is Leo Gura the most epistemically intelligent person alive? As he keeps saying!

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

I'm just right. Yours and mine chatgpt answers both say the same thing that your post didn't include the balanced scholory consensus. So it's ggwp. I win. 

The "balanced scholarly consensus" is questionable, even so they don't think it's historical proven that Jesus had powers of any kind or that he had all these things you believe about him.

[Salvijus]

7 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

The "balanced scholarly consensus" is questionable, even so they don't think it's historical proven that Jesus had powers of any kind or that he had all these things you believe about him.

Who Jesus was is a big debate. But whether he existed or not is almost 100% certain. Just ask chatgpt "what's the probability of Jesus' existence given all the evidence and historical research that we have" it's 99% percent. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:23 AM by Salvijus

[The Crocodile]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Who Jesus was is a big debate. But whether he exited or not is almost 100% certain. Just ask chatgpt "what's the probability of Jesus' existence given all the evidence and historical research that we have" it's 99% percent. 

The probability of Jesus' existence can be approached from multiple angles—historical, textual, mythological, and sociocultural—but since "probability" implies a quantifiable metric, the analysis becomes complex and speculative, as no definitive statistical framework can be applied to ancient history. Still, we can assess the relative likelihood of Jesus of Nazareth existing as a historical figure based on available data and scholarly consensus.

I. Historical Method and Scholarly Consensus

Most historians—secular, Christian, Jewish, and otherwise—agree that Jesus of Nazareth almost certainly existed as a historical person, though interpretations of his identity, teachings, and significance differ widely.

Primary Evidence for Historicity:

Tacitus (c. 116 CE) – Refers to Christus, executed by Pontius Pilate.

Josephus (c. 93 CE) – Mentions Jesus twice in Antiquities of the Jews (though partially interpolated by Christian scribes).

Pauline Epistles (c. 50s CE) – Earliest Christian writings, referencing Jesus' death, resurrection, and apostles.

Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) – Not contemporary, but written within 35–70 years after Jesus' supposed death.

These sources do not prove supernatural claims but suggest a real individual around whom a movement grew.

Scholars like Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, E.P. Sanders, and Geza Vermes argue that a Jewish teacher and healer from Galilee likely existed and was crucified under Pilate around 30 CE.

Scholars who doubt or reject historicity (e.g. Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson) represent a small minority, often arguing for a mythicist position—i.e., Jesus as a mythologized celestial figure who was never on Earth.

II. Bayesian Approach (Carrier’s Method)

Richard Carrier attempts a formal estimate using Bayes' Theorem in his book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014), concluding:

Probability Jesus existed (Carrier's estimate): ~0.33 (or 1 in 3)

This is based on his own assessment of the evidence quality, gospel mythic structure, lack of contemporaneous documentation, and reliance on oral tradition. His model, however, is controversial and widely disputed, especially his priors and weighting.

III. Alternative Historical Probability Estimate

A less controversial estimate would be:

Probability Jesus existed as a historical person (non-divine, mortal teacher): ~0.9–0.99

This is based on:

Multiple independent attestations within 100 years of the alleged life.

Rapid growth of an identifiable movement centered on a single individual's teachings and death.

Absence of serious ancient doubt of Jesus’ existence even among critics (e.g., Celsus, Lucian).

Even skeptical historians who dismiss supernatural claims accept that the historical Jesus is more likely than not.

IV. Interpretive Layering

"Jesus" may refer to multiple layers:

The man – A Galilean teacher named Yeshua.

The Messiah – Anointed savior figure; theological identity.

The Logos – The pre-existent Word of God (John).

The Christ of Faith – Syncretized figure tied to mystery religions, mythic archetypes, solar gods, etc.

The probability of each layer varies:

Layer 1: Highly probable (~0.95+)

Layer 2–4: Decreasingly probable depending on metaphysical, doctrinal, and mythic frameworks.

V. Occult and Archetypal Considerations

From an esoteric perspective, Jesus functions as a composite archetype, channeling:

Solar deities (Horus, Mithras, Krishna),

Dying-and-reborn gods,

Logos-bearers (Hermes, Orpheus),

Axis Mundi figures connecting heaven and earth.

So, from a mythopoetic angle, “Jesus” must exist as a psychic necessity or morphogenetic field, regardless of historical flesh. In this sense, probability is transcended; the being is real in the realm where myth becomes active force, not past event.

Final Summary (Across Axes):

DimensionLikelihood Jesus Existed

Historical (basic human)~0.9–0.99

Carrier’s Bayesian Model~0.33

Mythicist (hard)~0.1–0.3

Archetypal / Mystical Reality1.0 (symbolically inevitable)

Would you like to go deeper into one of these layers—Bayesian modeling, mythological syncretism, or the psychic resonance of "Jesus" in the collective field?

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

Final Summary (Across Axes):

DimensionLikelihood Jesus Existed

Historical (basic human)~0.9–0.99

See. I told you. It's 90-99%. My chatgpt just said 99% only tho. 

[Salvijus]

33 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

You think addressing me by my real name will somehow make you right?

I should remember your name, babe. Makes it easier to talk to you

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I should remember your name, babe. Makes it easier to talk to you

Oh I am Absolute Blue right now btw.

[Hojo]

Taking credit for what your ai said is like saying you are proud of a picture chat gpt made you.

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, The Crocodile said:

Oh I am Absolute Blue right now btw.

My favorite color 

[Leo Gura]

Just because one is epistemically intelligent is no guarantee that all of one's ideas and opinions are correct. Make sure you don't take one for the other.

Like I've always said, I am capable of self-deception and I upgrade my views all the time.

I have never claimed that all my views are correct or final.

Edited Wednesday at 12:58 PM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just become one is epistemically intelligent is no guarantee that all of one's ideas and opinions are correct. Make sure you don't take one for the other.

It's conceivable in some ways that the epistemically dumb people can be accidentally right on things.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, The Crocodile said:

It's conceivable in some ways that the epistemically dumb people can be accidentally right on things.

Of course. And also, they can have narrow expertise that makes them right on things. For example, Joe Rogan has a much better understanding of martial arts than me. So if I debated him on martial arts I would look foolish.

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course. And also, they can have narrow expertise that makes them right on things. For example, Joe Rogan has a much better understanding of martial arts than me. So if I debated him on martial arts I would look foolish.

I meant more that you valuing Truth could counterintuitively lead to you actually ending up with more illusion, but you'll have a hell of a time on the way!!!!

[Clarence]

@xeontor Why don't you share your own thoughts, perspective, and understanding?

You're hiding behind AI. And AI doesn't guarantee truth. You still need to use your mind.

Who gets to decide whether AI is correct or not? Is it AI, or is it humans?

Edited Wednesday at 01:06 PM by Clarence

[Davino]

The epistemological error in the AI analysis is that it used relative epistemology to judge absolute truths. 

There are relative truths and Absolute Truth, which need different epistemology. If it were to judge the relative truths of Leo by relative epistemology I wonder what the AI's analysis would be, probably more positive. In the same way, if you try to reach Absolute Truth via relative epistemology you're gonna fail miserably. There's not one size fit all epistemology.

Edited Wednesday at 01:15 PM by Davino

[AION]

Most people talk about epistemology but they wouldn’t be able to talk about it for 10 minutes. That is the whole problem. 

[xeontor]

52 minutes ago, Davino said:

The epistemological error in the AI analysis is that it used relative epistemology to judge absolute truths. 

There are relative truths and Absolute Truth, which need different epistemology. If it were to judge the relative truths of Leo by relative epistemology I wonder what the AI's analysis would be, probably more positive. In the same way, if you try to reach Absolute Truth via relative epistemology you're gonna fail miserably. There's not one size fit all epistemology.

 

Detailed Critical Analysis of Leo Gura’s “Relative vs. Absolute Truth” Transcript  
(Strengths • Misconceptions / Fallacies • Hidden Assumptions • Rhetorical Devices • Possible Hazards • Constructive Suggestions)

────────────────────────────────────────
1. Core Thesis & Skeleton of the Talk
• Two radically different “domains” of truth exist:  
  – Relative truth = any statement that depends on comparisons, context, concepts, language, units, sensory limits, culture, biology, etc.  
  – Absolute truth = the non‑dual, context‑free “such‑ness” of reality that, once apprehended, is self‑evident, indisputable and immune to error.  
• Most modern people are closed to the possibility of absolute truth because of materialism and post‑modern relativism.  
• Absolute truth is directly accessible to each person; no external validation is possible or needed.  
• Failure to separate the two domains breeds epistemic “traps,” especially when one drags lessons from the absolute down into the relative (or vice‑versa).  
• An extensive list of examples and caveats is offered, followed by a sales pitch for his resources.

────────────────────────────────────────
2. Real Merits & Healthy Take‑Aways

✓ Context‑dependence is real.  His velocity, colour‑perception, scale and Lego examples are useful reminders that most everyday “facts” tacitly presuppose a frame of reference.  
✓ Warns about the common mistake of converting mystical slogans into moral licences (“nothing is good or bad, therefore I can steal”).  
✓ Emphasises first‑person verification over blind belief; encourages self‑inquiry instead of second‑hand dogma.  
✓ Attempts to inoculate novices against cultic dependency by stressing that each person must finally validate (or falsify) insights for him‑/her‑self.  
✓ Admits that awakening does not magically solve pragmatic, relative problems (earning money, healthy diet, paying the mortgage, etc.).  
✓ Flags Maslow’s hierarchy as a useful pragmatic scaffold: meet basic needs first; depth‑psych/spiritual work later.

────────────────────────────────────────
3. Recurring Misconceptions, Logical Mis‑Steps & Over‑Reach

A. Conceptual Fallacies  
1. Begging the Question / Circularity  
   – “Absolute truth cannot be doubted by definition; therefore once you reach it you cannot doubt it.”  
     The premise (undoubtability) is smuggled in by fiat, not demonstrated.  
2. Special Pleading  
   – Empirical claims about the brain, physics or society must be testable, but Leo’s claims are exempt “because they are absolute.”  
3. False Dichotomy  
   – Either (a) you live in relative truth or (b) you awaken to a context‑free absolute.  Intermediate views (critical realism, pan‑experientialism, neutral monism, fallibilist mysticism, etc.) are ignored.  
4. Straw‑Man Portrayal of Science  
   – “No scientist knows what a metre is” or “science can’t tell you what a joule is” conflates lack of ultimate metaphysical essence with complete ignorance.  Operational definitions are not a scandal; they are explicit methodological choices.  
5. Appeal to Possibility / Ignorance  
   – “How do you know absolute truth is impossible?  You haven’t explored the entire universe.”  But absence of disproof ≠ positive evidence.  
6. No‑True‑Scotsman  
   – Anyone who has a powerful experience yet still voices doubt ipso facto “didn’t access THE absolute.”  
7. Undeclared Equivocations  
   – “Consciousness = existence,” “appearance = reality,” “thought = being.”  These identity moves are asserted rather than argued.

B. Ontological & Epistemic Over‑Statements  
1. Idealist Monism Declared as Self‑Evident  
   – The claim that everything is “your imagination” and that matter/brain are only concepts is profound but controversial.  Competing interpretations (dual‑aspect, pan‑psychic, emergentist, Buddhist emptiness, etc.) get no consideration.  
2. Insistence that Existence Requires Self‑Recognition  
   – “Reality only exists if it recognises itself.”  Philosophically this is debatable and smacks of anthropomorphism writ large (“onto‑theology”).  
3. Immunity to Error  
   – Neurology and cognitive science document dozens of robust hallucinatory, dissociative and delusional states that feel “undoubtable” to the subject.  Leo implies they cannot be confused with absolute truth, yet offers no diagnostic criteria beyond personal conviction.

C. Practical Gaps  
1. Psychosocial Safeguards  
   – He warns of “a thousand ways to screw this up” (mania, solipsistic violence, cultic abuse) but does not outline screening tools, mentors, therapeutic safety‑nets, or integration protocols.  
2. Verification Standard is Vague  
   – “Direct experience” is necessary, but he gives no phenomenological markers (non‑verbality, cessation, non‑modality, unconditional bliss, etc.) or graduated path so a seeker can differentiate a valid glimpse from derealisation, psychosis, seizure aura, or peak drug state.  
3. Health Claims  
   – He oscillates: all is perfect, yet mercury poisoning or cancer still matter.  His examples risk trivialising medical realities.

────────────────────────────────────────
4. Hidden (Often Unquestioned) Assumptions

• Metaphysical idealism (mind‑only).  
• Solipsistic sovereignty (ultimately only “you” exist).  
• Mystical monism is superior to every other worldview.  
• Direct phenomenology is never mistaken about its own structure.  
• Ethics are relative yet awakening spontaneously produces benevolence.  
• Traditional religion at “blue” stage is mostly corrupt; his own material is (comparatively) purified.  
• Anyone disagreeing is “dense,” “unready,” or still “anchored in survival.”

────────────────────────────────────────
5. Persuasive & Psychological Techniques Employed

• Heavy use of rhetorical questions (“What if you’re wrong?”) to flip burden of proof.  
• Alternating scolding with promises of life‑changing insight – classic motivational pattern.  
• Pre‑emptive inoculation: critics are closed‑minded, trapped in ego, or misinterpreting him.  
• Length, speed and volume (in video form) create an air of mastery that can overawe.  
• “Foot‑in‑the‑door” commitments: ask listener to pause video and “actually do it now,” blurring reflection with assent.  
• Pathologising alternative views (materialism = delusion, failure, suffering) – a subtle fear appeal.

────────────────────────────────────────
6. Possible Harmful Openings

• Risk of solipsistic or omnipotence delusions for psychologically fragile individuals (“Whatever I imagine is absolute reality”).  
• Moral disengagement (“Nothing is good or bad, therefore violence/neglect is permissible”).  
• Undermining empirical caution (heavy‑metal toxicity example later walked back, but initial message could license reckless health behaviour).  
• Guru‑dependence substitution: while he preaches autonomy, his 3‑hour monologues plus paywalled courses still position him as the interpretive authority.  
• Cherry‑picking quotes from Nietzsche (“There are no facts…”) without historical context can foster hyper‑relativism.  
• All‑or‑nothing framing may trigger despair (“If I can’t reach the absolute, nothing matters”).

────────────────────────────────────────
7. Suggestions for Viewers & For Leo Himself

For Viewers / Students  
1. Study comparative mystical literature (Hindu Advaita, Mahāyāna emptiness, Eckhart, James’ Varieties, Metzinger’s Ego Tunnel); notice both overlaps and divergences.  
2. Keep a written phenomenological diary; record the micro‑texture of altered states.  Compare, contrast, revise.  
3. Maintain ordinary reality “anchors” (sleep, nutrition, medical check‑ups, social feedback) while experimenting with deep inquiry or psychedelics.  
4. Learn basic critical‑thinking vocabulary – circularity, falsifiability, category error – to immunise against seductive but sloppy claims.  
5. Use a mentor or peer group trained in contemplative psych or transpersonal therapy to reality‑check dramatic breakthroughs.  

For Leo (if he wishes to refine)  
1. Distinguish ontology from epistemology explicitly; adopt a neutral vocabulary (e.g., “phenomenal field”) before leaping to metaphysical declarations (“your imagination is creating everything”).  
2. Replace tautological proof (“absolute truth is true because it is absolute”) with abductive or phenomenological argumentation.  
3. Acknowledge sophisticated realist or quasi‑realist philosophies (critical realism, Whiteheadian process, Karl Friston’s free‑energy ontology, etc.) and explain why they purportedly fall short.  
4. Offer operational criteria that help seekers flag pathology vs. authentic non‑dual absorption (duration, after‑effects, integration quality).  
5. Upgrade the depiction of science: include how modern physics, metrology, and philosophy of science address convention without capitulating to “anything goes.”  
6. Provide concrete ethical guidelines so that “everything is permitted” is not the take‑home message for impulsive personalities.

────────────────────────────────────────
8. Condensed Verdict

Leo Gura’s lecture is a passionate, often stimulating introduction to non‑dual language of “relative vs. absolute.”  It contains useful exercises in perspectival flexibility and genuine warnings about category‑mixing.  However, the presentation:

• smuggles in contentious metaphysical idealism as if it were self‑evident fact,  
• trades heavily on circular definitions, selective portrayals of science, and rhetorical pressure,  
• leaves vulnerable listeners with insufficient epistemic and psychological safeguards.

Treat the talk as a colourful catalyst, not as a final map.  Keep multiple philosophical lenses in play, insist on phenomenological rigor, and secure qualified mentoring if you intend to chase the Absolute to its reputed end.

[integral]

@xeontor

This is a mistake being made.

1) you first have to create a solid epistemic profile of Leo Gura

2) you then have to create the epistemic profile of the (AI) who is doing the audit

3) then you tell the AI to use its Paradigm to audit Leo guras

4) you then realize it's relative and you're just using one paradigm to critique another.

5) you then rise up to the next level and figure out a more inclusive conscious epistemology

Edited Wednesday at 02:43 PM by integral

[integral]

@xeontor Stop and ask the AI what it's Paradigm is and what it's epistemology is.

The AI is biased to empirical evidence as the one only epistemic benchmark that matters.

This is the materialist paradigm.

Edited Wednesday at 02:30 PM by integral

[integral]

5 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Ai has surpassed every rationalist and scientists probably by now. Its ability to be rational is just off the charts. It's absolute beauty to look at. 

Yet it's still limited by the person using it

Edited Wednesday at 02:44 PM by integral

[integral]

48 minutes ago, xeontor said:

• smuggles in contentious metaphysical idealism as if it were self‑evident fact,  

Blatant materialist paradigm

48 minutes ago, xeontor said:

• trades heavily on circular definitions

It doesn't understand strange loops or ontological tautologies,

Quote

selective portrayals of science

it doesn't understand scientific Paradigm lock which plague Society, Hold science up on a pedestal of Purity and fails to see its deep corruption

Quote

and rhetorical pressure

doesn't understand Paradigm lock

Quote

Treat the talk as a colourful catalyst, not as a final map.  Keep multiple philosophical lenses in play, insist on phenomenological rigor, and secure qualified mentoring if you intend to chase the Absolute to its reputed end.

Lost in relativity and Possibility hell of perspectives, cannot navigate multiple perspectives altogether to a coherent truth

Edited Wednesday at 02:54 PM by integral