Thanatos13

It’s funny hearing you say that considering the amount of errors I find in your videos. I can post them anywhere else and people can see through them. You haven’t said anything nauanced or profound, at least what hasn’t been repeated over and over for hundreds of years. You haven’t studied epistemology or science as in depth as you claim for you don’t know how either work. Let alone skepticism. That whole “years of work” is just a cop out for when any philosophy 101 student can see the flaws. The length of the videos doesn’t make them deep or correct, just tedious (especially without a transcript). I doubt the existence of the Absolute and anyone who says they have. Because that’s what skeptics do, they doubt. But spirituality hides behind “ego” and “mind” to avoid giving an answer. Direct experience doesn’t affirm their case either. Plenty of people have had experiences that had alternate explanations. Im open to learning, but when the reason you have for knowing something is “because i just do” or “because I say so” then it’s belief. You cannot say all claims are ultimately groundless and then begin to make claims as though they were truth. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. So far Science has worked out rather well for me and my life and spirituality has done jack. But at least science has the honesty to admit it doesn’t have perfect knowledge and that it doesn’t know, Karl Popper knew that. It’s been wrong but also right at times. It’s not perfect but it works. That’s all I need to know. I have spoken to plenty of people who did psychedelics or claimed to experience “truth” and none of them have the ego or sense of certainty that you do. But I’m sure you still have your echo chamber to tell you you’re great. It’s laughable.

Or not. It’s funny how people assume that because an experience is powerful that it means anything. Human bias at work. You should know that meditation can cause mental scars for people, this sort of disproved that meditation is a total good. stating what you want in life does nothing, because there isn’t a guarantee you’ll get it. Even maintaining good health doesn’t mean you’ll not get a heart attack next day, or hit by a car. Sorry, but life is NEVER that simple

Apparently Pyrrho found success with that, allegedly. I also think you don’t understand what is being said.

Considering the different biological makeups of creatures it makes sense that each would see sensory data differently. But in the case of humans we have a shared understanding of what a “cat” is. All we have are the senses, and even those are flawed. Your first paragraph is exactly the reason I doubt enlightenment exists. “I can’t explain it or prove it, you’ll just have to see it yourself”. That’s the line for either the stupid or gullible. It’s used to avoid critical examination of our experience and wonder whether it was true or not. Time and again people have said “see for yourself” and time and again they don’t stand under questioning. The point of the skeptic is to question everything, which Leo fails to do. He seeks to use it solely to undermine science and materialism, but spirituality gets a free pass. Spiritual experiences don’t prove anything, they just reinforce preconceived notions. I call them drugs because that’s what they are, plus it’s easier to spell. Those don’t revel any truth or insight, people only think they do because the experience is so powerful. But since you are ingesting something that alters your senses from normal functioning it would be reasonable to assume it isn’t truth. It’s just a biological reaction to a foreign substance. But because it is so strong and powerful we assume it means something, which is jumping the gun.

I just looked at those sites, I question the legitimacy of some of those journals. Especially when a few studies show that social media is actually a good thing when you are actively participating in it and not just scrolling past the feed. Also it’s difficult to separate where it made them that way or if they were like that to begin with. A lot of it is linked to social media and not the internet in general, so you kind of lose there. The truth is that the effect of the internet has mixed studies on either side. Good effort though.

Existence is rather ordinary, why make it more than it is. Reality is not god, no matter how much you want it to be.

Then that’s not God, that’s reality. You aren’t “mind fucking” anyone. Being aware of existence is rather ordinary. This is a classic case of moving the goal posts. You change the definition of god to be so vague as to be meaningless, not to mention there is already a word for it. Am I a dream? Am I a figment? Do I exist? More importantly, does any of that matter? All these questions are pointless and are little more than mental masturbation. It’s making me consider Pyrrho to be right, that the way to tranquility is to suspend judgment on non evident matters and follow habit. And this forum is about as non evident as it gets.

Except there is no essential being. There is no “core”. But I guess now we are arguing about the definition of a self.

I don’t think life is a dream. But for what it’s worth, none of it matters. I think rick and Morty said it best: “nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everyone is gonna die. Come watch TV”. No matter what you decide to do it doesn’t matter. That the beauty and terror of the void of existence. Sure we can try to point to morality, spirituality, self help “gurus”, but all that is just kidding yourself. None of it truly matters. I laugh when people assume any kind of god, it’s like the last grasp for meaning and agency in a random universe. Dont assume any god, look what happened when Christianity tried to do it.

I don’t think you understand your own words. A cat is just a label we affix to a creature with certain characteristics. The same as an outer world, and the same with gravity. Gravity is something that is independent of us, but we just have a word to the phenomenon. Its rather safe to assume that these things exist outside of us, we just give them labels to facilitate ease of communication. They are in fact isolated things, whether or not we have a term for them. The “cat” does exist, whatever you decide to call that collection of sensory data does exist. What you decide to call it doesn’t change the fact that it does exist. If you call it a cat then it is a cat. I’m sorry but that would fall under “non evident” matters and judgment must be suspended, unless you aren’t a pyrrhonist. You haven’t proven that such a state exists. All psychedelics show is that they disrupt our senses. The same with any “spiritual experiences”, in this case enlightenment. All these states can be shown to be alteration of brain activity, but not evidence of any truth or insight about the nature of reality. If it were absolute then everyone would know it. But the more likely outcome is that meditation and drugs cause one to perceive such things, rather than such things being the truth of any thing. Kind of like optical illusions. The lines look curved but they aren’t. I’m willing to wager “enlightenment” is the same, an altered view of reality but not the truth. Just because it’s powerful doesn’t make it true, that’s a fallacy. When it comes to anyone spouting enlightenment and spirituality I take everything with a huge grain of salt.

I have given evidence, you seem to want to redefine what that self actually is. It’s not my fault you don’t accept that there is nothing in the corner of an “essential being”. He has proven that the self, as an independent entity, doesn’t exist. You clearly don’t know what we are talking about as this has nothing to do with the subject.

The self as an entity doesn’t exist. There is no I or little man or any permanent core that is you. They showed through the rubber hand illusion that you can be fooled into thinking a rubber glove is part of “you”. This shows that the self as an integrated and separate entity is false. Rather it is an experience, and ongoing phenomenon. http://www.beinghuman.org/article/interview-thomas-metzinger-what-self

It actually doesn’t exist. The self doesn’t exist. There is no entity behind the mask pulling strings. It’s just a collection of processes that we take to be some “one” because” that’s how it makes sense. Believing something exists doesn’t mean the same thing as it actually existing. There is no “I”, no entity behind the mask. Just a variety of brain activity.

You haven’t actually proven anyone wrong though. As I have said, the self isn’t a thing but a process. A process is not a thing. It’s a simple concept. Even an infant can see an action is not a thing. You are conflating the existence of the self as a thing with the scientific method as a process. It still doesn’t refute that the self doesn’t exist as a thing, something solid, but as a process. That’s why he calls it the phenomenal self. But even that doesn’t exist, but is rather an ongoing process. But processes aren’t things.

It’s not a misunderstanding, it’s an accurate assumption. His channel “helps” in the same way that religion helps people, it works as long as you don’t think too hard about it. His “in depth” videos are really just him drumming on the same point over and over without any proof behind them. He contradicts himself a lot. Bear in mind that many people peddle “self improvement” the only problem is that there is no quality control. I belief most cults start with a wise and charismatic leader promising something better. He “appears” to know what he’s talking about, which is easy to do (politicians) do it all the time. He clearly has something against science, which explains a lot since science asks for evidence of claims (something spirituality can’t give). Before you give him credit take note of the “disclaimer” saying that whatever happens as a result of listening to him is on you, not to mention every video has a link to where you can buy stuff. I mean, he has a video of him reviewing books and you can see it by paying? Why would I pay to see someone review books? What makes his opinion so special. His videos don’t help you see through the illusion, if there is one. They’re just trying to get you to buy his stuff. Whatever happens nexts isn’t his problem. That’s how the self help industry works. He’s just one of many. Saying there is an illusion and that he can help you see through is the oldest trick in the book (speaking of which he worked that he’s writing a book as well in the video). Not to mention self help is a bit of a misnomer, since if you are listening to someone else you aren’t helping yourself. Also we are stretching the definition of manipulation too much here, or “mistaking the map for the territory” as he likes to say. When it comes to what he says; what is good isn’t new and what is new isn’t good. People like him prey on those who don’t know better. It’s like Eckhart Tolle who for someone who claims to be enlightened, charges 150 for a ticket to his talks. That’s the issue with the internet, just because you can spread information faster doesn’t make it good. And because spirituality is such a vague topic, any one can use it for their own gains and dodge criticism.

You don’t understand what construct means in this sense. They refer to the self as more of an ongoing process, but it does not exist and never did. We just believe it does because it feels that way. So I guess the correct definition would be that the self doesn’t exist as a thing. It’s a process, a “transparent self model” as he puts it. Like a window you can see out of but you can’t see the window. I spoke with him about. Susan Blackmore is another who has done work on the matter, but there seems to be strong evidence to support that it does not exist.

Because we can “prove it”, just ask Thomas Metzinger

Actually you got it wrong. Life is suffering but what he meant by exiting the cycle of suffering (in this case rebirth) is to become enlightened and then when you die you aren’t reborn again. Of course this assumes that rebirth is an actual phenomenon and not just something they made up to keep people from escaping through suicide. Second, any claims of joy after enlightenment is pure speculation. We are assuming a state exists and that they reached it and didn’t just stop at something that felt good. There is something to be said about enlightenment being detachment, the only way to be happy is to ignore the hard reality we live in. While Buddha did say there is a “way out” there isn’t evidence that it’s the case. Ultimately the claims and argument of enlightenment boil down to “because I said so” and that just doesn’t fly. I can say that existence isn’t a joy after enlightenment after speaking with others who claim to reach it. Finallt Leo isn’t worth asking jack about. Ever since I saw his view on skepticism his credibility took a nose dive. Not only did he butcher pyrrhonism but selectively applies it to things that contradict him. Reading books by zen practitioners or Osho don’t prove anything, all you are getting is their view on life.

It’s not my “wiring” (which there isn’t much evidence to suggest people are hard wired) has nothing to do with it. It’s not my fault that people don’t want to accept reality. You had an “experience” but there isn’t anything to suggest it was egolessness. People use that line to validate all sorts of beliefs that don’t survive repeated tests. I’m going to stop you there and say that none of that is true. Even if it were, it doesn’t make any sense. Why bother with human existence? What is preventing a spirit from just moving on? Isn’t “deciding” to come here a move by the ego? So then the ego isn’t lost when you leave but still remains. Perhaps the “transcendence” of the ego is an illusion of the mind. There is literally no sense to any of that if it were true. Thankfully it isn’t.

Assuming such a state like ego-lessness exists. Except there really isn’t a point to carrying on. Everything ends the same way ultimately.

I’m fairly certain that the Buddha realized that existence isn’t a joy, because the whole point of the Buddhist philosophy is to not be reborn into the cycle again. Existence was general viewed as undesirable. I’m also kind of certain he might have been a bit deluded. No such thing as divine consciousness, no such thing as complete selflessness, we are dead anyway when the environment collapses, plenty of people are happy being “selfish”, there is no god. Its like people don’t read the question.

That is of course assuming that there is any motivation at all and not simply a program or script being played out.

I didn’t say being selfish is wrong, as I said if the end result is good then who cares about motivation. Its like people who argue about transcending emotions to see clearly, but the fact is that such a thing is rooted in emotion. It’s also funny how Leo refers to it as evil, or deceit, which is throwing out all the nuance and complexity behind our motivations and the mind. By default our brains construct reality based on our senses, when we see isn’t objective reality. But I would hardly call that deception. It takes a little more than “because I say so” to make me fall for anything he says.

Because it does. The only reason I haven’t gone through with it is that the biological programming to survive is rather strong and difficult to overcome. You haven’t given evidence to refute my position. You’re going to have to give evidence for that “born and manifest” nonsense (and yes I am calling it nonsense). The self is a construct of the mind (and likely the brain) to make sense and navigate the world around us.

I know that my motivations for others are not selfless, but in my view if the end result is good then does it really matter? Even if my motivation is just the joy I get from seeing others have fun. Not selfless, but not a bad thing. I operate under the assumption that we do the best we can with what we have, and to be wary of anyone claiming capital T truth or a cure all. We are but foolish humans doing foolish things and fumbling through existence.