validity isn't some relative notion. Truth is truth, and it can verified one point at a time. Why does all of science need to be dragged into it? And if one individual fact does call the rest of science into question, it's the responsibility of the scientist to account for that and correct for that. A true scientist, as you call them, would definitely do that. We also don't need 100% certainty in the current scientific method we use. Because I agree with you, absolute certainty in any given method isn't possible. But again, we need some working method to continue to do science. And I know you used the priest example, and I agree if corruption is found it should be extinguished, but I'm not aware of any concrete examples of corruption within science that you pointed out. I'm interested in hearing about them, either here or in the next video(s).

@commie Elaborate what you mean by abstractions as opposed to measurements. And It's only long gone if you want it to be. You can still test the the validity of the Laws of Physics in 2020, nothing's stopping you. Rest assured, those days of science aren't long gone for me! @Leo Gura That's kind of an extreme example but all I can say is, everything's a risk. When I walk on the sidewalk I risk getting run over by a drunk driver, doesn't mean I'm going to stop walking. In the same way, although science needs to better itself, it's not worth dismissing everything we've learned so far. For now, that's all we got. We need to use that to find something better. Otherwise we just sit in the house all day afraid of getting run over. So I'm going to still go out and walk, with the risk of getting run over, but with the possible reward of finding something better.

I watched all of Pt. 1 of the Science series. Here are my comments and objections: Science is constantly getting better, and we may never reach the end or have one perfect specific method. That's the point of science, to have a more and more accurate understanding of the world. It's not this static thing. It's the best truth we have so far. Just because it's not written in the universe, doesn't mean we're not doing the best we can do. Sure, there were inaccuracies in the past, there are inaccuracies now, and there will be in the future. But this is the best we can do, constantly strive to be the best version of science we can be. However, we can only work with what's measureable. We cannot account for things any given person cannot verify for themselves. This is why intangible feelings and experiences such as Love or personal or spiritual experiences aren't useful in serious scientific study. A fact is something observable by anyone. A personal experience is not. Science is actually the opposite of ego and religion, Science is willing to fix its mistakes, while religion isn't. New science books are constantly being published, but religion's holy books are unchangeable, And no, you cannot do science without first understanding it. It's not about who you are or where you come from, it’s about pure discovery. That's the beauty of science. It’s actually completely free of ego. Science can only comment on the physical world, what is and how it works, but that doesn't mean that there can't be logic put into other domains. There is very sound logic in filmmaking as you mentioned, but it is separate from science’s domain. It’s the domain of storytelling, cinematography and artistry. Science is also not just a system to manipulate reality, it is the only system we know of to consistently measure and manipulate reality as constantly and deeply as it does. Show me some other non-scientific system that can consistently make sense of and manipulate reality (with deep understanding) in the way that science does, and prove me wrong. A valid method of science is able to be verified by anybody. An idea starts as a theory then matures into a scientific law. This is to avoid dogma; testing and retesting and retesting by multiple individuals is vital. And everything is revisable as we find better information. That first person on earth you speak of would just find what works, and that's all science is, what works, so yes they would be doing their own form of science. The people that believe the shaman are not scientists but the shaman who did the experiment is. However, you don't have to be a scientist to study science. Science doesn't have to make a religion out of it. You have to separate science from religion, however you can use truths and methods found from religious cultures to be integrated into and advance science. It's not harmful to look through a telescope, but the full long term effects of psychedelics are not yet fully known. We must dismiss any method that is not objective. An experience you have on a drug is not objective, because what I see on the drug is not the same thing you see on the drug. And even if it was, there is no way to objectively prove it. History is not relative, either. Either something happened or it didn't. The narrative you spin about it is another story. All in all, while you made some good points and your intentions of making science better are good, the bettering of science is in fact science's entire goal, and I hope I've made that point in this post. Thanks for reading, and good luck with the rest of the series!

Much more civilized and substantive than the Presidential Debate, that's for sure.

I agree with the others. Basically a full embodiment of orange, but he's a very healthy version of it.

What would you consider the most important video you've ever made?

@Nahm After this little exercise I'm going to be done with it, or only use it here and there. Being transfixed by fortune tellers and other similar things should be avoided, something I learned from The Twilight Zone "Nick of Time"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_of_Time_(The_Twilight_Zone)

I think I'll ask Philosopher AI Leo's "64 Most Fascinating Questions A Human Can Ask" and share it with the forum. The results could be interesting at the very least!

Seems the Church and religion is a "sensitive topic" too? https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/which-religion-is-most-correct-f8b162

Great AI, with some quality answers. Although it seems like it won't answer any individual, sexual, political, gender or racial questions, which is a shame. It gives you answers like this: "Philosopher AI thinks this is nonsense, and is refusing to answer your query. It appears you will have to try something else." "The AI feels like this is a sensitive topic. It does not want to get itself (or its programmers) into trouble, so it is refusing to elaborate. Try something else."

@soos_mite_ah You're right, style is necessary with the way that we meet people. That's why I find the text only dating apps so fascinating.

Has anyone noticed how many people complain about lack of substance in their relationships? People are usually attracted to someone's style first (looks, charm, way of talking, etc.). But style is shallow by nature and once they are a year or two into the relationship any lack of substance is going to come to the surface. Now not to say you can't make a connection with someone based on their style, but in my opinion it's substance that truly holds any relationship together. That's why I often notice friendships are the strongest kinds of relationships out there because those are often the most substance based. Any thoughts on this concept? Edit: I wanted to add that, style is not necessarily "shallow", it just obviously runs a lot less deep than substance. But there's style in substance and substance in style in a way. Fashion is an artform. Speaking is also an artform.

1. Set your alarm for 5 hours after you go to sleep 2. Wake up for 20 minutes and read, meditate, or record any dreams you had. 3. Go back to bed and visualize the dream you would like to have. Exact timing for Step 1 is trial and error. If you don't lucid dream, try 4-6 hours next time. Good luck!

You consciously decide who you want to be every day. Which means you can actively change it. If you've decided that's not who you are anymore, act like the person you want to be. This doesn't mean you pretend like the past never happened. Keep it in mind often, as a reminder of why you're choosing a different path. Best of luck.

For a life insurance commercial...this always hit me hard.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946) and The Iron Giant (1999)

It's not about never feeling "negative emotions", it's about learning to control them. This is what stoicism and enlightenment helps us to do.

Not a Spiral Wizard quite yet (many years from reaching Yellow), but people aren't generally just one stage. Someone can have elements of many stages integrated into who they are. You can be Stage Green in some ways and Stage Blue in others. Further, someone at Stage Green cannot enter Yellow without integrating all the previous stages first. Transcending is one thing, but it's including that presents the true challenge.

When I recognized that rules and laws were arbitrary things. But as for leaving Blue religion in specific, I guess it happened when I began studying other religions outside of Christianity. When all you know is one tradition, it's easy to get dogmatic about it. I'd wager the majority of Christians have never set aside time to seriously study any other spiritual tradition. Not to say that doing that would automatically make them more open-minded, but it's certainly a stepping stone.

Wearing sports clothes could cool you down.

You should live a balanced life. Keep doing your spiritual practices, but also make time for play and spending time with your friends and family. You can do both! And who knows, maybe one day they may take an interest or you'll meet new people who do.

@Carl-Richard I don't think that's a spiral dynamics issue, that's just being hypocritical. Why ask for your opinion if they only want their own opinions echoed back at them?

Strangely enough, I've been selective about who I share it with as well, but both people who I gave the entire intro and Leo's videos on SD were highly interested. I even started talking about it in a music chat room one time, and it seemed to get everyone's attention. So I think you may be introducing it to people who aren't ready yet. Creatives and people interested in personal development are always curious about it in my experience.