Salvijus

It's not necessary for me to have a conclusion on who's right and who's wrong to enjoy watching two genuine people explore new ideas and then watch their conclusions and their reactions.

What will I do with that info. And besides. The info in these solo debunk videos have no weight unless Howard is there to defend his ideas. So... It's all the lame people who gather to watch such videos to find more reason to ridicule and slander Howard when they have no understanding of science whatsoever and who's right and who's wrong. They just take sides anyway. I'm not interested in such activities. I would like to see genuine friendly discussions instead.

That's not the same thing. The thing is I don't qualify to tell if his arguments are good or bad. I'm not a scientists. Only Howard can defend his ideas. So what's the point of me watching 40mins of trash talk? What will I do with that info? It's like eating energetic poo for no reason.

Even if you see somebody being wrong, there is no reason to ridicule them if you're genuine. @Brahman is a good example. He looked into the material deeper and made a new conclusion that there is lack of substance to Howard's theories. There were no insults going on. No attacking. No mocking. Just a simple observation based on his research and capacity to understand. Now comparing that with David's video. What is there to comment. First of all, the vibe was very unpleasant for me full of slander and name calling and what not. It was hard for me to watch. I don't like watching negativity. Second of all, such review videos like David's don't mean anything unless Howard is there to respond and defend his theories. Anyone can make a solo debunk video these days. That is not how genuine people approach and handle things. Simply trashing someone on your privite video 40mim straight is really lame. This attitude that there could be a kernel of truth in everything and that we should stay open to that possibility and eager to find it is not a weak position. It's the most powerful position. I'm not sure who you're referring to here. I personally don't care if he is proven wrong. But the idea that he may be true is more exciting to me because I want to see new discoveries. That's my motivator reasoning. I think everyone should have such a motivation. It's the best motivation to have. If you're not on the side of seeing new levels of truth. Then what side are you on? Must be ego then.

@zurew Those who are genuine, they recognize the flaws and all the red flags but they don't get fixated on it but rather are trying to look beyond it to see if there is some kernel of truth to the proposed ideas that could benefit humanity. Because those are what we want. And we should always seek it with eagerness and excitement. However, those who are not genuine, will get super fixated on anything that they don't like that allows them to make the argument that the person is no good, empty talk, lunatic etc. And will use that as an excuse to not listen to his ideas anymore. And will try to bury that person with slander and character assassination.

There's nothing cheritable about giving a person a chance to explain themselves and being open minded about it. Everything other than that, like attempts to ridicule, belittle, silence, attack is desperate and comes from bias.

A good question to ask is, how do we know that what we percieve as a limitation in someone's behavior is not just our failure to see deeper intelligence behind those actions? This question becomes especially significant when we're talking about mystics and such I would say. The answer i believe is. You can't know. All you can do is keep growing and keep an open mind and your opinion about mystics and their hard to understand behavior will keep changing every day. In the meantime, the only thing worth being concerned with is if this being can help me reach the next stage of development or not.

Okay, then the same question can be applied anyways. Which axioms are more in alignment with our perception of reality. But "align with reality" is just as good. Maybe even better. It would make more sense to align the math with the Reality rather than our perception of reality. Because our perception of reality could be flawed. And why would we want to align our math with something that is not stable even.

The question becomes. Which axioms are more in alignment with Reality from phylosophical point of view ? The ones that Howard is proposing or the current ones. It's a debatable matter if you ask me. I definitely don't know the answer but I'm open minded about it.

Here's an interesting insight. If to perceive = to be conscious And to perceive = to experience Then Conciousness = experience.

I was thinking this aswell. You could make 1x1=2 and have a consistent math based on that aswell. I believe Howard's pointing more at a phylosophical problem rather than mathematical problem. Somehow according to him 1x1=1 does not exist in the universe and is somehow from phylosophical point of view incorrect way to look at the world. Not that I understand his thought process fully myself.

Apparently he sayed during the Joe's podcast that he understands the counter argument that 1 times 1 = 1. (Because it happened once) Despite of that he still insists on his position for some reason. How to understand his thinking process how he got there. Credit to him for thinking outside the box tho. Even if he's wrong. Most people just accept blindly what is being told to them in schools without ever questioning it. It shows intelligence and indipendant thinking. Those are nice qualities.

That's synonymous with becoming more perceptive to me. To see directly = to perceive directly = to be conscious directly

Yea his might be digging his grave with that one

Edit. I realized the flaw in my own thinking. My bad.

Hmm. After more contemplation I'm starting to think there's nothing wrong with the x^3=2x situation. My bad.

I was contemplating his x^3=2x supposed fallacy in math. I think i understand the point he's making. That simple example shows how math is inconsistent. Because the formula doesn't work with other numbers expect with √2. And for a formula to be true, it has to work with all numbers. And math that is not consistent is not math at all. Interesting example if you ask me.

Love would try to help the child and the aggressor both. That would be a wholesome thing to do. A wholesome action is that action that serves The Whole. Everyone and Everything. And in order to perform such an action one has become a servent of love's Will. (God's will) completly egoless.

Calling it a shift in perception is valid as well imo. First you perceive yourself to be a person. Then you perceive yourself to be The Absolute. That's not a small shift in perception.

Nobody sayed that's all he had to show for it.

I second this. I want to see how things will turn out aswell. True. And let's not say there is no substance to it before we actually did proper investigation would also be a healthy position imo.

✌️

I'm not interested in defending Howard. I'm interested in pointing out where people are lame.

A person only qualifies to say "It's all just empty talk" after he does proper investigation of his ideas and proofs and then comes to the conclusion. "Yea... There is nothing to it." But right now. Everyone is saying Howard is full of shit without zero genuine investigation into his theories. That is what's lame about it.

See I'm no expert. But during the Joe Rogan podcast he says normal drones can't spin around its axis while being still in the air. What Howard did has never been done before. If you were more honest. You would not be able to say, it's all just empty talk. You say that without any basis. The real honesty is. You don't know. And if you really want to find out if there is substance to his claims. You should investigate him. Not me.