-
Content count
3,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Gesundheit
-
I like Leo's analogy of that tribal scientist with the yellow flower. The scientist was curious, he went out and tried things for himself and then made conclusions to the best of his abilities. That scientist did not think about truth. He did not even think about science. He made a number of experiments, and reported what happened while ruling out the things that did not concern him. In that analogy, there's no concept of science or truth. These concepts did not emerge at the time. The moment they started to emerge was the moment he took his conclusions to the tribe. Someone in the tribe may have objected to his discoveries. At that point, the scientist would have to provide a convincing case for his claims. He would have to make distinctions as to use concepts like truth and falsehood to make his tribe believe him. I seriously can't think of any other way than that for "truth" and "falsehood" concepts to emerge. I think after making the first distinction between truth and falsehood, concepts like "science" and "the scientific method" can emerge based on what truth and falsehood concepts mean according to the tribe.
-
From Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions. However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences. Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience. Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method." Isn't that exactly what you teach about consciousness, except that you emphasize more on the subjective experience rather than consensus ("objective" truth)? I've found two other concepts that may be more compatible with your teachings; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism Which one is closer? Okay, but then if it's a dream and an illusion, how can one distinguish between truth and falsehood? What are the criteria? You said that the current science contains falsehood, but how do you distinguish between truth and falsehood inside a video game? Based on what would you consider something truth and something else falsehood? Okay, let's say that's true. Now we have a concept that truth is not a concept. From this one concept we create our method? Is that what you're saying? If that's our basic assumption, how is it different from an a priori? When we say truth is not a concept, we would have to exclude concepts from our method, and so we would require a method that contains no concepts. Right? But how can we do science without concepts?
-
@Leo Gura How do you reconcile the fact that even the science you're advocating is largely based on empiricism and the fact that empiricism is just a theory? Because according to the Wikipedia article below, empiricism is known by the senses, but theory is invented by the mind (ideas), so? Idealism suggests that reality comes from the mind, while empiricism suggests an independent universe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism Also how do you reconcile a working science within an immaterial universe? Isn't practicality/Empiricism a proof of materialism? Or at least a strong point that suggests materialism?
-
That's not Leo in the video. Unlike that passage, the video is well-prepared, well-presented, , and most importantly, very nuanced.
-
The question is, how would you know that science and truth are two different things unless you already have a concept of the truth in your mind? Imagine being born in an environment where there's only one narrative, how would you know anything outside of it to be true without first assuming a concept of truth which should necessarily be different from the original narrative? Would love to hear from you too @Leo Gura
-
Furthermore, perfectionism falls under the umbrella of fear, which is the ultimate cause of OCDs. I have noticed that no matter the type of OCD, fear is always involved. And conversely, when we do stuff normally, there's no feeling of fear whatsoever.
-
Well, at least would you agree that perfectionism is a concept that includes health? And that wanting to stay healthy is a form of perfectionism?
-
After reading a few comments, I take this back lol. Elaborate?
-
@Leo Gura Pardon my obnoxious perfectionistic tendencies. It is still top-notch video regardless. Will watch the rest of the series and ask more questions if anything comes up. Thank you.
-
Oh my God! I just realized that I have been aware of nothingness since my early childhood. I didn't know that I was aware of it. How stupid! I come from a Muslim family, and so while growing up, people used to say the word Allah a lot. The moment my realization happened was the moment I asked my mom about Allah. She said that Allah created everything blah blah blah. I didn't understand the meaning of any of that. But then I asked her; how does Allah look like? And she said that he does not have a form and cannot be perceived. At that moment, I got a clear definitive intuition of God as nothingness, and it stuck with me till this day. Only I didn't realize that before. I have never not been aware of nothingness.
-
Cool! I think I will finally join reddit. On another note, I have a question for @Leo Gura: How is this series any different from your old video Science vs. Religion? I mean sure it is and will be much more detailed, but isn't it still at the same plane? I don't see much difference in that aspect.
-
The thought itself is not strong or rigid, but there's a strong feeling of fear underneath it that prevents you from letting go. If you examine the feeling closely, you will be able to detach briefly. And with practice, you will be able to increase that brief period of detachment. Until eventually when you will be able to let it go completely. 1. Start small. 2. Keep at it. 3. Time will take care of the rest.
-
?
-
I am currently watching the first part. I'm halfway through and I have already spotted a few blindspots. So just in case I feel like it, get your ass ready for some critique Leo ?
-
@Someone here until it does.
-
It does not need a location, but it exists.
-
Yeah sure, but the ego operates exclusively in the present moment, and it cannot exist otherwise. Imagination occurs in the present moment.
-
Are you just asking or are you interested in the inquiry? It feels like sarcasm at this point (3 times repeating same question without further explanation).
-
Good question, really good. I would say you imagine things when you lose sight of your own value, when you feel like you're not enough, and when you lose sight of your own truth.
-
That's the basic definition of an OCD. Without resistance there would be no problem. I have a question though, why are you being so vague? It won't hurt to talk about it a little bit more. If you want encouragement, I have experienced a severe OCD in the past and have overcome it for the most part. It's hygiene OCD where I kept washing my hands and feet thinking that they're not clean enough. It wasn't because I feared bacteria or anything like that. It was because I was a perfectionist religious nutcase. Luckily I was able to work my way out of religion and out of most of its accessories during the past few years. I learned to increase my awareness in the moment and integrate my shadows. I was able to reach very advanced levels of tranquillity and peace of mind afterwards and I am very grateful for that. I don't know if you feel bad about yourself for having an OCD, but it's not an uncommon issue. A lot of people have some kind of it at some point in their lives, and a lot of them overcome it. So don't worry, it only gets better.
-
When you imagine it.
-
Sure, except when there is.
-
Update your definitions of friendships. A phone is a friend. YouTube is a sub-friend lol. Leo is a sub-sub-friend lol. The forum is a sub-sub-sub-friend lol. And so on. Don't get hung up on the idea that your friends have to materialize in real life. They're imagination after all, both your friends and your needs. I could live a thousand years alone, and I would feel better than with others. In fact, if I isolate myself from technology which I'm assuming is a friend, it will be the best thing to do to reach the ultimate peace of mind. It's unbelievable the amount of noise you get from interacting with other shit factories. But I have fears and attachments that I'm working on, so it's hard to just go on in full isolation. Dopamine is a real thing yo. EDIT: I have to mention that I have friends in real life, although they used to be a lot more before going down the path. But I don't go out much often. I don't even contact them online anymore unless there's something important or once every few weeks. My best friend is a great guy, like me. We go months without even a word, and we're still best friends lol. As a matter of fact, he called me three times earlier today and I still haven't returned his calls ? EDIT 2: I talked to him and we're going out in 30 minutes lol.
-
Yeah sorry for that slight change. Well technically, it isn't necessarily. But that's close enough and we basically agree.