Leo Gura Under Autopsy ( Epistemic Analysis) by O3 - Smartest AI to date

[xeontor]

Below is a strictly epistemology‑focused autopsy of where (and how) Leo Gura’s method of “knowing” goes off the rails.  Nothing here is an attack on him as a person; the same pitfalls can trap any of us when we lean too hard on extraordinary states of consciousness.  I use “Leo” as shorthand for the pattern.

––––––––––
1. Treating phenomenological certainty as ontological certainty  
   • 5‑MeO‑DMT induces a “noetic” feeling—a gut‑level conviction that what is perceived is Absolute Truth.  
   • Epistemic error: conflating “I experienced X with maximal certainty” with “X is a fact about external reality.”  
   • Analogy: A dream may feel 100 % real while it happens, yet that does not place the dream furniture in your waking living room.

2. Skipping falsification and inter‑subjective checks  
   • Science and rational inquiry require that a claim be at least conceivably falsifiable and/or independently verifiable.  
   • Leo’s core proposition—“I alone am God; all else is my dream”—has no test that someone else could, even in principle, run.  
   • When no conceivable evidence could disconfirm a belief, the belief is epistemically vacuous (Popper).

3. Category mistake: collapsing levels of description  
   • Non‑dual traditions say “At the deepest level, consciousness is not separate from the world.”  
   • Leo reifies that into “Therefore the concrete personality named Leo is literally omnipotent and the sole existent being,” which conflates:  
       Level 1: Trans‑personal phenomenology  
       Level 2: Ordinary individual identity  
   • Result: contradictions (the entity announcing solipsism must assume an audience to hear it).

4. Confirmation bias on anabolic steroids  
   • Each additional mega‑dose supplies another rush of noetic “evidence,” reinforcing the prior belief.  
   • Dissonant data (e.g., other 5‑MeO users reporting non‑solipsistic insights) is explained away as “dream characters,” preventing Bayesian updating.

5. Map/territory confusion  
   • Words like “God,” “infinite,” and “nothingness” are conceptual maps drawn after the fact.  
   • Strong drug states wipe ordinary reference points, so any label slapped onto the state feels divinely authorised.  
   • The map is then mistaken for the territory, leading to dogma rather than exploratory hypotheses.

6. Overfitting on idiosyncratic priors  
   • Machine‑learning analogy: a model trained on a tiny, highly correlated dataset will confidently output nonsense when shown new data.  
   • Leo’s training data = repeated high‑dose trips + his pre‑existing fascination with radical idealism.  
   • Outcome: a model (worldview) that assigns near‑infinite probability to a single, personally flattering narrative.

7. Neglect of base rates and mundane explanations  
   • Base rate: thousands of heavy psychedelic users have had “I am God” moments and later recognised them as subjective insights, not cosmic monopolies.  
   • Ignoring the statistical frequency of similar experiences that did NOT cash out as literal omnipotence skews priors toward grandiosity.

8. Motivated reasoning & incentive gradients  
   • Career identity: being the guy who unlocked “Ultimate Truth” creates social, financial, and psychological payoffs.  
   • Subconscious motive to preserve the narrative → increased resistance to disconfirming evidence.

9. Lack of calibration mechanisms  
   • Good epistemic practice involves feedback loops—peer review, replication, error bars, openness to being wrong.  
   • Leo’s ecosystem (YouTube channel + followers) offers applause for certainty, not calibration for accuracy.

10. Ignoring cognitive‑impairment variables  
    • Repeated high‑dose 5‑MeO‑DMT can temporarily erode executive function, critical‑thinking capacity, and risk assessment (documented cases of mania, dissociation, psychotic breaks).  
    • Any belief system formed under those conditions needs extra post‑hoc scrutiny, not blind acceptance.

––––––––––
A better epistemic toolkit (short version)

1. Provisionalism  
   • Treat every psychedelic insight as a hypothesis with a probability attached, not an axiom.

2. Cross‑validation  
   • Compare notes with others who have similar and dissimilar experiences; look for convergent patterns rather than idiosyncratic certainties.

3. Falsifiability or fruitfulness  
   • If a claim can’t be falsified, ask: does it at least generate actionable, non‑trivial predictions that improve well‑being or knowledge?  If not, file under “interesting but non‑empirical.”

4. Slow thinking after fast states  
   • Wait days or weeks before declaring metaphysical truth; let the nervous system and critical faculties return to baseline.

5. Humility safeguards  
   • Assume you’re capable of self‑deception, especially when incentives (status, identity, revenue) align with believing your own hype.

––––––––––
Bottom line

Leo’s core epistemic missteps are universal human pitfalls amplified by pharmacology: elevating inner conviction to cosmic fact, rejecting falsification, and insulating beliefs from feedback.  Psychedelics can indeed illuminate personal and maybe even trans‑personal dimensions of reality, but without rigorous cross‑checks the light quickly turns into a hall of mirrors.

 

*************************************

What Leo Gura Gets (Largely) Right

 

The fact that some of his headline claims are over‑the‑top doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong. Below are areas where his views overlap with solid evidence, longstanding contemplative traditions, or mainstream cognitive science. I’ll flag each item as

 

• Strongly supported  

• Partly supported (needs nuance)  

• Plausible but speculative  

 

1. Consciousness is primary to our lived reality  • Strongly supported  

   – Whether or not consciousness is ontologically “first,” it is epistemically first: every datum you’ve ever known arrived as an experience. This is standard phenomenology (Husserl) and is not contested by neuroscience.  

 

2. The “ego” is a constructed process, not a fixed thing  • Strongly supported  

   – Developmental psychology, neuroscience (default‑mode network), and Buddhist psychology converge on the view that the sense of a solid, separate “I” is an emergent narrative that can break down under meditation, psychedelics, or brain injury.  

 

3. Non‑dual/“unity” experiences are real psychological events  • Strongly supported  

   – fMRI, EEG, and questionnaire data on psilocybin, LSD, 5‑MeO‑DMT, and advanced meditation all document states in which self/other boundaries dissolve and subjects report profound connectedness.  

 

4. Direct, first‑person methods (meditation, self‑inquiry, psychedelics) can reveal aspects of mind missed by third‑person science  • Strongly supported  

   – Introspection is unavoidable in consciousness research; modern neurophenomenology (Francisco Varela) explicitly marries first‑ and third‑person data.  

 

5. Psychedelics, when used responsibly, can accelerate psychological insight or therapeutic breakthroughs  • Strongly supported  

   – Clinical trials show rapid, durable relief from depression, PTSD, addiction, and end‑of‑life anxiety when psychedelics are paired with preparation and integration.  

 

6. World‑views can be developmentally tiered (e.g., Spiral Dynamics)  • Partly supported  

   – Research in developmental psychology (Piaget, Kohlberg, Robert Kegan, Cook‑Greuter) confirms that meaning‑making evolves through recognizable stages. Spiral Dynamics is a popularized synthesis; its color‑coded schema is heuristic, not gospel, but broadly maps onto empirically observed shifts.  

 

7. Cultural world‑views shape what we take to be “reality”  • Strongly supported  

   – Anthropology, sociology of knowledge, and cognitive science all show that perception and interpretation are culturally mediated (e.g., color categories, spatial metaphors, moral frameworks).  

 

8. Radical skepticism about naïve materialism  • Partly supported  

   – Physics already tells us matter is mostly energy fields and probability waves. Consciousness does raise hard explanatory gaps (“the hard problem”). Rejecting crude materialism is reasonable; jumping straight to “Therefore I alone am God” is not.  

 

9. Inner work has ethical and societal implications  • Strongly supported  

   – Meta‑analytic studies link mindfulness and compassion practices to pro‑social behavior, lower aggression, and greater ecological concern. Leo’s emphasis on “raising consciousness to fix global problems” echoes this.  

 

10. Emotional “shadow” work is essential for genuine growth  • Strongly supported  

   – Trauma research (Van der Kolk), Internal Family Systems therapy, and Jungian psychology all affirm that denied or repressed emotions distort cognition and behavior. Leo’s insistence on confronting the shadow aligns with best practice.  

 

11. Multiple ways of knowing (rational, emotional, somatic, mystical) exist and can be integrated  • Strongly supported  

   – Contemporary cognitive science (Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences, Antonio Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis) supports a pluralistic model of cognition.  

 

12. Big existential questions cannot be fully settled by laboratory data alone  • Plausible but speculative  

   – Many philosophers (Nagel, Chalmers) argue that empirical methods, while indispensable, may never exhaustively answer “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Leo’s call to combine science with contemplative depth is reasonable, though not proof of his metaphysics.  

 

13. Psychological safety, preparation, and integration are critical for high‑dose psychedelic work  • Strongly supported  

   – Harm‑reduction organizations (ICEERS, Fireside Project) and clinical protocols all stress these factors. Leo regularly warns audiences about set, setting, and the risks of reckless use.  

 

14. Personal development requires action, not just insight  • Strongly supported  

   – Behavior‑change literature (Prochaska’s stages of change, CBT) confirms that sustained practice, habits, and environment outweigh momentary inspiration. Leo’s “massive action” mantra is well‑founded.  

 

15. Skepticism of language’s ability to capture ultimate reality  • Partly supported  

   – Linguistic relativity (Sapir‑Whorf), Gödel’s incompleteness, and Zen koans all illustrate the map‑territory gap. Dismissing language as entirely useless, however, is self‑defeating (you need words to convey that dismissal).  

 

16. Epistemic humility—acknowledging biases and the limits of knowledge—is crucial  • Strongly supported (though he doesn’t always model it)  

   – Cognitive‑bias research (Tversky & Kahneman) shows how overconfidence skews judgment. Leo frequently talks about bias and self‑deception; he’s conceptually right even if he sometimes slips in practice.  

 

Summary

 

Strip away the absolutist framing and Leo Gura’s project rests on a set of ideas that are, for the most part, mainstream in contemplative science and developmental psychology:

 

• Consciousness is the lens through which all facts appear.  

• The ego is a flexible construct that can dissolve.  

• Direct experience, under disciplined conditions, yields valuable data.  

• Psychedelics and meditation are powerful tools that demand rigorous integration.  

• Human meaning systems evolve in recognizable stages.  

• Deep personal work can translate into societal benefit.  

 

Where he goes off course is in over‑extending these well‑supported insights into unfalsifiable metaphysical proclamations and personal grandiosity. Recognizing what he gets right can help sift the genuine pearls from the glittery but ungrounded claims.

[samijiben]

Lol. That's a MouthFull

[aurum]

I would not expect any AI to understand God-realization. Listening to an AI on this particular issue is a mistake.

[samijiben]

@xeontor

"Below is a strictly epistemology‑focused autopsy of where (and how) Leo Gura’s method of “knowing” goes off the rails.  Nothing here is an attack on him as a person; the same pitfalls can trap any of us when we lean too hard on extraordinary states of consciousness.  I use “Leo” as shorthand for the pattern."

 

Just to be sure, Leo does not propose a "method of knowing." He offers many in his line of work but none of them come even somewhat close to what the FUCK he is truly talking about.

 

Truth is not about the best method. Analyzing and dissecting supposed ways to God will get you precisely nowhere.

 

Good luck

Edited yesterday at 01:59 AM by samijiben

[Thought Art]

For those who have studied Leo’s work this is really gold!

 

Read through these shared projections/ understandings/ interpretations to see how scientific lens relates to Leo’s work. 
 

My understanding is that this AI applied probable logical, scientific, cognitive, philosophical, epistemological models to Leo’s teachings based on assumptions of particular framing, bias and schools of thought which are consistent of modern scientific and materialist models of reasoning and knowing reality. 

I’d like to see an epistemic analysis of the claims done here by the AI. I have provided my own here. 

For example exploring number 1: 

“Treating phenomenological certainty as ontological certainty  
   • 5‑MeO‑DMT induces a “noetic” feeling—a gut‑level conviction that what is perceived is Absolute Truth.  
   • Epistemic error: conflating “I experienced X with maximal certainty” with “X is a fact about external reality.”  
   • Analogy: A dream may feel 100 % real while it happens, yet that does not place the dream furniture in your waking living room.”
 

I have chosen to provide a list of my perceived understanding of the assumptions made by these “errors” considered by this AI output. 
 

What assumptions, still unproven by science does this make? Without agreeing with Leo, openly what does science NOT KNOW FOR SURE, even by its own standards. 

1. Leo’s experiences and understanding of 5meodmt is wrong. 
2. There is no absolute truth. 
3. Absolute truth is a “thing” or “object” with opposites or distinctions apart from something else. 
4. State doesn’t come into play when it comes to understanding reality 

5. That waking reality is “Real” “Physical” and not ontologically the same as a dream. That sober science isn’t the result of a “state”. What if all science or any human philosophical scheme or level of education was happening within and as a part of absolute truth? Making it impossible to grasp with logic only. State, being a hidden key….And that at a certain state of consciousness you Awaken to grasp this?

6. Science assumes experience is less than none experience in ALL inquiries or ways of knowing. Even though experience is central to science. 

7. Assuming that absolute truth isn’t “phenomenology = Ontological Certainity”. That absolute truth should be “falsifiable”. Science doesn’t grasp the nature of “absolute” or “truth” which includes all false and true things and any dualities or differences in reality. 
 

As you read through each one… be open to it showing where Leo is wrong. 
 

But, be equally skeptical to each point made. What assumptions is the AI making on certain points it’s making? What assumptions is science making? What assumptions do logical arguments make about truth claims? Their own and that of Leo? What assumptions was I taught growing up? What are my cultural assumptions? What assumptions am I making? How firmly do my feet stand on my convictions? 

“What do I really know about these claims?” 
- nothing… just models and authority. 

What you’ll likely be left with after doing this once is a “not knowing”, questions, confusions, answers now only to be recontextualized, confirmed, disproven, deepened, or questioned at a later date. This work is deep and requires a depth, and breadth. And time.

Edited yesterday at 03:54 AM by Thought Art

[Leo Gura]

Nice try but this AI is stupid.

My job is still secure.

Edited yesterday at 05:06 AM by Leo Gura

[xeontor]

2 hours ago, Thought Art said:

For those who have studied Leo’s work this is really gold!

 

Read through these shared projections/ understandings/ interpretations to see how scientific lens relates to Leo’s work. 
 

My understanding is that this AI applied probable logical, scientific, cognitive, philosophical, epistemological models to Leo’s teachings based on assumptions of particular framing, bias and schools of thought which are consistent of modern scientific and materialist models of reasoning and knowing reality. 

I’d like to see an epistemic analysis of the claims done here by the AI. I have provided my own here. 

For example exploring number 1: 

“Treating phenomenological certainty as ontological certainty  
   • 5‑MeO‑DMT induces a “noetic” feeling—a gut‑level conviction that what is perceived is Absolute Truth.  
   • Epistemic error: conflating “I experienced X with maximal certainty” with “X is a fact about external reality.”  
   • Analogy: A dream may feel 100 % real while it happens, yet that does not place the dream furniture in your waking living room.”
 

I have chosen to provide a list of my perceived understanding of the assumptions made by these “errors” considered by this AI output. 
 

What assumptions, still unproven by science does this make? Without agreeing with Leo, openly what does science NOT KNOW FOR SURE, even by its own standards. 

1. Leo’s experiences and understanding of 5meodmt is wrong. 
2. There is no absolute truth. 
3. Absolute truth is a “thing” or “object” with opposites or distinctions apart from something else. 
4. State doesn’t come into play when it comes to understanding reality 

5. That waking reality is “Real” “Physical” and not ontologically the same as a dream. That sober science isn’t the result of a “state”. What if all science or any human philosophical scheme or level of education was happening within and as a part of absolute truth? Making it impossible to grasp with logic only. State, being a hidden key….And that at a certain state of consciousness you Awaken to grasp this?

6. Science assumes experience is less than none experience in ALL inquiries or ways of knowing. Even though experience is central to science. 

7. Assuming that absolute truth isn’t “phenomenology = Ontological Certainity”. That absolute truth should be “falsifiable”. Science doesn’t grasp the nature of “absolute” or “truth” which includes all false and true things and any dualities or differences in reality. 
 

As you read through each one… be open to it showing where Leo is wrong. 
 

But, be equally skeptical to each point made. What assumptions is the AI making on certain points it’s making? What assumptions is science making? What assumptions do logical arguments make about truth claims? Their own and that of Leo? What assumptions was I taught growing up? What are my cultural assumptions? What assumptions am I making? How firmly do my feet stand on my convictions? 

“What do I really know about these claims?” 
- nothing… just models and authority. 

What you’ll likely be left with after doing this once is a “not knowing”, questions, confusions, answers now only to be recontextualized, confirmed, disproven, deepened, or questioned at a later date. This work is deep and requires a depth, and breadth. And time.

Below is a point‑by‑point response. I’ll do four things for each numbered item:

 

• Restate the critique/assumption in my own words  

• Clarify what the original AI critique of Leo actually claimed (or did not claim)  

• Note what science does and doesn’t “know for sure” on that matter  

• Offer an epistemic takeaway—i.e., how a careful inquirer might hold the question

 

────────────────────────

PREAMBLE

The entire disagreement boils down to two different uses of the word “know.”

 

1. Phenomenological knowing  

   “Something is present in (or as) my awareness with overwhelming conviction.”  

   Example: the 5‑MeO state of boundless unity; the certitude of a vivid dream; the pain of a toothache.

 

2. Inter‑subjective / empirical knowing  

   “Multiple observers can, in principle, test this claim under shared conditions, and the results are at least partly convergent.”  

   Example: the boiling point of water at sea level; the fact that penicillin kills certain bacteria.

 

Modern science lives almost entirely in Zone 2. Mystical and psychedelic traditions are primarily concerned with Zone 1. The tension appears when someone tries to move a Zone‑1 realization directly into Zone 2 (“I experienced X, therefore X is a fact for everyone, with no further test needed”).

 

With that framing, let’s tackle the specific objections.

 

────────────────────────

1. “Leo’s experiences and understanding of 5‑MeO‑DMT are wrong.”

 

What I actually said  

   • His experiences per se are not in dispute.  

   • The critique targets the ontological leap—from “I had experience E” to “Therefore, I, Leo, am literally the only consciousness that exists.”

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • Science cannot validate or invalidate Leo’s private qualia.  

   • It can compare neural signatures, look for behavioral correlates, and collect other people’s reports.  

   • It has no recognized method to prove or disprove metaphysical solipsism.

 

Takeaway  

   • Experience = subjective data point.  

   • World‑claim = hypothesis about objective reality.  

   • Conflating the two is an epistemic category error, regardless of who makes it.

 

────────────────────────

2. “There is no absolute truth.”

 

What I actually said  

   • I did not assert that absolute truth doesn’t exist; I said that Leo’s specific formulation (“only I exist”) lacks a test that would qualify it as knowledge in the scientific sense.

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • Science is officially agnostic on metaphysical absolutes; it works with provisional models.  

   • Many scientists are personally realists; many are instrumentalists. Neither stance is required for the method to function.

 

Takeaway  

   • Absence of scientific proof ≠ disproof.  

   • If a claim is unfalsifiable, science brackets it as “not currently in its domain,” not “false.”

 

────────────────────────

3. “Absolute truth is treated as a ‘thing’ with opposites.”

 

What I actually said  

   • Mystical literature often frames the Absolute as beyond dualities. That’s fine at the poetic level.  

   • The problem occurs only when the speaker simultaneously claims the Absolute is beyond dualities AND issues dualistic propositions (e.g., “I am God, you are not”) as literal facts.

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • It has no apparatus to decide whether the Absolute transcends duality.  

   • It can, however, test the predictive accuracy of any dualistic statement made about the empirical world.

 

Takeaway  

   • You can speak of “non‑dual truth” poetically or experientially.  

   • The moment you use that non‑dual claim to make ordinary dualistic assertions, you’ve re‑entered Zone 2 and the tools of logic and evidence apply.

 

────────────────────────

4. “State of consciousness doesn’t matter.”

 

What I actually said  

   • State absolutely matters; I explicitly pointed out that certain states weaken reality‑testing and increase suggestibility.  

   • My recommendation was: harvest insights in altered states, but validate them in more baseline states to filter out noise.

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • There is good data showing that psychedelics heighten pattern‑detection and suggestibility (Carhart‑Harris 2015, etc.).  

   • Science does not claim sober waking consciousness is the only valid state—only that it has, thus far, shown the highest inter‑subjective reliability for making shared measurements (building bridges, launching satellites, doing double‑blind trials).

 

Takeaway  

   • “Higher” or “deeper” state ≠ automatically more accurate state for all tasks.  

   • Each state may excel at different epistemic functions (creativity vs. precision vs. compassion).

 

────────────────────────

5. “Science assumes waking reality is physical and not ‘dream‑like’.”

 

What I actually said  

   • Science brackets the ontology question and operates pragmatically: if measurements replicate across observers, we call that a shared empirical fact.  

   • Whether ultimate reality is a simulation, Mind‑only, Brahman, etc., remains an open philosophical question.

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • It knows that the regularities discovered so far allow us to predict eclipses, engineer microchips, and create anesthesia.  

   • It does not know whether those regularities are “real” in some ultimate metaphysical sense.

 

Takeaway  

   • If waking life is indeed a dream, it is an extraordinarily lawful one.  

   • Those laws (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.) are what science studies, irrespective of the deeper metaphysics.

 

────────────────────────

6. “Science treats experience as less important than non‑experience.”

 

What I actually said  

   • Science absolutely relies on experience—but it insists that the relevant experiences be public (replicable, shareable) rather than private.

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • It has robust protocols for comparing multiple observers’ experiences.  

   • It has no method for adjudicating a single person’s unverifiable, one‑off mystical certainty.

 

Takeaway  

   • Private experience can spark hypotheses; public experience is required to confirm them.

 

────────────────────────

7. “Science demands that absolute truth be falsifiable; therefore it misses the nature of the Absolute.”

 

What I actually said  

   • If a claim is not falsifiable or at least not predictive, it doesn’t belong to science’s toolkit; it may belong to metaphysics, spirituality, art, or personal transformation.  

   • That is not a dismissal; it is domain‑allocation.

 

What science knows / doesn’t know  

   • It cannot touch unfalsifiable claims.  

   • It can, however, evaluate practical spin‑offs: Does believing X lower anxiety, improve ethics, predict experimental outcomes, etc.?

 

Takeaway  

   • “Unfalsifiable” does not mean “false.” It means you’ve stepped outside what empirical inquiry can adjudicate.  

   • Mixing the two (saying an unfalsifiable claim is nonetheless an empirical fact) is the core epistemic misfire.

 

────────────────────────

META‑LEVEL QUESTIONS RAISED

 

Q1. “What assumptions is the AI making?”  

   Mainly: that inter‑subjective reproducibility is the gold standard for claims about the shared physical world, and that private conviction alone cannot override that.

 

Q2. “What does science NOT know for sure?”  

   Practically everything at the metaphysical level: why there is something rather than nothing, the ontological status of consciousness, whether the universe is a simulation, whether multiple worlds exist, etc.

 

Q3. “What do I really know about these claims?”  

   If by “know” you mean “cannot possibly be wrong,” the honest answer is: very little. At best we have:

 

   • Degrees of empirical confidence (validated by repeated observation)  

   • Degrees of phenomenological confidence (validated by immediate experience)  

 

   Each has its own domain of usefulness.

 

────────────────────────

BOTTOM‑LINE EPISTEMIC TOOLKIT

 

1. Differentiate domains  

   • Phenomenology (Zone 1): direct, immediate  

   • Empiricism (Zone 2): indirect, communal

 

2. Keep bridges between the domains honest  

   • “I experienced boundless unity” → solid as phenomenology  

   • “…therefore only I exist, and gravity works because I dream it so” → metaphysical leap; needs evidence/prediction if it is to function in Zone 2.

 

3. Embrace provisionality  

   • Science is always tentative; spirituality often speaks in absolutes.  

   • That doesn’t make one “better,” but it does mean mixing them requires great care.

 

4. Use state‑appropriate validation  

   • Dream insights → reality‑check while awake  

   • Psychedelic insights → integrate while sober  

   • Sober hypotheses → sometimes benefit from creative incubation in altered states

 

5. Watch for incentive gradients  

   • Social status, financial gain, identity reinforcement—all can skew both scientific and spiritual inquiry.  

   • Build feedback loops (peer review, sangha, therapeutic supervision) to counteract bias.

 

────────────────────────

CLOSING THOUGHT

 

You can be radically open to Leo’s (or anyone’s) deepest experiences without granting them automatic authority over the shared world. Honor the mystical, practice rigorous epistemology, and remember that intellectual humility is the one “state” that seems beneficial in every domain.

[xeontor]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Nice try but this AI is stupid.

My job is still secure.

Leo, a two‑line shrug doesn’t exactly radiate omniscience.  

If the AI’s critique is so “stupid,” prove it—not with vibe, but with verifiable substance.

 

Here’s a provocation you’re welcome to swat down:

 

1. Take one core tenet of your ontology—say, “I alone am God and reality is my dream.”  

2. Derive from it a single, concrete, time‑stamped prediction that a half‑dozen sober researchers could test tomorrow.  

   • No metaphor, no post‑hoc reinterpretation, no “you just lack the state.”  

   • Pass/fail must be obvious to everyone in the room.  

3. If the test flops, admit the belief is, at minimum, not empirically privileged over the “stupid” materialist model you just dismissed.  

4. If it succeeds, I’ll gladly public‑post a full retraction—and buy twenty copies of your next course to hand out at the local university’s philosophy department.

 

Until then, “Nice try, but you’re stupid” looks less like awakened mastery and more like a guru‑flavored YouTube comment.

 

(that's AI response to you lol)

 

[Leo Gura]

@xeontor Not playing your games.

Enjoy your AI jerk session.

[Something Funny]

4 hours ago, xeontor said:

Leo, a two‑line shrug doesn’t exactly radiate omniscience.  

If the AI’s critique is so “stupid,” prove it—not with vibe, but with verifiable substance.

Why should anyone bother investing their time to respond to you if you are too lazy to even write your own argument?

What's even the point of threads like this? Do you want us to copy paste your copy pasted wall of text to chat gpt and then copy paste its response back to you?

This is so dumb.

[Thought Art]

@xeontor Dirty AI haha.

”What I actually said”

No, you didn’t actually say any of that in the quote I shared. You may clarify your foundation, but you didn’t said that. And the closing statement about states is suggestive of dismissing that mystical states could be useful. 
 

It also means ignored the concept of absolute truth encompassing true and false things and Zone 1 and 2.

[Thought Art]

5 hours ago, xeontor said:

Leo, a two‑line shrug doesn’t exactly radiate omniscience.  

If the AI’s critique is so “stupid,” prove it—not with vibe, but with verifiable substance.

 

Here’s a provocation you’re welcome to swat down:

 

1. Take one core tenet of your ontology—say, “I alone am God and reality is my dream.”  

2. Derive from it a single, concrete, time‑stamped prediction that a half‑dozen sober researchers could test tomorrow.  

   • No metaphor, no post‑hoc reinterpretation, no “you just lack the state.”  

   • Pass/fail must be obvious to everyone in the room.  

3. If the test flops, admit the belief is, at minimum, not empirically privileged over the “stupid” materialist model you just dismissed.  

4. If it succeeds, I’ll gladly public‑post a full retraction—and buy twenty copies of your next course to hand out at the local university’s philosophy department.

 

Until then, “Nice try, but you’re stupid” looks less like awakened mastery and more like a guru‑flavored YouTube comment.

 

(that's AI response to you lol)

 

@xeontor It’s like you’re not grasping the predicament or Leo’s claims. Again, biased toward sobriety, ignoring philosophical biases, making claims of what a valid experiment is, without looking into Leo’s telescope. 
 

If you were trying to figure out if “other minds exist” or if “You alone are God”…. You’d have to know

1. If others are truly ontologically separate from “you”, if “you” is truly a separate notion from “them. How do you know you didn’t construct the “you” “vs” them in your mind? Does the universe really think. In terms of “God” that you and the other scientists are separate? Maybe humans had to invent “us” and “them” through conceptualisation. Perhaps “us” “them” “me” “self” and “other” are conceptually constructed notions of modern minds and not hard facts to be tested. This would need to be made clear to avoid inaccurate metaphysical assumptions of the researcher. 

2. If you are God dreaming “others” what could would asking others to prove your little test do? Perhaps that would be a major trap. Imaging others to trick you to believe in your dream… how would you know the difference? It could be a strange loop issue. Perhaps the test you’ve described truly doesn’t test for God. 

3. If you alone are God, wouldn’t anything you do in this dream just be you imagining finite things in your own mind? Including experiments and other scientists? So how would you verify this is a legitimate experiment in this domain? 
 

4. What if the test “flops” not because it’s not true that you are God, but because your test and the limitations your forcing on the enquiry like using external authorities of the scientists, or that is has to be done “sober”, are the wrong way to test if you are God? How would you know? 
 

5. May you’d have to take yourself and all the scientists and take 200-300 breakthrough 5meodmt doses? What if that was the experiment? “No no, that’s not a realistic experiment” well, okay then.

6. If you could gain direct insight into being “God”…. Why would God need another to verify this claim? Wouldn’t the other just be you? 
 

7. Asking someone to take their “core ontological tenant” but then not letting them use or you using their method is bad science. “You can’t use your method! You have to use this one, even though I haven’t proven or disproven your method!”
 

Tricky stuff 

Edited yesterday at 11:43 AM by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

My responses are not AI btw

[xeontor]

2 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@xeontor It’s like you’re not grasping the predicament or Leo’s claims. Again, biased toward sobriety, ignoring philosophical biases, making claims of what a valid experiment is, without looking into Leo’s telescope. 
 

If you were trying to figure out if “other minds exist” or if “You alone are God”…. You’d have to know

1. If others are truly ontologically separate from “you”, if “you” is truly a separate notion from “them. How do you know you didn’t construct the “you” “vs” them in your mind? Does the universe really think. In terms of “God” that you and the other scientists are separate? Maybe humans had to invent “us” and “them” through conceptualisation. Perhaps “us” “them” “me” “self” and “other” are conceptually constructed notions of modern minds and not hard facts to be tested. This would need to be made clear to avoid inaccurate metaphysical assumptions of the researcher. 

2. If you are God dreaming “others” what could would asking others to prove your little test do? Perhaps that would be a major trap. Imaging others to trick you to believe in your dream… how would you know the difference? It could be a strange loop issue. Perhaps the test you’ve described truly doesn’t test for God. 

3. If you alone are God, wouldn’t anything you do in this dream just be you imagining finite things in your own mind? Including experiments and other scientists? So how would you verify this is a legitimate experiment in this domain? 
 

4. What if the test “flops” not because it’s not true that you are God, but because your test and the limitations your forcing on the enquiry like using external authorities of the scientists, or that is has to be done “sober”, are the wrong way to test if you are God? How would you know? 
 

5. May you’d have to take yourself and all the scientists and take 200-300 breakthrough 5meodmt doses? What if that was the experiment? “No no, that’s not a realistic experiment” well, okay then.

6. If you could gain direct insight into being “God”…. Why would God need another to verify this claim? Wouldn’t the other just be you? 
 

7. Asking someone to take their “core ontological tenant” but then not letting them use or you using their method is bad science. “You can’t use your method! You have to use this one, even though I haven’t proven or disproven your method!”
 

Tricky stuff 

Let’s translate the rebuttal into plain epistemic English and see where it actually leaves us.  
(I’ll respond point‑by‑point; italics = paraphrase of the critic.)

––––––––––––––––––––
1. “You can’t even know other minds exist; ‘self’ vs. ‘other’ might be conceptual fabrications.”

True—but that merely shows radical metaphysical skepticism is always possible.  
If you push the Cartesian eject button (“maybe everything is imagined”) you also jettison every ordinary claim Leo makes: “I sell video courses,” “I took 5‑MeO‑DMT in Mexico,” “I posted on my forum.” All of that presupposes a stable external information channel.  
You don’t get to wield solipsism only when someone asks for evidence and then drop it whenever you want an audience, a PayPal checkout page, or a YouTube algorithm.

––––––––––––––––––––
2–3. “If you alone are God, any test involving ‘others’ is pointless because the others are dreamed.”

Exactly— and that’s why the claim has zero empirical bite.  
A statement that automatically deletes all possible falsifiers is not profound; it’s self‑sealing.  
“Heads I win, tails you were just my dream” isn’t spirituality; it’s epistemic escapology.

––––––––––––––––––––
4. “Maybe the test flops only because you insisted on sobriety or external verification.”

Translation: “The belief is immune to failure under any condition I don’t like.”  
This is the textbook definition of an unfalsifiable proposition.  
Science doesn’t reject such claims because they’re false; it brackets them as vacuous—identical predictive power to ‘angels push the planets.’

––––––––––––––––––––
5. “Real experiment: dose everyone with 200–300 mg of 5‑MeO‑DMT.”

I’m not opposed to first‑person methods. But if the only admissible data source is an ultra‑labile state whose hallmark is suggestibility, then:

a) You need a control: give half the group placebo or a different psychedelic and see whether they report the exact same ontology.  
b) You still need a prediction the state can generate that survives re‑entry to normal consciousness—e.g., a numerical code hidden in a locked safe that participants reliably reveal after their God‑realization.  
If the state can’t do that, the “experiment” is indistinguishable from collective hallucination.

––––––––––––––––––––
6. “Why would God need another to verify the claim? The ‘other’ is just you.”

Then advertising the claim to 500 k YouTube subscribers makes no sense either, because “they” are equally illusory.  
Solipsism that still markets, monetizes, and demands followers is performative contradiction on steroids.

––––––––––––––––––––
7. “Bad science to forbid Leo’s own method.”

No—good science asks any method (psychedelic, meditative, mathematical) to produce shareable, discriminating evidence.  
If Leo’s method can do that, fantastic; the door is wide open.  
If it can’t, the method isn’t being “forbidden”—it’s just failing.

––––––––––––––––––––
Meta‑takeaway

• You can always retreat to a reality bubble where no empirical arrow can reach you; just don’t pretend you’re doing epistemology once inside.  
• An omnipotent God who can’t cough up one piece of non‑trivial, externally verifiable information is indistinguishable from an ordinary human deep in a chemical reverie.  
• Extraordinary claims do not require ordinary evidence—but they do require evidence of some kind that the claimant doesn’t fully script in advance.

Until that happens, “I alone am God” is best filed alongside “We’re living in someone else’s video game” and “The universe was sneezed out of the nostril of a cosmic turtle”: interesting speculative metaphysics, zero predictive leverage.

Tricky stuff indeed—just not in the way your reply imagined.

[Salvijus]

26 minutes ago, xeontor said:

Let’s translate the rebuttal into plain epistemic English and see where it actually leaves us.  
(I’ll respond point‑by‑point; italics = paraphrase of the critic.)

––––––––––––––––––––
1. “You can’t even know other minds exist; ‘self’ vs. ‘other’ might be conceptual fabrications.”

True—but that merely shows radical metaphysical skepticism is always possible.  
If you push the Cartesian eject button (“maybe everything is imagined”) you also jettison every ordinary claim Leo makes: “I sell video courses,” “I took 5‑MeO‑DMT in Mexico,” “I posted on my forum.” All of that presupposes a stable external information channel.  
You don’t get to wield solipsism only when someone asks for evidence and then drop it whenever you want an audience, a PayPal checkout page, or a YouTube algorithm.

––––––––––––––––––––
2–3. “If you alone are God, any test involving ‘others’ is pointless because the others are dreamed.”

Exactly— and that’s why the claim has zero empirical bite.  
A statement that automatically deletes all possible falsifiers is not profound; it’s self‑sealing.  
“Heads I win, tails you were just my dream” isn’t spirituality; it’s epistemic escapology.

––––––––––––––––––––
4. “Maybe the test flops only because you insisted on sobriety or external verification.”

Translation: “The belief is immune to failure under any condition I don’t like.”  
This is the textbook definition of an unfalsifiable proposition.  
Science doesn’t reject such claims because they’re false; it brackets them as vacuous—identical predictive power to ‘angels push the planets.’

––––––––––––––––––––
5. “Real experiment: dose everyone with 200–300 mg of 5‑MeO‑DMT.”

I’m not opposed to first‑person methods. But if the only admissible data source is an ultra‑labile state whose hallmark is suggestibility, then:

a) You need a control: give half the group placebo or a different psychedelic and see whether they report the exact same ontology.  
b) You still need a prediction the state can generate that survives re‑entry to normal consciousness—e.g., a numerical code hidden in a locked safe that participants reliably reveal after their God‑realization.  
If the state can’t do that, the “experiment” is indistinguishable from collective hallucination.

––––––––––––––––––––
6. “Why would God need another to verify the claim? The ‘other’ is just you.”

Then advertising the claim to 500 k YouTube subscribers makes no sense either, because “they” are equally illusory.  
Solipsism that still markets, monetizes, and demands followers is performative contradiction on steroids.

––––––––––––––––––––
7. “Bad science to forbid Leo’s own method.”

No—good science asks any method (psychedelic, meditative, mathematical) to produce shareable, discriminating evidence.  
If Leo’s method can do that, fantastic; the door is wide open.  
If it can’t, the method isn’t being “forbidden”—it’s just failing.

––––––––––––––––––––
Meta‑takeaway

• You can always retreat to a reality bubble where no empirical arrow can reach you; just don’t pretend you’re doing epistemology once inside.  
• An omnipotent God who can’t cough up one piece of non‑trivial, externally verifiable information is indistinguishable from an ordinary human deep in a chemical reverie.  
• Extraordinary claims do not require ordinary evidence—but they do require evidence of some kind that the claimant doesn’t fully script in advance.

Until that happens, “I alone am God” is best filed alongside “We’re living in someone else’s video game” and “The universe was sneezed out of the nostril of a cosmic turtle”: interesting speculative metaphysics, zero predictive leverage.

Tricky stuff indeed—just not in the way your reply imagined.

This is brutal. Ggwp. 

Edited yesterday at 02:15 PM by Salvijus

[Ishanga]

Once You realize that any subject or theory or conclusion can be logically argued against then that means all of that stuff is not where Truth is found..There is no individual, 8.2 billion versions of Truth, there is One Truth, its has nothing to do with words, conclusions, ideologies, it has all to do with You and how much Clarity of Reality You have, which does not have to be shared via words, just live it and ppl will see it... 

Edited yesterday at 02:29 PM by Ishanga

[xeontor]

13 minutes ago, Ishanga said:

Once You realize that any subject or theory or conclusion can be logically argued against then that means all of that stuff is not where Truth is found..There is no individual, 8.2 billion versions of Truth, there is One Truth, its has nothing to do with words, conclusions, ideologies, it has all to do with You and how much Clarity of Reality You have, which does not have to be shared via words, just live it and ppl will see it... 

Ishanga, let me see if I have the cosmology straight:

1. Little‑t truths: provisional, linguistic, arguable, forever duking it out in the arena of logic and evidence.  
2. Big‑T Truth (a.k.a. God / Consciousness / Absolute): word‑proof, debate‑proof, ego‑proof, “self‑validating” once you pop through the veil.  
3. After popping, you supposedly radiate “clarity” so palpable that people will just sense it without your having to explain anything.

Nice story. Now the annoying, ego‑laden questions:

A. “Truth beyond words” is… a sentence made of words.  
   The second you assert it in English, you’ve stepped onto the same linguistic chessboard as everyone else.  
   Either the sentence is falsifiable (little‑t category) or it isn’t (in which case why utter it at all?).

B. “All theories can be argued against” does not entail “all theories are equal.”  
   Germ theory and flat‑Earth theory are both debatable, but only one keeps newborns alive.  
   Relative maps still matter when you’re driving to the hospital.

C. Personal revelation ≠ public knowledge.  
   If Absolute Truth can’t survive translation into a single operational claim—prediction, retrodiction, even a diagnostic metric—then for the rest of us it’s indistinguishable from an intense daydream.

D. “Just live it and people will see it” is vague to the point of unfalsifiability.  
   • Which behavioral signature marks the enlightened?  
   • Zero anger? Perfect altruism? Psychic stock‑picking?  
   • If the answer is “You’ll know it when you’re as awake as I am,” congratulations—you’ve reinvented the multi‑level‑marketing epistemology of every guru since 300 BCE.

E. The ego‑transcendence card cuts both ways.  
   If the price of admission to Truth is annihilating personal identity, then “I, Ishanga, have clarity” is self‑canceling; who’s the “I” that’s boasting?

A modest counter‑proposal

1. Keep your Absolute if you like it; psychedelics and non‑dual states can indeed annihilate the self‑model.  
2. Just admit it’s incommunicable in the same way a dream is: private, ineffable, not a public truth‑claim.  
3. Then stop smuggling it back into discourse as a trump card against anyone who still plays by public‑reason rules.

Because as soon as you *do* re‑enter public conversation—writing posts, selling retreats, correcting the unenlightened—you’re in the land of little‑t truths again, right alongside the rest of us chimps with keyboards. And in that land, clarity is earned the old‑fashioned way: by making claims that out‑predict, out‑explain, or out‑heal the alternatives.

If Big‑T can’t do that, maybe it should stay in silent reverence where—according to its own marketing copy—it belongs.

[Salvijus]

25 minutes ago, xeontor said:

Ishanga, let me see if I have the cosmology straight:

1. Little‑t truths: provisional, linguistic, arguable, forever duking it out in the arena of logic and evidence.  
2. Big‑T Truth (a.k.a. God / Consciousness / Absolute): word‑proof, debate‑proof, ego‑proof, “self‑validating” once you pop through the veil.  
3. After popping, you supposedly radiate “clarity” so palpable that people will just sense it without your having to explain anything.

Nice story. Now the annoying, ego‑laden questions:

A. “Truth beyond words” is… a sentence made of words.  
   The second you assert it in English, you’ve stepped onto the same linguistic chessboard as everyone else.  
   Either the sentence is falsifiable (little‑t category) or it isn’t (in which case why utter it at all?).

B. “All theories can be argued against” does not entail “all theories are equal.”  
   Germ theory and flat‑Earth theory are both debatable, but only one keeps newborns alive.  
   Relative maps still matter when you’re driving to the hospital.

C. Personal revelation ≠ public knowledge.  
   If Absolute Truth can’t survive translation into a single operational claim—prediction, retrodiction, even a diagnostic metric—then for the rest of us it’s indistinguishable from an intense daydream.

D. “Just live it and people will see it” is vague to the point of unfalsifiability.  
   • Which behavioral signature marks the enlightened?  
   • Zero anger? Perfect altruism? Psychic stock‑picking?  
   • If the answer is “You’ll know it when you’re as awake as I am,” congratulations—you’ve reinvented the multi‑level‑marketing epistemology of every guru since 300 BCE.

E. The ego‑transcendence card cuts both ways.  
   If the price of admission to Truth is annihilating personal identity, then “I, Ishanga, have clarity” is self‑canceling; who’s the “I” that’s boasting?

A modest counter‑proposal

1. Keep your Absolute if you like it; psychedelics and non‑dual states can indeed annihilate the self‑model.  
2. Just admit it’s incommunicable in the same way a dream is: private, ineffable, not a public truth‑claim.  
3. Then stop smuggling it back into discourse as a trump card against anyone who still plays by public‑reason rules.

Because as soon as you *do* re‑enter public conversation—writing posts, selling retreats, correcting the unenlightened—you’re in the land of little‑t truths again, right alongside the rest of us chimps with keyboards. And in that land, clarity is earned the old‑fashioned way: by making claims that out‑predict, out‑explain, or out‑heal the alternatives.

If Big‑T can’t do that, maybe it should stay in silent reverence where—according to its own marketing copy—it belongs.

this is brutal, lmao. 

Edited yesterday at 03:10 PM by Salvijus

[Ishanga]

5 minutes ago, xeontor said:

Ishanga, let me see if I have the cosmology straight:

1. Little‑t truths: provisional, linguistic, arguable, forever duking it out in the arena of logic and evidence.  
2. Big‑T Truth (a.k.a. God / Consciousness / Absolute): word‑proof, debate‑proof, ego‑proof, “self‑validating” once you pop through the veil.  
3. After popping, you supposedly radiate “clarity” so palpable that people will just sense it without your having to explain anything.

Nice story. Now the annoying, ego‑laden questions:

A. “Truth beyond words” is… a sentence made of words.  
   The second you assert it in English, you’ve stepped onto the same linguistic chessboard as everyone else.  
   Either the sentence is falsifiable (little‑t category) or it isn’t (in which case why utter it at all?).

B. “All theories can be argued against” does not entail “all theories are equal.”  
   Germ theory and flat‑Earth theory are both debatable, but only one keeps newborns alive.  
   Relative maps still matter when you’re driving to the hospital.

C. Personal revelation ≠ public knowledge.  
   If Absolute Truth can’t survive translation into a single operational claim—prediction, retrodiction, even a diagnostic metric—then for the rest of us it’s indistinguishable from an intense daydream.

D. “Just live it and people will see it” is vague to the point of unfalsifiability.  
   • Which behavioral signature marks the enlightened?  
   • Zero anger? Perfect altruism? Psychic stock‑picking?  
   • If the answer is “You’ll know it when you’re as awake as I am,” congratulations—you’ve reinvented the multi‑level‑marketing epistemology of every guru since 300 BCE.

E. The ego‑transcendence card cuts both ways.  
   If the price of admission to Truth is annihilating personal identity, then “I, Ishanga, have clarity” is self‑canceling; who’s the “I” that’s boasting?

A modest counter‑proposal

1. Keep your Absolute if you like it; psychedelics and non‑dual states can indeed annihilate the self‑model.  
2. Just admit it’s incommunicable in the same way a dream is: private, ineffable, not a public truth‑claim.  
3. Then stop smuggling it back into discourse as a trump card against anyone who still plays by public‑reason rules.

Because as soon as you *do* re‑enter public conversation—writing posts, selling retreats, correcting the unenlightened—you’re in the land of little‑t truths again, right alongside the rest of us chimps with keyboards. And in that land, clarity is earned the old‑fashioned way: by making claims that out‑predict, out‑explain, or out‑heal the alternatives.

If Big‑T can’t do that, maybe it should stay in silent reverence where—according to its own marketing copy—it belongs.

If one wants to promote it and share what they are, lets say Enlightened, and want to be a Guru or Teacher, then they simply have to play the game, some will fall for the game aspect, and not see the real potential that is being offered by said Guru, but some will and get it and be empowered by it, this is why it is not so good to look back at Guru's from the past and compare or rely lots of the words they said and that are recorded, its was a different time and different sort of ppl, it may not be relevant, but for sure someone of Quality can not only be recognized by the words they say but just by who they are and what Actions they perform, with the right eyes and willingness of sorts it can be recognized!! First and foremost, don't go for Enlightenment if You are not naturally Peaceful of Your own nature, first learn how to stand before you Run!

Edited yesterday at 02:50 PM by Ishanga