Razorback

I'm just someone who very occasionally drops by to see how Leo's journey is going. Last time, maybe a couple of years ago it seemed like you thought the concept of science itself was flawed and could not be used to get to any truths. Has that changed? You seemed very sure of this at the time. You always seem very sure of whatever latest realisation you've had. But you keep having new realisations. As people here have pointed out, many of these insights seem contradictory. Wouldn't it be more prudent to lower the level of confidence you project outwardly to others? Maybe internally you do struggle with doubt, but this does not come across at all in your videos and writing.

Of course I disagree, but nevermind my opinion, I'm just another dumb materialist, what do I know? Besides the concept of falsifiability...

Look at Megamind over here comparing Roger Penrose to a retarded child. Very big brain*, much enlightened. *imaginary brain of course, brains aren't real dummy!

@Leo Gura Sorry, can't help it.

@Consilience Interesting. I agree that the only thing one can be absolutely sure of is that... something is happening. In other words, the fact of consciousness. All other assumptions must be derived from that fact and as you say, require infinite regression of axioms and reasons for them. You seem to be pointing to Godel's incompleteness theorem, I wonder if you are familiar with it? That said, you did mention that I was technically correct (the best kind of correct) regarding how in the hypothetical material universe, you would be unable to tell the difference as to which was more fundamental, consciousness or matter. From the point of view of the observer, both are indistinguishable. And yes, there is no proof as you say. But Godel's incompleteness theorem shows how such kind of proof is impossible. So is absolute proof the best or only way to make one's own beliefs correspond to reality? Wouldn't that lead directly to solipsism? You have no proof that behind these words you are reading there was a conscious agent having the experience of writing them. You have no certainty but there must be some level of confidence that tells you yes, you are talking to some other node of experience somewhere beyond your current perception. We must all make assumptions. If both worlds I described are indistinguishable, it is only a matter of looking at which explanation has the most evidence to make a choice. And not a binary choice of either true or not true. My beliefs fall on a spectrum from probable to improbable. I hold no certainties.

I admit I thought about what you said for a good while. I noticed I was confused. So possibly I didn't understand it but in the case that I did my conclusion is that it might be logical if I accept some of the premises but I don't think I accept the premises, particularly that truth requires no axioms or that something having axioms makes it less fundamental. Let's imagine for a moment that consciousness is not fundamental, that it is at the other end of the spectrum from whatever is fundamental. First comes the mysterious fundamental thing we haven't discovered yet, from that emerges physics, from that, emerges chemistry, from that emerges biology, from that emerges nervous systems and brains, from that, emerges consciousness. Ok imagining such a scenario is true, you still find yourself in a situation where direct experience can only tell you about consciousness and it's contents. You can become as enlightened as is possible and explore absolute infinity to its limit. You will never ever step outside consciousness. In that particular hypothetical universe the conclusions you arrive from experience, therefore, can lead you to a completely false picture of reality. Am I wrong here? If one truly lived in a material universe, how would it be different from how you experience things now? Would anything change at all regarding your personal experience?

Have you heard of the philosopher David Pierce? There's this paper of his called the Hedonistic Imperative that outlines actual steps to rid all sentient life of suffering. I refer you to this as an example of a plan that might actually produce results. In contrast, the path of achieving the sort of enlightenment that is advocated here results in possibly great benefits to the individual but it stops there. That individual will not feel compelled to end suffering in others, because that concept doesn't even fit in their world view. If someone says they are in pain, their response is that you are at fault for creating your own misery. They may try to help by convincing you to follow the same path they have but that seems contradictory. If they know everything is already perfect, why do anything? And their path is extremely impractical anyway and would never help the vast majority of people. This mindset will not produce significant results if one has the goal of helping humanity and minimizing unnecessary suffering of all creatures.

I don't see why reality being infinite negates a universe that is fundamentally mathematical. In fact, the biggest proponent for this idea, the physicist Max Tegmark describes the several ways infinity plays into his theory that fundamentally, reality is a mathematical structure. Saying consciousness is what reality is, leaves us without knowing what consciousness is. We know it's this immaterial experience thing, but it seems like a rather complex system to be the ultimate fundamental building block. Math, on the other hand, is self-sustaining. It is the rules of logic themselves, from the simplest possible bit of information to infinity in complexity. You can't make a model of it using something else, but you can use It to model anything you want (computation). I disagree.

Maybe mathematics is fundamental? You are putting Consciousness first and I assume you're using personal experience (consciousness work) to come to that conclusion. Seems like circular reasoning to me.

Member is absolutely right. This path of learning to see that suffering is not a problem is a trick to ease your own suffering. This path might be great for the individual, but longterm it isn't really helping reduce suffering overall in the world.

https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/05/19/5-meo-dmt-awakenings-from-naive-realism-to-symmetrical-enlightenment/ This article from the qualia research institute goes over Leo's descriptions of the effects of 5-meo-DMT and compares them to their own models of what they call the symmetry theory of valence. It's a long but fascinating read.

How would you differentiate that from unconsciousness or death? How can it not be an experience, but still affect you in a way that you can talk about it and derive wisdom from it? Surely you have memories of having that... uh, not sure what word to use here, notexperience?

I'm glad I found this thread. I had to create an account just to comment because everything you've expressed here has also been on my mind recently. I've been having a lot of doubts about how to interpret the experiences of people that have had an awakening experience. Many seem to come away from it with such strong certainties about the true nature of reality. That consciousness is fundamental. But let's suppose for a moment that actually, the classical material view is correct, and a physical world comes first, consciousness comes later. If that were the case, you could still have an absolute infinity experience. Because even then, all you can experience is mind. Evolution made it so that you have a lot of filters over basic awareness so that you function in a way that improves your chances of survival. So it makes you think that all your senses are actually showing you true reality. Of course, we can learn this is not the case and through meditation or use of mind-altering substances, you can strip those layers away and feel it in your core that that is not the case. (The fact that a physical molecule has such an effect on mind should be a clue here.) You remove programs, like ego and separation and you have an experience of being all there is. As you have expressed in multiple posts, that experience can still happen and have nothing to do with base reality. That doesn't mean that consciousness can't be fundamental, maybe it is. But I think that it's almost axiomatically true, that you can never know for sure. I know this is kind of an old thread so I was wondering if you've had any new insights on this, or if you've read any good books or articles on the subject.