caelanb

As an adult, I would assume it's a little different than as it was when you were in your mid to late teens then. It's like playing the same game, but older?

Lol, I was terrible at this. Maybe it’s the reason why I have never had a girlfriend. Just gotta make sure they’re decent people though; they may be cute, but *ss holes (I’ve experienced this before). In university and college people tend to be less of a bully from my experience ( because they're mature enough to realize that being a bully or rude is not a respective/proper way of behaving and interacting with fellow students), so flirting would probably be easier.

@Carl-Richard Yeah, I know. I was just referring to what you said after I asked a few questions based on the two minutes of the video that I saw. Do you think leaving a comment on the video, trying to clear some things to the professor Dave audience would be a good idea? I feel like it could be beneficial, however it could also backfire due to what I would call (based on listening to Leo) an ego defence mechanism. Have you used this model a lot? Is it really useful or more of a hit or miss kind of thing? What kind of carcinogenic foods are you referring to? You wouldn't live very long if you ate carcinogenic foods everyday. I think that alcohol is only toxic if you drink it in excess. In moderation, based on my knowledge it can actually be beneficial. But there may be truth to it being toxic even in low amounts, this is because from my understanding your body digests it before all other forms of energy that you can digest. If the news is properly regulated to ensure what is being said is actually true, then there isn’t really much of an issue. However, it is good to get news from different places, as long as they are regulated. Well, I rely on science for example when it comes to my everyday life (vaccines, eating healthy, exercising), however, I do question deeper things in the domain of epistemology and metaphysics every once in a while. The latter being something that science would either deny as being useful, or something that it is not focused on. The difficulty for me when speaking about understanding, based on what Leo says, is that it seems almost impossible to truly understand, due to all the traps and deceptions that you find in this work. I guess it does resonate with me, because I understand certain things (not everything, some topics are a little too far out there for me) what he says to a certain extent in a logical way. I understand what he says about Quantum mechanics and mysticism. I don’t have a way to verify because I don’t have a lab or anything that I can do experiments which will validate what Leo is saying. And even if it was possible to validate it empirically without a lab, I’m not sure how to go about doing so. What do you mean by development? Being a decent human being that is able to provide for oneself and one's family, along with the resources that can be used to enjoy life apart from work? @JuliusCaesar You could always try to leave a comment on the video trying to clear up some misunderstandings. I am very much like him right now, however, I guess I am more minded (due to my lack of interest in learning about the technicalities of quantum mechanics as well as my lack of understanding), but still skeptical due to lack of evidence of a lot of these paranormal stuff. Especially when it comes to alternative healing modalities (may or may not be paranormal) of medicine for example. I think that they would be used in medicine if there was good evidence of their effectiveness, but from my knowledge there isn’t. Therefore in my mind I think of it as pseudoscience. If good evidence was found, then they would be adopted into medicine. I guess this method would be called evidence/fact based medicine. Which is why I am skeptical of the idea that new age doctors are more effective at healing people than a well respected evidence based doctor. A quick note about gravity, I watched a video a while ago saying that gravity was not actually a force (I didn’t know this). It only seems like one due to General Relativity. I see what you mean, but the epistemic issue with thinking that something that happens so is in fact true from a certain perspective is that you have to assume that the criteria by which you are measuring it is not biased in any way. This is the big problem with all judgments and interpretations that the human mind can, how the f*ck do you know to trust your direct experiment or any interpretations you make within it? It could be that you are actually wrong for thinking that gravity is real, but consciousness has made it nearly impossible to discover that. I can see that this leads me to saying that every interpretation and understanding could be false. For example, all these so-called enlightenment people could be deluding themselves by thinking that God they have personally experienced God is nothing or whatever they want to call it. When in reality, the world may actually be physical and material. Or Catholicism, Islam or Judaism is the ultimate religion. Essentially you can turn any statement you want on it’s head and make it true. How the f*ck do you know? That was long, I hope that made sense. Do you know of any way I could go about trying to experience these for myself? It could actually be an indication of me being a fool, and not intelligent, because there is no consistently good evidence that I have heard of, so being open minded to what is generally accepted as nonsense is actually a very sensible thing to do. I may actually be going into delusion and self deception in someone like Dr Fauci’s eyes and others as well for example.

@Mada_ I can probably find anti-inflammatory foods online. @Mada_ I've never heard of this kind of yoga, is it a type of yoga that helps to improve breathing or something? @Mada_ This one was recommended a lot, It should probably check it out then. I just hope it's not some fad thing that doesn't actually have any scientific evidence supporting its proposed benefits. @Michael569 Not really, my environmental is pretty clean, I don't live in a heavily populated area. If it was, other people would most likely be having the same problem, and my issue would have likely started way before it did. This I have not checked, but I doubt it. I live a relatively clean suburban area. @Nahm Do you mean the proof of my experience is not really communicable in text?

@Nahm And I'll know that it resonates with me when my runnyness/stuffiness response to stress goes away? By see it differently, do you mean look at it from a different perspective (thought wise)? If I do the latter, I am having issues seeing how that would actually solve the problem. This is because I don't feel like any method/techniques I know how to do/am able to do would go deep enough to solve the issue I am having (if that's the solution). The runny nose issue came about through what felt like a random uncontrollable event, and so I'm not sure if me trying consciously to think about it in a different way would help solve the issue. And even if I do successfully look at it differently in a meaningful way, it may not change, because the perspective that I am looking at the event through might not be what's triggering the problem. It could be something else. I'm just speculating at this point, but I feel my like my points are valid. This psychology stuff is annoying and complicated, lol. @Nahm I have no proof of it, I did not take a picture nor video of the event. I still have a memory of it, just like I have a memory of my last birthday. I also have a mark in my mind (I'll guess I can also describe it this way) about an event that took place many years ago. However, those two things that I just described are not material evidence, so you'd have to take my word for it. @LfcCharlie4 I guess I can try that, I've never heard of that book. I never thought that one could clear their own nose with breathing exercises, I thought you had to blow your nose or eat something really spicy for you to be able to clear it. I usually do breath trough my nose. My athletic performance is pretty good I would say, but there is always the possibility of improvement. I don't feel comfortable taping my nose at night. Plus, my mouth isn't usually dry when I wake up in the morning. I do clear my nose as much as I can whenever I blow it, but there is always still a little bit of plugging present. I've never used/heard of a saline spray, so I'd have to go check it out. I've never used an air purifier, nor do I no the technical details about what it actually does. No one smokes in my house, so I am lucky about that. Even if I did, from my experience, smokers tend to go outside to smoke. I have heard of Wim Hod and his method but I don't feel comfortable doing the method. This is because I'm not quite sure how my mind or body will respond it; I've seen videos of people going into pretty weird states while doing his breathing exercises (he was around to help these people though). I do take cold showers once a week, I take deep breaths when I step into the water if that counts for anything. So essentially, I don't do the Wim Hof method, but I take cold showers while breathing pretty deeply (for the first 30 or so seconds of being exposed to cold water). I did a 30 day cold shower challenge and I did not like it because it was very uncomfortable, so cold showers everyday is not my type of thing, at least not at the moment. Plus, it was in the middle of winter, so the cold winter made it even worse. I have no allergies from my knowledge, however, I do have digestive issues that I have been trying to deal with. It may be IBS, but whatever it is, the digestive issue doesn't seem to be correlated in any way to my nose plugging issue. My digestive issue is much more recent than the nose plugging issue. Even if my diet was the culprit, I'd have no idea how to go about cleaning it, because I consider my diet to be already pretty clean, however, there is some bias in that. I don't have access to a sauna or steam room, plus they're probably really expensive to go to. Do you have your own sauna? I have heard of positive health benefits of using saunas ( from Dr.Rhonda Patrick). Though, I don't know how much scientific evidence there is that validate the positive health benefits of a Sauna, or extreme temperature exposures. I also don't know how strong the evidence is that support the use of sauna.

@JuliusCaesar Thank you for watching part of the video. I didn’t expect you to micro analyze everything, but that was my fault for not being clearer. Overall, what I understand is that there are assumptions that Dave makes about what Leo’s quantum mechanics and mysticism video tries to make, which are not correct. Essentially, you are saying that there are things that he does not understand about what Leo is trying to point out in his video? About the psychic thing with you and your dad, I am very skeptical about the anecdotes you give/gave. I mainly attribute them to luck, not psychic abilities, but I do understand what you’re trying to say. I guess what you would consider psychic abilities is what I and people in general would consider luck.I feel like I am looking at these psychic phenomena from an objective sense due to me disregarding it because it has not been consistently shown to be true in many high quality studies. However, I would most likely think that there was something going on if I had those experiences myself. All in all, magic, physic abilities and the like are not something I would just believe were true with an anecdote or two, but I’m not completely closed to it. The materialist paradigm (as Leo calls it), which I am skeptical of as well to a minute degree, makes me lean towards the side of all psychic abilities being BS unless a set of criteria are met to prove them. But, I will admit that I would prefer them being real, it would make life a lot cooler, more mysterious, and make me feel like/confirm that I am not wasting my time when I listen to someone who talks about them. The stuff that Leo talks about is also more interesting because it feels less hard nosed than the atoms bouncing around in the universe governed by laws. I would also allow myself to arrogantly judge to myself that an academic scientist knows less than I do about what is actually going on in this universe, in an abstract metaphysical and conceptual sense that is. The latter could be my ego deluding itself a bit, but it’s something I think about if all this non-duality stuff is true. @Carl-Richard Construct awareness is an abstract concept that I have a vague understanding of, but I think I see your point. If the main problem is that Prof Dave is not construct aware. This could mean that Leo neglected mentioning and explaining the importance of construction awareness in the video. Mentioning construct-awareness based on my understanding of what you are saying would have likely helped Prof Dave to understand a little bit more about what Leo is talking about. Mind you, Leo may have spoken about it in the video, however, I don’t remember, I think I watched the video a few years ago, but I can’t recall Leo saying anything about construct awareness, he just quotes a bunch of scientists. Also, nice job if you were able to deconstruct the video without even watching it, basing your deconstruction on what I said from watching 2 minutes of it, lol. Honestly, I am split between the work being BS, and being legitimate. The radicality of what Leo speaks about makes it seem a little bit too out there for me. But on the other hand, a lot of the stuff he speaks about does seem to have a basis in science (from my limited understanding of quantum mechanics and mysticism). If what Leo is saying is true, I would just expect that what he speaks about would be more commonly accepted by society at large if it were true, but it is not, making it seem like there is some manipulation/deception in what he is saying, arising from the misinterpretation/misunderstanding of scientific discoveries, as I have said before.. I can usually wrap my mind around what he is saying after he explains it. But, I don't really know how to know if it resonates with me. If resonating with me means that I understand logically how reality is an illogical paradox, then sure, it does resonate with me to a certain extent. Some of the things that he talks about are just him explaining some concept/topic that most people would think of in a certain way (or see something being a certain way), and flipping it on its head. This creates a lot of confusion for me, but I usually understand it eventually. Leo just offers me a different way of looking at the world (e.g. everything being god itself, instead of physical matter). Which I guess I would have to verify for myself through the relativity esoteric methods @Nercohype The thing is that experiencing sounds relatively simple (not easy) but when he talks about the traps that one can fall into, then it makes it seem way more complicated. This is because you may feel like you’re going in the right direction because your life seems to be changing in a positive way (e.g. thinking positive thoughts), but in reality, you’re just deluding yourself and not going anywhere. Thank you for responding! I hope all that made sense:D

These kind of religious signs I would say.

@universe I remember watching a video from Charisma on Command that recommended doing this. The thing is I don't go to parties, I only really have family get-togethers, hang out with a couple friends once in a while, or text people. Plus, COVID makes it a little more challenging to go out to bars, clubs and the like. I also don't feel very comfortable going out to talk to people that I don't know, also partly due to COVID. Though, I am fully vaccinated. However, you're probably going to say that these are all just excuses, which I will agree with you, they are. But, I guess what I am trying to achieve/hoping I will eventually achieve with the help of Leo's video is, using exercises on my own in order to be more funny with other people. Meaning that I'll increase my humour just by doing sentence stringing exercises for example for 10 minutes a day for many months, which will increase my funniness muscle, without needing to talk to people daily in order to practise it. If my funniness is low, then watching comedy may make me laugh, but it most likely won't make me funnier, even if it gets me in a playful mood, because I'm not 'trained' (if you will) yet . However, I could be wrong, and it may work to certain degree. @Thought Art Personally I don't find that video very funny, if that's what it is trying to be. @flyingguitarist I guess that may work, however, I don't have any kids, child siblings, or cousins (well three, but in a different country), so I'd have to go to someplace where those individuals are present. However, I feel like it would be kinda weird to go to a place with children that I don't have any relation to, just to watch them go about their child like playful behaviours. Parents will be like, 'wtf is this man doing here, watching my child'. If that's what your proposing me do. @EmptyVase 95% ( rough estimate) of the random stuff I say is not funny, it just doesn't make any sense (the other 5% is kinda funny, if it makes sense to some degree). How do you visual being funny, when you aren't naturally funny? It's kinda like trying to look at a cell/the microscopic world, when you don't have a microscope. You have get a microscope somehow, by building it (in this context). I have an idea of where to find the parts, but I don't how the parts fit together, and even how to use it once I get it put together. @EmptyVase Maybe I'm using the advice the wrong way. I think I am assuming that if I use a system of rules for humour, it will help me to get to a point where I have a bit of humour, and help me go above that, but then I would probably have to modify the rules somehow, and eventually let go of them in order to be truly spontaneous (which seems like a pipe dream right now). @EmptyVase Yeah, I see how that is true from watching comedians and people that are great at sarcasm in interviews, talk shows, or if something unexpected happens in their comedy show (for comedians), very context dependent. @EmptyVaseThis issue will probably f*ck me up quite a bit. How can I be funny, when I am not funny? Lol. From watching Leo for a while, I would probably say that pretty much all paradoxes relate to infinity. @Nahm Do you mean be serious about becoming funny?

@flowboy I was about 19 years old, I don't know exactly though. I wouldn't say that I had no appetite, it's just that I was trying to deny it due to an ED, and thus, most of my thoughts and behaviours were focused on ignoring hunger signals and avoiding situations where it would be obvious to others that I was trying not to eat (thus leading to awkwardness). That's what I think I was doing. I did get hunger though, the hunger plus the punishments that would come along triggered me to eat. It was very twisted because when I started to eat, I put myself in the situations (as Nahm said) where I would have less time to eat (by delaying, and then that caused stressed, and then led to the weird experience I had. I don't have a very good understanding of psychosomatic stuff, but with a quick search, I feel like it would apply pretty well to my issue. I've never heard of Primal therapy, can't do Ayahuasca because it's illegal where I live (and I don't think I'm ready for, so I don't want to risk f*cking myself up). Do you mean body awareness meditation? Never heard of regression hypnosis. I do have a psychologist that I see every 2 weeks to 1 month, I have asked her about this, and she does not know what it is. We talk mostly about my low self-esteem, self consciousness and insecurity, the general negative thought patterns that most people develop through the twelve years of school. I'm not sure what you mean by a healer, seems like some woo woo thing to me, but I could be wrong again. @Nahm I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual smell. I don't really feel the love behind their actions, because I see it more as a reaction to the anger that arose in them when I didn't eat. And thus, it didn't seem like a correct long term solution to the issues I was having. but I didn't want to change it (and be more autonomous), because it was uncomfortable to change it, or at least that's what I remember it being. I've heard of a neti pot. I am also skeptical that feeling the apparent love that I wasn't seeing will help clear my nose, but it may work. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Neurology is only change'. I would say that a stressful experience happened years ago while I was eating, that now causes a physiological reaction to any stress that is experienced while I eat (which is normal now,but annoying). But you're saying that nothing happened years ago, I'm not sure what you mean by that. What do you mean by truth? What Leo calls absolute and relative truth, or something else?

@JuliusCaesar @The0Self @Carl-RichardI'm going to ask a question more related to the thread. What do you think about the video (one with Prof Dave in it)? Great, okay, bad, or terrible? I will be honest and say that I have not seen the video yet (only the first minute). There are two reasons for this. First, it's kinda long. Second and main reason, is that I am worried that if I watch the whole thing, I will be convinced/shown/revealed why I have been a fool for listening to Leo (or anyone that is not a real academic) about anything (that requires deep understanding) such as to the complexities of Quantum mechanics (or anything of the like) and how if it relates to mysticism. After all, there are a lot of accusation on the internet of Leo being a cult leader/brainwashing people, by using psychological techniques in order to achieve these means. And I don't want to be one who falls into what one of these outsiders/critics might call a "Leo trap". And, I am aware that I can't really know if it is the case or not, which makes it tricky and annoying (but it is the nature of this work as Leo says). We already spoke about the nuances of Quantum mechanics in this thread, but that does not mean I know to trust those who I conversed with, I feel like trusting an academic (which I think I have said before), is the best way to go, or at least is what I have been told is the best way to go. And I also see that all those that I conversed with are more or less saying the same thing that Leo says, which comes from what he calls direct experience and the like, so as Danioover9000 said near the beginning of the thread, asking questions about actualized critiques and warning against him creates an echo chamber where it is asked. Either way, I will still ask the questions assuming/hopping that you will be honest and hopping that you have watched the video (though you obviously don't need to). Thank you.

@JuliusCaesar What about the claims written in the bibles of different religions? Such as the claim that Jesus exists however long ago it was, and that he was the son of God. Most scientists or laymen would accept that as fact or fiction depending on their religion or lack there of. That claim would be impossible to verify, unless you were alive when Jesus was supposedly alive, and even if your were alive back then, how would you know he was the son of God. This and other similar claims from Christianity and other religions would be impossible to verify, because if you just go out in the world and try to look for evidence of Jesus having been alive you would most likely not find any. And so, would this fact be good enough evidence to disprove the previous claim? Or is a there an alternative woo woo way of verifying it? Meanwhile, going out and testing a scientific claim such as chlorophyll makes plants green, would be possible to validate, and thus a true statement. @The0Self That doesn't make any sense. Scientists know science, and if they know science, then by definition, there is someone knowing science, which is not the same as no one knowing science. But, if you throw away logic, then sure, whatever you said works, precisely because it doesn't work. But that is circular thinking, and that's not how this world actually works, because if it were, then weird sh*t would be happening in our day to day life that don't follow laws.

@Carl-Richard I guess that's understandable, if something does not seem to follow common sense at a subatomic level, then it would be challenging to reconcile how it affects large object that we think follow common sense. So, have we not been making progress in the connection of classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics without using mysticism? Maybe we have been, it's just very technical and mathematically complex. @Carl-Richard I am only partially denying that they were fans of mysticism, because there's a disconnect between what is said in the quotes and what modern physicists would say. If they were fans of mysticism then modern scientists would also be fans, because as long as the thought process behind them being fans makes sense according to what was understood and what is still understood about Quantum mechanics, there shouldn't be anything prevent a parallel. I also don't know much about the theory of relativity but from them small amount of reading I have done, that things can only be thought of as in relation to one another. @Carl-Richard I was saying that the average person does not a have proper education in physics, therefore, at a glance the average person would think of quantum mechanics as magical, because it makes no sense. Are you saying that even one who has a PhD in quantum theory/physics may not have the bigger picture understanding that the fathers of quantum mechanics actually had? Therefore, they are not able to see these relationships that are actually true between mysticism and Quantum mechanics, which I highly doubt, after all they have a PhDs, it means you have a great understanding of the subject. The equations and laws from the fathers should point them towards the same understanding/way of thinking that the fathers had. Or, it could be the case that what was known back in those days that seemed mystical, is no longer thought of as mystical, because we understand the mathematics/whatever was not well understood.

@JuliusCaesar Does this mean that to be able to say anything is true, you would have to validate it for yourself. And only after you confirm the results then you can say something is true. This would be in fact be doing science; taking scientific claim (what an authority figure says) and testing it for yourself (empirically validating it). Just believing it is true would be blind faith, which that is sufficient for most people, however different from religious faith, because you could go and test whatever claim is being made if you chose to. @Carl-Richard Makes sense, thank you for the explanation. But this does not mean that nothing is real. It just means everything is interconnected. Just because Quantum mechanic is confusing and hard to understand, does not make it mystical (which mysticism itself is hard to understand; magical). Because in reality, the actual mathematics behind make sense (but are complicated), or I'm assuming that they do I've never looked at them myself, because if they didn't, physicists would call it mystical as well, which they don't. It just seems magical from the laymen perspective because they do not have the proper education in physics to understand whats going in. Which those quotes themselves (maybe/maybe not including the one you just explained) very much make Quantum mechanics seem magical, and thus leading to pseudoscientific claims about Quantum mechanics and mysticism being in parallel, with one another.

@Blackhawk I understand that what is being said is obvious but what I'm trying to say is that if all those quotes are true, and to be taken metaphorically and literately as they are described, then the physics and scientists of today would not be saying that the world is made up of atoms. quarks, strings, and whatever else they discover, they would/should instead be saying that nothing exists without your perception of it (which may or may not mean that we are imagining a reality that we are experiencing, and may or may not come with some philosophical implications), if they don't, they are essentially being stupid and ignorant of the nature of the fundamental particles that make up the universe. And the fact that physicists and scientists (such as Dave here) say that connecting quantum physics to quantum mysticism, is BS, then gives you a clue that he/the rest of scientists are interpreting quantum mechanics in a way that may be being misinterpreted from the quotes themselves, but is actually what quantum mechanics is saying (because they understand it). For example, "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.", doesn't mean that particles don't exist, it just means that they are probabilities, and saying they don't exist is just an assumption/misinterpretation that quantum mystics make to try to say that reality is not real or whatever they want to say, but isn't what is being said. I hope that makes sense.

@Leo Gura Oh, well I would partially disagree with you, but since I have not done serious contemplation, my disagreements would probably be naive based on where you're coming from. @BlackhawkHave you ever wondered whether or not the fathers of Quantum mechanics actually meant their quotes to mean that the world is not physical? You may just be interpreting the quotes in that way. The fathers may not actually have thought the world was not really physical, the quote may just make it seem that way. Plus, if they were actually saying that the world was not physical, most physicist would have already accepted as common knowledge. Thus, it is most likely a miss interpretation of what the fathers were actually trying to say. @Carl-Richard I'm not exactly sure what that means. But from a search it said that all factual information can only be derived from ones sensory experience. Is that correct? @JuliusCaesar First of all,holy sh*t that's long, and second, I very much appreciate the thought. I understand what you're getting at with the Earth thing, but unfortunately I do not understand a lot of the terminology that you used to get there. I find it a little challenging to incorporate science and personal experience in order to discover what's true. Because in your case you said that you had to change location in order to test the theory, which is not always a simple thing to do. Which would mean to be the ultimate scientist you would have to go out and test every single scientific claim made. Which would be impossible to do. But hypothetically if you did, and you proved everything true for yourself (assuming you did every experiment correct and accurately), you would therefore be able to say that you do not believe every scientific claim is true, but know they are all true. I used to be completely closed minded to psychic powers and the like, but after watching enough of Leo I realize that cannot deny psychic powers to be true or false because I have not seen them, but it seems fairly unlikely. Most people would say it is not true, due to the fact that it is hard to test as well as the studies are not rigorous enough, and thus cannot be reliably shown to be true. In my point of view, the track did not have anything to do with the money you received, but I may be wrong. This because in order for something to be true it has to be consistently reproducible, as well as clear enough to be significant.

@Leo Gura What do you mean by factual. I'm a little confused, in your science video you said that facts are just imaginary. So, then the above quote is imaginary? What is the difference between a statement you say is factual vs a statement you say is not factual? Sounds like you are contradicting yourself with different statements that you make; 'so and so is factually true', and other times you say ' so and so is a belief'. I don't really understand. @Leo Gura Are you also saying that the 'Scientific Method, Data Presentation, Scientific Writing' Workshop I'm reading is full of philosophical assumptions that the scientists who wrote it take for granted?

@JuliusCaesar Well, dreams are way less vivid then real life. @JuliusCaesarI think I see what you're saying. We just have assume that the colour we see are the same. The light spectrum of physics has certainly worked however, because we all can only see the same colours within a certain wavelength range. And not the ones from outside that wavelength range, which we would no know about without physics. @JuliusCaesar Yeah, I get a little lost here. Thus just sounds like semantics to me. All I am aware of is that there is matter and energy and also could be dark matter, dark energy. Could the nothingness that you are speaking about be dark matter or energy? Because according to science, dark matter/energy (I'm not sure which one), has no features but seems to interact with matter in the universe. @Danioover9000 I'm a little confused with the first part of what you. But I'm guessing you're saying that addressing problems with someones worldview to those who have the same worldview ( as well as the person who is sharing that worldview) is just gonna lead to biased answers to the problems and criticisms of the worldview being asked about? I think I'm doing that subconsciously/unconsciously or consciously and just want the world view to be true or something so I go ask the person who is spreading it. Kinda like a religious follower going to ask people in that religion about criticisms of that religions and if they are true or not. I guess that leads me down the wrong road, because one thing I remember Leo saying (countless times) is what he is saying is not true unless you validate it for yourself. And so, I think my biggest barrier to validating this worldview is thinking that me contemplating something for example won't lead me anywhere because even if I did contemplate something for a while, how the f*ck would I know if what I'm doing is correctly being done (watched his contemplation video, and it still seems like such abstract thing that is hard to do properly)? It just seems like such an abstract thing that does not have anything to do with material world or would not have anything to do with the material world, because I'm it's just me thinking/pondering ideas, nothing concrete if you will. This applies for all the techniques that he has spoken about. How did you think about the video btw? I will admit it is a little confusing to take university science course while listening to videos about Leo deconstructing science. (obviously not at the same time). Leo: "All of science is horsesh*t" Prof: "And we know that this atom has 2 electrons in it because we have been able to measure it with this instrument..." Yeah, I don't have a life purpose lol, I'm just interesting in Biology so decided to go to Uni for it, and am hoping that I will stay interested in it so that it will make it simple enough for me get a career in some field within biology. I also don't have any of the material stuff going, if you consider material stuff to be my own independence as a human being (living without parents). And I don't have very many skills, if you consider that social skills, and marketable skills. In general I don't have any long term vision, if that's what you're saying, thus don't have a super clear path of where I'm going, but I have some form of direction. I guess I'm Just using or wasting (whatever word is more suitable) some of my time on a forum trying to convince people that there own worldview is wrong (when I have not deeply pondered it myself), and I am looking for other people not in the worldview to validate that worldview and say if is correct/logical/or scientific, because I don't want to be tricked into adopting one that is false. Because as I've learned, if you want to know if something is true or not, you test it in the world world with repeatability in a high quality study. Thank you, I hope that makes sense.

@Leo Gura Isn't that a judgment on science? all judgments of something shallow and biased in one form or another. Science is just learning about the world through the scientific method. Calling it stupid would be a projection upon it, correct? At least this is how it seems like. @Leo Gura But this can't be, because in New York (or whatever example you want to take), which is beyond my direct experience, there are people living there and experiencing it. I can call them on the phone or something and they will tell me "yes, New York is true, I am experiencing it right now". And when we meet in person not in New York, and they recall from memory what happened in New York, this shows that New York is real because they are recalling from memory the direct experiences of being in New York, they wouldn't just be imagining it because it happened to them. But, at the very least, those thoughts that one thinks are true, according to Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am", this statement aligns with my direct experience of thoughts. Also, you are God construction reality and everything is imagination is a larger assumption than the other way around, because, we are all in the same reality, it is not much different for everyone else around you (depending on where you are), therefore it is safer to say that reality is not imagination because it's more plausible. In other word, I'm just trying to say that you can turn that statement (you are God constructing reality) on it's head, and the opposite would be just as possible, and actually even more certain; believing that the reality that you see around you is true, is a way smaller assumption than believing that it could be just imagination, because the reality around you is tangible and material. But, after all, most people would say, if there is something beyond our perception of this reality here and now (assuming there is), there is no way to know. See what I mean? I hope that makes sense, That's one of my biggest objections. @Blackhawk There are probably some out there, in the field of quantum physics. And I guess science is hoping to eventually get there (for example we're getting quite close to understanding Black Holes according to the documentary 'Black Holes'), because that is the only way you can really understand the fabric of reality, is to break it down into the smallest pieces possible. There's an interesting YouTube channel called Quantum Gravity Research that seems to have good insights into this stuff. @RMQualtroughI see your point, but seems to break all laws, you're literately saying that everything comes from nothing. All matter according to science comes from the Big Bang (all the universe was condensed into a very small point in time space, I think that's what the Big Bang is), matter can't come from nothing, because matter cannot be created nor destroyed. How does it have anything to do with the Abrahamic forms of religion? I'm not very familiar with them. Thank you.

@Adamq8 I don't quite understand what you mean here. @TheLoneSage I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. @Blackhawk None of the articles worked. Are those all legit quotes, from real quantum physicists? If yes, then wouldn't showing them to a physics professor at some school prestigious or not, make their mind bobble? And also, if yes, why don't physicist that "well, reality isn't what we thought it was, it's not material at all". The only explanation I can think of is, that reality being non-physical is not what Quantum physics is saying, but it very much sounds like it is what Quantum physics is saying based on those quotes. Would that mean that the answer to the question; "If a tree falls and no one hears it (assuming no sentient beings are around), does it make a sound?" is no?. Most people would answer yes to that question. @SQAAD Who is William Craig? Is he saying that atheism is wrong or theism is wrong? @Nahm How does one grok quantum mechanics? And how would that lead to neither someone not quantum mechanics? Does the person just disappear or something? @WelcometoReality Well, you have to assume that reality is infinite in order to say, right? I mean the Universe itself is not infinite according to science (however is very large), it started off as a Big Bang and is expanding, and we can only predict what will happen ones it expands too its limits. @Leo Gura Have you seen any of his stuff? Why do you say this is the case? I mean, he does a Bachelor in Chemistry, so he must know something about science. Would he have to get a Phd in science for him to know more about what science is? And if he had one, for example, a Phd in theoretical physical (pretty much what the entire video is about), would that change how you think of him? Just curious. If all of reality were not real, then why is it so realistic and convincing? After all, in our everyday life, if you had to bet between reality being imaginary and not physical, or physical and material, most people would bet on the the physical and material because, it is certain and everything is more or less the same for everyone; everything abides by the same laws of physics and chemistry, and we all have the same elements of the periodic table that make up the world/universe we all live in (though we are discovering new ones). @Endangered-EGO Isn't he entitled to his own opinions? Thank you.

From what I have understood based on what I have been told, Spiritual insights are self-evident, at least in the moment they are. There aren't any questions about whether it was are was not, until after you experience them. And based on my interpretation of Leo's videos, as well as listening to Alan watts, those seem pretty accurate. But keep in mind I'm still a newbie when it comes to spiritual insights, plus I am still a little skeptical about them.

Thanks for the replies. @Username I have not noticed any changes in my air flow based on the options that you have mentioned. The airway seems to be predominantly effected by my stress level, however, those could be a possibility I guess. I also think that perhaps, the stress caused stuffy nose, could be triggering the mucus to be carried up by the cilia and hairs in my nasal passage. Because after I blow my nose it seems to clear up decently well. Guess I'll try a humidifier and see if it works. @LastThursday I have no experience with nasal spray, but it could be helpful, I'd have to find. @Thought Art 1. No 2. No 3. No But I may try, because of LastThursday's suggestion 4. No, but I have asked my doctor and she says she does not know. I don't know which type of specialist that could help with it, plus, specialists don't usually help you unless you have a serious issue which hinders your daily life. @Flowerfaeiry I consider myself to be a nose breather, I never really breath from my mouth unless I'm breathing hard, such as exercising. I go out for a walk around my neighbourhood for about 15-30 minutes. How do you breath fast without hyperventilating? What do you mean by: After blowing my nose, it gets quite clear, but my left nostril is usually the one to stay slightly plugged, even after blowing everything out. How long do you do these types of breathing techniques for? I don't know what mouth taping is. My stuffed plugged nose just makes it a little hard to breath through my nasal package, but not to the point were I cannot breath through it at least when I'm not doing activities which requires heavier breathing. @Leo Gura I mean it could be, but from my my experience it does not seem it be. Stress seems to be the main culprit, because, it was never an issue, until that day many years ago. My diet has changed slightly over he span of 3 ish years, but I have not noticed any correlation between my issue and my diet. Plus I consider myself to have a pretty clean diet, however, according to your video "How to shop for healthy food", not so. But in my opinion, a lot of the food that you exclude, are considered from my knowledge and what I have a heard from my dietitian are considered to be healthy. And cleaning them up, would be too restrictive. But I do agree with the limitations of highly processed foods and such. @Raptorsin7 I'm don't feel comfortable with unplugging my nose with psychedelics, plus I don't have easy access to them. I kind of due that while meditation, but I focus on my breath, while trying to allow the thoughts to pass, and not get to caught up in them. But I have not noticed any change in the plugging by doing this technique of meditation. However, I guess I could try to just sit with the sensation.

@Scholar I can grasp that, however, it's quite a twisted thing, requires you to go back and analyze your own experience. That the only place concepts can exist is in someones mind, there are no concepts out in the 'real world'. I've just had some conversations with friends and family about this, through asking the questions; "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears a sound, did it make a sound?" And they all said yes, because it makes sound waves (because all sound is is sound waves), and if you just go the next day, you would see the tree has fallen, therefore it must have made a sound, it's only that no one heard it; the regular scientific explanation. My friend told me a theory of how children's minds works, I don't remember what it's called, however. It says that if a kid sees a person for a moment, and then no longer sees them, the kid literately thinks the person has disappears and no exists because the person is no longer in view. But adults know that the person is still there, just no longer in the kid's perception. My brother said that it is obvious that the person is there just not in view, if you use science, you know that atoms cannot be created or, thus they are still there. But I guess the problem is that we do not realize that, our mind is working the same way as a child's is, we are just more deceptive. In that we think we know, but we are only assuming that the the person is still there, because we cannot prove to ourselves that the person is still there no matter what we do. I have been thinking about this stuff in the last few days and so I can sorta see, what you are saying. The thing that I am doing, however, which could be a problem, is trying to get other people to see this, by asking the tree question above, and they all use, the science, physics, and logic argument to give proof. As well as using the old "you're gonna use that philosophical argument (what if all of this is imaginary), to try to avoid the facts of science and the real world" to prove me wrong or something. Possibly the biggest problem for those people is that most people have got a paradigm lock, which makes them think that there is such thing as an outside world, and science and physics and whatever else. So yeah, idk what do to with these ideas, however, it's quite a big paradigm shift. I guess another big question would; Can anything exist without perception? Most people would say yes to that I'm assuming. If I really think about it, this honestly makes me feel a little uneasy, because how do I know anyone or anything is real if it/they are no in my perception? I would have to assume the world is physical, and that I am in it, not part of it. Thank you.

I just watched the 'What awakening feels like' video and am a little skeptical. This is because if you put someone having these awakening experiences under a brain scanner you would clearly see a change in the way the different areas of their brain light up, thus, telling you that person's conscious experience is changing. So, wouldn't that just mean that this progressive change in their conscious experience be caused by something this person did or something that this person consumed (such as psychedelics), which leads them to have different neuronal activation in their brain? After all, there have been studies that show that if you hit someone on the head or if someone receives a physical trauma to the brain, this can lead to brain injuries/damage, and in certain parts of the brain this could greatly impact there conscious experience to the point of making them disabled. Thus, leading to the conclusion that, it is the brain the creates one's perception, and any changes to it's neurology, will change ones conscious experience. Also, saying that you can only 'be it', and can not explain it in anyway, seems like a co-pout for having to prove that awakening isn't just a belief and is real. I mean, if this is true and as important as it is being claimed to be, it should be more mainstream; teaching it to people in universities and schools, and people shouldn't call those who speaks about it crazy, insane, or delusional, or unscientific because there is no proof anyone can give to show that it is true. However, if all this skepticism is BS, which I feel it is not, how am I able to have an awakening experience? I do 20 minutes of meditation everyday but honestly it does not feel like it's calming my mind down or helping at all (maybe I just suck at meditation), however, I did have one nice meditation session about 4 years ago (funny enough it was the only time I ever meditated with my mom who hates meditation). I have tried contemplation once, but I didn't get anywhere. So, I'm a little confused and skeptical I guess. Thank you.

Thanks for the replies. This is kinda is tough to really grasp, it's all very abstract as I said before. About the contemplation @Loving Radiance I have seen Leo's videos on contemplation a while ago. And, I in fact contemplated, anger once (excuse my bad writing plz): Keep in mind this was done a few years back when I had an eating disorder so, it's a little outdated. However, that was my first attempt at it, which I don't know if it is in the right direction or anything. I cannot deny that everything that I have ever experienced is in my subjective experience, but that is the same for everyone else too. But it's hard to come to the conclusion that I am imagining everyone else because, for them, I am not imagining them (they would be imagining me). So I guess I don't want to discriminate against any other experience, because that would offend someone else (their experience is as true as mine is). But then if their experience is imaginary for me and mine is imaginary for them, then who's is not imaginary. There would have to be an external world for both experiences to be real. If no sentient being were alive on Earth, no one would be experiences this Earth, so according to perception, it wouldn't exist. Isn't it possible to take 'landmarks' and put it on the territory, in order to explain it and understand it? The landmark is on the territory, you can dissect a chipmunk and put a stick in its brain to label it, and explain how it work and what it does, thus you are learning about the territory. Which from my knowledge, is what science does. @Nahm When it comes to feelings/emotions, I have experienced intense emotions of anger, frustration, guilt, pleasure, and all of the, you can call basic emotions. Which I do indeed feel in my body, I don't exactly if it covered the entirety of it, but the stronger it is, the more it seems to feel that it covered. I also did watch Leo's videos on an advanced explanation of Love, both parts. I can grasp how absolute love is loving everything without any condition, that makes sense to me. But he also says, from what I can recall is that feeling of love (the lower one if you will), the 'petty little human love' as he says, is not actual love, which I find kinda hard to understand, because that's the only love I have ever experienced (from what I am aware of; love for family, friends, pets and so on). So, yeah, I guess he makes a distinction between, Absolute love of everything regardless of anything (God as he calls is), vs the 'petty little human feeling' love that is very condition (which, I guess is the only one I have ever experienced, and anyone that I know has every experienced). The human feeling is just a feeling within the body that you can experience. If I go out and test all the scientific theories that I learned in HS for example, and find that they all a truth. Couldn't I say that those theories are true? Because I indeed tested them. @Scholar I am not skeptical enough? I do see your point, I think you're saying that you cannot use something within existence to prove existence itself (which is all you can do, however). You would have to use something out of existence to prove existence, which is impossible to do, unless you stop existing. But aren't concepts even pure existence because they are within existence itself? I guess this is the self reference issue. Essentially you would have to become to understand existence itself. But, do you have to take non-existence into consideration too? Even though it would also be impossible to do that, because nothing can be non-existing, because because it would literally be nothing. And so we have a non existence and an existence. What I just said probably didn't make any sense. I was just trying to understand lol. It's funny because I have just started a university Biology program (taking bio and chem), and all this deep philosophy stuff makes it all seem questionable, as though it is essentially a dream. I do find Biology fascinating, however, so I'll learn that, have to try to find a way to make sense of both at the same time, which would likely end in a paradox. What would be the point in trying to understand anything at all (even survival itself is apparently just a dream), would it not matter? How would it be for an atheist, materialism, rationalist, who even if you told them that 'this is a dream' and they respond with 'even if it is, so what?', would react/respond to some spontaneous awakening experience. I would assume they would say something like, 'oh, well I guess I was wrong, my bad', or would it be different? That's all I got, I hope that made sense.

@Loving Radiance Thank you very for effort trying to explain what seems like belief to me, but I guess until I do more introspection, I'll never be aware of it, if that's the right word to use. What you said sounds very much like semantics at this point. Leo, talks about contemplation, self-enquiry, and introspection from what I'm aware of, are all those pretty much the same? with slight differences? The big thing for when I meditate, is my mind going off and thinking random stuff, and I sometimes strain the muscles on my face in order to try to 'stop' the mind from going off, because it eventually gets bored. I'll try to start just notice myself getting distracted in thoughts, and calmly bring myself back. It's funny how if you ask a biologist, or physicist or scientist that studies the world, what they think about what you wrote, they would probably say, 'that's nonsense, BS and semantics to confuse people into thinking the real physical objective reality is not that', I know that's what my parents would say lol (they aren't actually scientists though. I forgot to say the body as being part of the self. So are you saying that, New York only exists if you have direct experience of it? Isn't it the case that New York and where am for example are both real, because the New York experience is experiencing New York, thus, it is within his or her experience. And with an aggregate of the different experiencers around the world, all those different parts of the world exists too? In in the middle of the desert where there is nobody, no experiencer is there to experience it, doesn't mean it isn't real though, their is just no one in that location to experience everything? I guess this is similar to the philosophical question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? So far, in my life, my experience tells me that feeling (emotional) is limited to sensations within the body, either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral that are triggered my biochemical mechanisms, sometimes triggered by the external environment or internal environment, such as thoughts. Or maybe only by thoughts, which are triggered by many different things. I have a wheel of emotions displaying a large variety of emotions on it, which even myself I have not experienced. There are also feelings the body, or you could say sensations, like getting hit by a tennis ball, will produce a sensation, which is triggered by the tennis ball, and a bunch of biochemical mechanisms that happen within the body allowing you to feel this ball hitting you. I hear Leo talking about love a lot, which he seems to interchange the emotions of love with Love (or infinity) as he like to call it. When he says love is not a human emotions, but maybe he refers to the Love (which I don't have experience of that, whatever it is), it kinda confuses me. He has also said that, for example love is necessary for human development, I'm assuming he means the love not Love, but idk, all seems like word games. @Mason Riggle Well, ever since I remember, reality is explainable, with laws and atoms, which I learned in science class, along with proof for it (in demonstrations), thus questioning it didn't and doesn't seem necessary, because it was already proven. I don't think I'm assuming it, because it has already been proven, with the uncountable amount of times scientists have used the scientific method on reality, in order to understand facts about it. From what I am aware of, the deepest science has gone into the 'rock bottom' is quark (or quarks, idk if it's plural or singular), and everything within the field of quantum mechanics, which is too complex for to understand. That is the limit of human knowledge from what I have been told. And if we discover something wrong about our system of investigation, then we change it, or we get another one. Consciousness is a little harder to study because it's more elusive, but that's what Cognitive Science is for; to understand the mind. Eventually we'll hopefully get to understanding reality. That's my view, which feels objective, because I or anyone that follows the proper method of investigation can test/reproduce them themselves, with chemistry, physics, or biology experiments. @Mason Riggle @Loving Radiance I guess the biggest thing for my right now is questioning reality, ever since I discovered Leo, and his enlightenment stuff, it made reality seem way more fantastical as Leo likes to say. And because I knew that we have not solved everything about reality (because we are still doing research in order to learn about it), It seemed quite appealing. So I am open to these new ideas if you will, however, personally have not had any direct experience of it all being a dream or illusion or imagination. The only thing I have experienced from what I remember (which could be completely wrong from what actually happened) is a moment of calmer mind during meditation along with what felt like a subtle expansion in my awareness. I am pretty sure this is accurate due to the fact that I remember feeling pretty good after the sessions was over (which it ended shortly after this). It could just be a calmer mind, however, allowing me to be more present with the sounds of what was happening around me, however, even thoughts themselves are in the present. I did do a little bit of what I think was contemplating about what is anger, but idk if I was actually contemplating or doing something that seemed like it. I'm just a little skeptical of this awakening, enlightenment, god stuff, because if am wrong, I would be a fool for thinking this is true, and would be considered deluded by others as well. At the end of the day, I'm thinking, but what if this is just non-sense and people trying to convince me of airy fairy things about reality, that don't have any factual evidence within reality. Thank you.