Geromekevin

1. Focus on film making 60 to 80 hours a week. Read books, watch tutorials 20% of the time and execute and practice 80% of the time. Do it for 3-6 months until you're okay / decent / good at it. 2. Move into the city where you favorite guru / coach / mentor / instructor live and offer to work for him for free. If he declines, next until you get to work for someone for free. Use the rest of the money to sustain yourself until you are good enough so that that person will pay you. 3. Now you work on your life passion getting paid with one of the most influential persons of your life. Then you can calibrate further.

You've got AZ right (so far)! Currently it looks like Trump is leading NC, MI and PA though, which would mean a win for him. I got AZ wrong, but the rest looks true.

Final prediction: https://www.270towin.com/maps/Wpglx Didn't change much, just a little less secure about some states. Wisconsin might become red again like 2016, too. The money / market predicts a Trump win because: - the betting markets heavily favor Trump (= you win less betting on him). - Stock markets indicate a Trump win because the oil and energy companies' stocks surged while big tech lost. This means the market is expecting the candidate that is pro fracking and anti big tech monopolies to win. BTW, I'm NOT saying I want this. I'm german and think both candidates aren't the best the US has to offer. Putting it out here to see how well the prediction holds up and how good / bad my model of reality is.

@Leo Gura I almost agree with your prediction #1. Except for: MI: I think there is a much higher "shy Trump" vote in Michigan, than you might think. PA: I think the riots in Philadelphia will drive more voters in Western Pennsylvania to vote to reelect President Trump. https://www.270towin.com/maps/Wpglx So it'll be 243 Biden, 295 Trump, but Biden winning popular vote because of Florida.

Here you can see what evil they believe: https://youtu.be/WpgDPwo64lo

@leogura could you please address my genuine questions?

In Leos recent blog video "Rethinking Human History" Leo says that the world history has been shaped by the most ruthless, egotistical and bloodthirsty people. I wondered and researched. One interesting thing I found was that Napoleon was against torture, which is a pretty advanced world view for that time. Thought this was interesting and that I'd share it with you.

I always love when Leo posts videos of zooms into fractals on his blog. Here is a video of an infinite Zoom into a pen. https://player.vimeo.com/video/355005914?autoplay=1&auto_play=true

I think the simulation theory is true. If you aren't familiar with it, the basic argument goes like this: Soon, we will be able to create a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality. In this simulation you could also create a reality that is indistinguishable from reality because the simulation is indistinguishable from reality. If this is both true, our world could also be a simulation. And you can repeat this argumentation as often as you want. So we could be in a simulation, in a simulation, in a sumilation... ad infinitum until there maybe is a base reality. In this context here are my questions: How does spirituality tie in into the simulation theory? Do you just assume that it is wrong and we are living in base reality? Do you think that drugs / awakenings take you back into base reality and or give you experiences from it? How do you know, that what you experience aren't just hallucinations? Maybe we will be able to create experiences in different ways (e.g. electric stimulation) that will feel the same? I mean just because it feels real and you could swear that it was and must be real, doesn't mean it is real. Spirituality has close to zero value (besides placebo) because it leaves the realm of reason. All there is is math. You can't reliably reproduce spirituality. You can reliably reproduce math and physics.

Disclaimer: My private politics do not align with Republicans (/ Trump) or Dems (/ Bernie - I like him the most of the current candidates). A good model of the world is able to predict. I'd like for Leo (and people reading this) to put some skin in the game and do make predictions. We can keep track here, learn together and adjust our models according to the data. Accountability and direct experience will teach us. I just read "How Nazis Win Elections" by Leo in his blog. I'm German, I watched parts of both videos. What Trump and Hitler are saying and how they say is, is totally different. Besides Trump has condemned Nazis countless times (see here for example about Charlottesville). I think Leo is wrong saying that Trump is a Nazi or that many of his followers are. So, here are my predictions: Trump will get re-elected. Probability: 98%. Reason / Filter: I'm confident he gets reelected simply for the fact that in American history almost all presidents got two terms. Trump will only serve two terms. Probability: 98%. Reason / Filter: Trump is neither a dictator nor a Nazi. He has condemned Nazis several times. In my filter he views himself as an American and respects the constitution. Therefore, he won't take over the government and rule as a dictator. After Trump, a democrat will get elected. Probality: 80%. Reason / Filter: My first two predictions combine into this one. I think history will repeat and power will switch again. There will only be skirmishes, no wet (= many guns) street fights. Probability: 75%. Reason / Filter: Republicans like use weapons to defend themselves. Unless the media turns the population against each other, there will only be small fist fights at ralleys and some major fist fights at demonstrations - just like in the previous elections. I disagree with Leos take "There will likely be blood." if that means there will be heavy fights. I can only see heavy fights happen if both sides the media demonize each other significantly more. Let me know what you think and what your predictions are. Let's be accountable and keep score here.

@Leo Gura Could you please elaborate?

Bernie is way too old. He is already 78. If you vote for him now and he gets 2 periods he will be close to 90 when he's done. Show me one 78 year old who can solve complex problems or make difficult decisions on a regular bases for 16 hours a day, Let alone more than two hours or with 86. Btw I think Trump and Hillary are both too old to govern, too. People in that age are just mentally unfit to govern. The oldest fit dude I know is Jerzy Gregorek (google him, he's not a politician). IMO No one should become president after 58. If you get two periods you will be 66, which is old enough.

@emind Keep in mind, like some people in this thread said, you could also be right and the others are lost.

@zeroISinfinity Could be, could not be. No way to know for sure. But I'm sure as time progresses we get to learn more about this

@emind Oh yeah and to answer your question. Yes, if the simulation is real, experiencing the Truth is probably an illusion (unless the makers of the simulation(s) did include it to give you information about the Truth). Other effects of enlightenment and spiritual work can still be very real and I would argue they are.

@emind You are about to discover the flaws of spirituality and of Leo's (& other's) teachings. Be careful, I'm not saying Leo or spirituality is wrong. I'm saying you can't know because even though in a way it's provable in another it's not. Science could be right. We could live in a simulation. This simulation could give people working on their spirituality (meditating, taking drugs etc.) the experience of experiencing god & love. It could be programmed to give you the experience of becoming conscious of god. They could be deeply wrong even though they would swear they are right and that science is wrong and that you just have to experience the Truth for yourself. It could all be in the end just hallucination, nothing bigger there, just neurons firing giving you "the direct experience of god". Of course people like Leo can't accept this possibility (Notice how this is also explainable via ego & devilry). They will deem you too rational and that you wouldn't say that if you would've experienced it for yourself (btw at the same time totally not knowing what the other has experienced). But it is indeed a possibility (and I would argue a large one) that science, Neil De Gras Tysson, Elon Musk & co is right about the simulation (and other spirituality contradicting claims). Spirituality could also be right. That simulation is a duality, that there is a deeper truth and that humans can become conscious of the deeper truth. That we live in base reality and drugs and spirituality lead you to a deeper truth that you can embody. Notice that there are also (at least) two ways where both can be true. From a science perspective, if you can't measure something it doesn't exist. This means that if you can't contradict God and spirituality it might as well be true. And from a spirituality stand point, it could be true that spiritual experiences get you to the highest level and beyond. What I mean is we could live in a simulation, while at the same time transcending the simulation and all simulations around that and base reality through spirituality. I would advise you to keep an open mind and enjoy God / the simulation

I love and appreciate your answer. Let's hope Trump is successful for the benefit of humanity ??

@Anderz "People don't believe what they see, they see what they believe." - Mark Hymen. Just like you can't expect any Republican to change his mind by learning new facts, don't expect any one else to change theirs. If Trump denuclearizes North Korea neither Leo nor any other person who is deeply buried by his opinion will change his / their view. A great example is the "Fine People Funnel" by Scott Adams. (Try reading that article if you think Trump is a racist. It will be impossible for you.) People don't change their mind based on facts. So many people thought Trump would crash the economy. He didn't it is booming. People thought he'd became a dictator. He didn't. The list goes on. But again, this is on both sides. Some republican's thought Obama would become a dictator and never leave office.

In his recent episode about counter-intuitiveness Leo says: "You are the most effective in a state of no mind." See here: This might be true for sport or artists as mentioned in Leos examples. But for creating and changing the world it is apparently false. Elon Musk, arguably the most productive person that has ever lived, experiences "a never ending explosion of idea" in his head. So I would correct his statement and say: Athletes and artists are most effective in no mind. Changing the world takes a ton of intelligent thought.

@Strikr This is a pretty Darwinistic view: I fundamentally believe humans have not evolved to understand reality. We have evolved to survive. Watch this Ted Talk: In it Donald shows how insects are 'tricked' by their environment. By extrapolation the same is probably true for humans. E.g. I believe the world is made out of quarks (or probably something even smaller), while someone else might say the world is made out of consiousness and again someone else might think the world is created by God, Allah or whomever. We all live in fundamentally different realities. But when it comes to surviving, we can all go in a store and buy milk. Our opinion of what is truth does not matter. Not only that, but if you read his recent work you will find that species that have an accurate view on reality have a lower chance of survival than "delusioned" species. You can prove this in simulations and with mathematics. And this is just the medium picture view. I think in the big picture view it fundamentally comes down to what you think reality is. I'm pro Elon Musk's simulation theory. It just has the most flawless reasoning. But again I think no one can know what reality is, because we can not tell what is true. It just wasn't necessary for nature to give humans this ability.

@Leo Gura I'm carefully listening to you because I'm - at least partially - aware of my biases. I'm using your and other's spirituality teachings to balance that. I studied physics and am obviously very materialist and rationalistic. Though I think I'm far ahead of the majority of my colleques just for seriously researching and practicing spirituality and non-duality. We will see how you think about this in 10 years. You might discover that currently you are pretty dogmatic and are commiting fallacies by calling these situation's easy. From the outside in the big picture your position looks like every other human bias to me. Most people, including me, thinks they have a better than average understanding of the world. We like to think our model is the right one, the truth. This right here is might be a gem slipping through your hands. And if you feel like I'm trying to school you, relax. I'm sorry. I wanted to give back since I have learned a lot from you. Thank you for you sharing your best work and insights. PS.: This might be mind-reading, but I feel like it's probably hard for you to take the feedback from people in your forum seriously. You are used to being the teacher. You point out a lot of traps in self development. The possibility that you could fall into one of those traps (especially in giving the non-dual model to much weight, which you are heavily invested in) and that it gets pointed out by one of your viewers probably strikes you as unlikely. You are to far in your journey for that.

Leo recently released a video on the mind of Trump. Unfortunately he has fallen into the mind reader illusion. If you have followed Scott Adams, who has predicted Trump's win way before anyone else, you will know this trap. He described it in this blog post and this video with much detail. Leo, if you read this, I urge you to at least read the blog post. Probably your own cognitive dissonance will not allow you to read it fully, even though you preach open mindedness constantly. But as everyone knows and as you, Leo, correctly pointed out many times, we are blind towards our own biases. I hope this opens anyones eyes and sees the fallacies. By the way, I think Scott's hypothesis are probably wrong, too.

@Leo Gura Just to get this thread back on topic and to put this into your mind, because it's easier to see in others than in oneself: Watch how the creator of - and other people in - this thread fell into the mind-reader illusion towards you. I bet if you talked to Trump he would also deny your projections of him (even though this might just be mind reading on my part). Of course you might now say, "But I see his delusions and Trump does not, because I'm more conscious than him!", which might be the case. Or you might have fallen into the same trap, hallucinating the inner thoughts of someone based on your filter of reality. Also I just wanted to say that I'm pretty stumbled that you so closed minded reject a filter on reality, which is so well to explain the past and predict the future. I assume you are familiar with books like "Influence" by Robert Cialdini and the basic science of persuasion? Scott represents this incredibly powerful theory about the human mind and if you would study persuasion with books by Cialdini or Kahnemann and would read Scott's latest book you might find that he's quite smart after all. Even if you disagree on some aspects, it feels like you are being pretty dogmatic when it comes to this topic. Just a little reflection for you

@Leo Gura Very true.

@Widdle Puppy You might want to try and be open minded. If you listen to him and read his articles you will see how accurately he predicts reality time and time again. And - contrary to other people who are not providing evidence that their models worked for predicting the future - he constantly goes back and tracks which of his predictions came true (spoiler: over 90% did). It is easy to fit facts to the past in retrospect - that is called backwards rationalizing. It's much harder to foresee the future. It might seem to @Leo Gura like his model perfectly explains everything. If you are actually open minded and look at other filter's for reality such as Scott's persuasion filter, you will see that both fit reality very well. One of them just might be better at predicting the future. Maybe trying to rationally quantifying the results of ones mental model's of the world is too "stage orange." I just feel it's remarkable how many people in this thread including Leo instantly started insulting instead of giving arguments. An emotional reaction without arguments is an indicator for cognitive dissonance. No one uses insults (or analogies / metaphors) if he has good reasons. Let me suggest to look into Scott's persuasion filter and maybe use it as one of your filters to look at the world. You will see it explains and predicts a lot. For example just as Leo analyzed Trump's mind and politics and fit all of his variables to the current events, you can explain Leos behavior through the hypnotist's world view (= the persuasion filter). God, I wish Leo would reach out to Scott and have a discussion with him. It feels like it would be equally as entertaining, interesting and enlightening as Scott's debate with Sam Harris.