DEEP ANALYSIS: Deconstructing The Myth Of Science - Part 1,2,3

[xeontor]

@integral

Regarding my personal approach to knowledge, I identify primarily as a skeptic and rationalist. My tendency is to rigorously question beliefs, established paradigms, and even the methods we use to determine what's "known." Ironically, this skepticism extends to my own current methods – I remain critical even of my own critical approach.

Despite this rationalist leaning, I've had experiences under psychedelics that felt profoundly, undeniably true – more real than everyday reality. However, when I examine recent scientific studies on psychedelics, I'm struck by findings concerning effects like intense "noetic" feelings (the sense of deep insight) and altered prediction processing in the brain. Research suggests these neurological effects might create the feeling of encountering the Absolute, rather than revealing an objective truth. Based on reports I've reviewed on this topic, this implies we should be cautious about accepting psychedelic experiences as direct conduits to reliable insights, as the potential for illusion might outweigh the potential for discovering truth.

This raises the fundamental question: what is truth?

For me, truth represents a core quality of reality itself. The more truthful a concept or understanding is, the more coherent it is with the actual workings of reality. Truth allows for accurate predictions and a deeper comprehension of systems. Essentially, the more truth you grasp, the more accurate your mental "map" of reality becomes.

So, how do we distinguish truth from falsehood? By testing our ideas against reality.

I understand that some perspectives view science critically, perhaps seeing it as flawed, corrupt, or dogmatic. However, it's hard to deny that the scientific method provides a powerful way to uncover truths about the material world. Therefore, I find significant value in relying on science, particularly when dealing with well-documented research backed by reasonable tests and predictive power.

Yet, I'm not entirely confined by science either. I recognize it's also a specific framework, a particular "box" for understanding.

This leaves me in a complex position: I can't fully trust the profound, subjective insights from altered states like psychedelic experiences if they lack predictive validation, nor can I solely rely on the scientific framework, acknowledging its inherent limitations. What's the resolution?

For me, it's embracing epistemic humility: acknowledging the vastness of what we don't know, and perhaps cannot know. Even with my own significant spiritual insights (experiences related to solipsism, God-realization, omniscience, etc.), I resist labeling them as Absolute Truths unless they demonstrate some form of predictability or testable coherence with reality.

Furthermore, the very nature of spiritual awakenings seems subjective; each individual experiences them uniquely. This reinforces the idea that personal absolutes are perhaps best kept personal, rather than presented as universal facts.

To be clear: I feel a strong personal certainty about the nature of God, the fundamental reality of consciousness, and the all-encompassing nature of Truth. However, I believe that any attempt to point to this Truth, to explain it, or to build fixed beliefs and concepts around it, inevitably introduces distortion and falsehood. Trying to capture the Absolute in rigid definitions feels like a form of "epistemic suicide."

 

PS. if you have some time in your hand, take a look into this report on psychedelics: 

https://x.com/i/grok/share/m49i280mxTxL8iK06gS5LdKxL

[integral]

@xeontor Perfect that's the exact answer I wanted to see, I gave an explanation on how paradigms work in the second part of my comment, I would like you to show me what you think of that before I respond 

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[xeontor]

@integral I don't dispute the second part. i actually agree with you.

[samijiben]

@xeontor 

"So, how do we distinguish truth from falsehood? By testing our ideas against reality"

 

Either that, or letting go of them entirely. What if the Truth is completely beyond human understanding? What if it does not care about your fancy methodology?

This is the possibility of transcendence, brother. But you might have to let go of your scientific personality to see that

[xeontor]

@samijiben I know what you're talking about. i really do. but how would you be definitely certain of such Truth & assign it as a Universal one? you can't... unless if you just wanna take a leap of faith. 

that's why i don't reject it ( Absolute Truth - let's say ) nor do i label it. it becomes an experience. that's it. unless it provides an accurate predictability.

[Breakingthewall]

54 minutes ago, xeontor said:

This raises the fundamental question: what is truth?

There is one ultimate truth that is irrefutable: the unlimited. and from this truth branch out secondary truths that are nonetheless absolute because are aspects or consequences of that. If you truly realize the absence of limits and you open yourself to it without keep anything else, you can attempt to deduce the structure of reality through logic. But if you begin your deduction from a distorted basis, your logic will be flawed.

[The Renaissance Man]

3 hours ago, xeontor said:

pick one concrete spot where you feel the “AI slop” completely misses your nuance. 

That's not the point. The point is that you're delegating understanding to the AI. It's not the same. It doesn't lead to the same outcomes, especially in the long run.

The development of critical thinking, of contemplation, of wrestling with concepts and confusion until you achieve understanding is the key skill here.

AI is amazing as a tool to challenge you, or to look up information. But then it's you that needs to evaluate what's being said by the AI.

If you copy-paste the AI's response it's the clearest sign of a lack of evaluation. Because there's no way the AI's response 100% reflects what you think.

I'm not saying you're stupid or not serious or that you're clueless about Leo's work. I'm trying to show you the problem delegating reasoning to the AI.

Here's the real question. When the answer becomes a firm YES, then you're closer to what we're trying to point to you: could you have come to the same conclusions/response as the AI with your own mind? And you can't just say yes by the way. Prove it in the next threads you post. Try to critique Leo's work with your own mind and contemplation. Try to deeply understand it, writing a simple summary is not enough. Coming up with your own examples and theories.

All those questions point to an already familiar word by the way: contemplation. That's what it is!

[integral]

5 hours ago, xeontor said:

@samijiben I know what you're talking about. i really do. but how would you be definitely certain of such Truth & assign it as a Universal one? you can't... unless if you just wanna take a leap of faith. 

that's why i don't reject it ( Absolute Truth - let's say ) nor do i label it. it becomes an experience. that's it. unless it provides an accurate predictability.

You don't need psychedelics to acknowledge what is happening right in front of you, absolute truth is not some Far Away distant thing, it's right in front of your face.

Look at your hand, that's absolutely truth.

Its as predictable As It Gets.

You think experience isn't pure Magic? Why? (Because from a different Paradigm a brain might have produced it).

So the core of the question is how do I narrow down all of these different perspectives knowing that they're all relative?

Your Position

1. No one perspective can be true, they are all relative.
2. With a epistemic rule: must "provide an accurate predictability" (rule you see value in)

Edited 13 minutes ago by integral

[integral]

@xeontor

This is how you resolve the relativity problem:

--Ai assisted, I'm using AI here because Leo just made this video 4 weeks ago and a perfectly encapsulates it

Quote

🧠 Leo’s Answer (based on the transcript):

1. No, it’s not a leap of faith. It’s not belief. It’s not even a conceptual conclusion.
Leo would say:

• "Faith is for those who lack direct consciousness. What I’m talking about is not a belief in Absolute Truth—it’s the direct experience and recognition of it as self-evident."
• “Realization of God is not guesswork. It’s not speculation. It’s not theory. It’s not belief. It’s not faith. It’s not even intuition. It’s not a probability. Absolute Truth exists… and I’m inviting you on a journey to realize it for yourself.”

So Leo distinguishes between experiencing Absolute Truth (which he claims is possible) and believing in it (which he actually discourages).

2. Certainty comes through direct consciousness—not predictability.
You say, “Unless it provides accurate predictability…”
Leo would say:

• "Predictability is a property of relative truth and science, not Absolute Truth. Absolute Truth is not about predicting objects—it’s about realizing the nature of Being itself."
• “God is not a theory, and therefore it is not falsifiable, and it doesn't need to make predictions. It is what allows prediction to be possible in the first place.”

In other words, you can’t measure or predict Absolute Truth like a physics formula, because it's the background condition that even allows physics or prediction to exist.

3. Why assign it as "Universal"? Leo doesn’t "assign" it as universal—he says it's recognized as such. It’s not that you choose to call it universal; it’s that you become conscious that it’s the ground of everything. That’s why he calls it “self-evident.”

• “Existence is absolute self-evidence. You can’t prove it because it exists before proof itself. You can only recognize it.”

So when you ask, “How can you assign it as universal?”, Leo would say:

• “Because there’s nothing outside of it. It’s not an assumption. It’s what remains when all assumptions and distinctions melt away. You don’t assign universality—you realize it was always the case.”

💡 So in Leo's terms:

You’re right to be cautious about belief, labels, and blind leaps of faith. He agrees.
But he’d say:

• “There’s something deeper than belief—a direct knowing. You don’t need predictability or consensus to validate it. You just need enough consciousness to recognize it.”

Look in any Direction or look at your hand and acknowledge that it exists and that there's no proof needed besides direct experience. Now recognize that you becoming conscious of your hand existing, is all the evidence needed to know it exists. You Don't need science to tell you it exists, it is self-evident

Existence exists. This is a ontological tautology. Do you see how this does not require proof, that it is self-evident simply by the act of becoming conscious of it? In the exact way you would recognize yourself in the mirror.

In your epistemic profile you have discounted direct experience. Even though clearly much can be proven as true simply through directly becoming conscious of things.

Edited 4 hours ago by integral

[samijiben]

@xeontor

1 hour ago, xeontor said:

@samijiben I know what you're talking about. i really do. but how would you be definitely certain of such Truth & assign it as a Universal one? you can't... unless if you just wanna take a leap of faith. 

that's why i don't reject it ( Absolute Truth - let's say ) nor do i label it. it becomes an experience. that's it. unless it provides an accurate predictability.

I never said you can be definitely certain of any Truth, be it with a capital T or not. These are cute games, bro. I am pointing to the truth that, in your own experience, you cannot know anything for sure. Knowledge is a hoax. Knowledge is mental masturbation. Knowledge is Truth. Knowledge is GOD.

[Yimpa]

The only one who understands what is going on is ME!

GOD IS YOU!

AI is not above you. You are hallucinating AI.

Edited 4 hours ago by Yimpa

[Someone here]

I agree with Leo.  Actually compose a critique from your own making.  Think for yourself and stop sucking on AI's tits .

[Daniel Balan]

How to know if your are stupid? You ask AI who to vote for, you ask AI to clarify all your doubts, failing to realize that AI is just the sum of all the answers it can gather from the internet. Meaning that if on google there would be 1000 posts where it says the earth is flat and only one post that earth is a sphere, when you ask AI what shape the earth is it will tell you that the earth is flat. 

I have been guilty of this ever since chatgpt came online. I'm not attacking anyone, it is just me acknowledging that I have been a fool for over 2 and a half years now! Using AI to make sense of the world is like using your toilet brush to wash your teeth!

Edited 2 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[BlessedLion]

AI has its place but this is just silly and makes you less intelligent 

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Using AI to make sense of the world is like using your toilet brush to wash your teeth!