Problems understanding Brains do not exist video

[sarapr]

@Leo Gura About evelution is not random you might be right because the metabolic pathways that exist now are so complex that if nature didn't know exactly what it wanted it would sound so impossible to happen but scientists ignore all that and say it has had enough time to randomly create chains of reactions that fit their larger role so well.

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By splitting itself off from mysticism, science actually damages itself. For example, it is a factual scientific error to say that consciousness is the product of neurons. And it's a scientific error to say that evolution is random. And it's scientific error to say that paranormal phenomena do not exist.

I'm a scientist and it took a high dose of psilocybin to breakthrough the scientific paradigm.

Just one point on evolution: the scientific consensus is not that evolution is random. Rather, natural selection drives evolution. . . Yet, the scientific consensus is also that the underlying mutations during evolution are generally random.

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm a scientist and it took a high dose of psilocybin to breakthrough the scientific paradigm.

So in other words you're no longer a serious scientist, you're a New Ager

P.S. Yes, of course I was referring to the idea that mutations are random. They are not random, they are intelligent.

[Nahm]

Why haven’t we built anything on the moon? Why have a free floating space station, vs just building it on the moon?

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So in other words you're no longer a serious scientist, you're a New Ager

P.S. Yes, of course I was referring to the idea that mutations are random. They are not random, they are intelligent.

Hmmm, I've always recoiled from the "New Age" term. . . Perhaps I'm a New Ager that plays the role of a scientist.

And playing the role of a scientist, I would ask how one would test if mutations are "intelligent".

[Socrates]

@Serotoninluv Grab a sample of nothingness and give it an IQ test.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Socrates said:

@Serotoninluv Grab a sample of nothingness and give it an IQ test.

Hmmm, it appears one may need to define "intelligence".

Part of the difficulty seems to be trying to do a dualistic inquiry into a nondual phenomena.

[Leo Gura]

@Serotoninluv The issue of what one can test, and what is the case, are two independent variables.

The whole point of your job as a scientist is figuring out new clever ways of testing the untestable.

Hint: the cleverness you're using to be intelligent, is the very intelligence you're testing for Just how is it that you think you are being intelligent? Randomly? Lol. That's not very intelligent of you to think.

Empty space has more intelligence than every human being who's ever lived combined. After all, it did spawn you It's even generating all your scientific skepticism right this very second. Bam! Bam! Bam! Thought after intelligent thought spontaneously arising out of nothingness.

One of the beauties of ditching the materialist paradigm is that intelligence is no longer confined to the brain.

[Serge]

@Socrates @Leo Gura Guys it's just freaking crazy... My mind is literally fucked up now!

I've been in the rationalist paradigm for most of my 22 years, but especially in the last 2 years. I was a hardcore fundamentalist. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dillahunty, Tyson, Krauss - those were my idols. I used to watch thousands of their debates thinking "those are the good guys spreading the Truth". I felt like I know what reality is for 100%, and it's all clear. Then, thanks to the fact that I accidentally stumbled upon Actualized.org, I got to a point that I wanted to kill myself, and a bud got me, for split-sec out of my paradigm. That was enough. Now I'm trying to always admit that I'm constantly in a paradigm and trying to be conscious of it as much as possible.

But I haven't watched any of those videos again since my depression. Now @Socrates shared the link of the Harris vid and my jaw dropped. Fuck me. I literally see the bubble Harris is in. I see how he plays his game with himself, working to fulfill his own prophecy, UNCONSCIOUSLY. It's horrible... and sad...  Harris, my ass... The guy I once thought has got it all.

@Leo Gura, just thank you, man. For everything. You're LITERALLY the person that made more for me in my entire life than ANYTHING else. And it's not just an emotional splash, I truly mean it. 

P.S. Science is just a human-created appearance. The true source of wisdom lives within you. All the answers are there. All the knowledge and discoveries humans made throughout history were extracted from there.Scientists apply their method, thanks to which they accidentaly tap into infinite wisdom inside of each of us, but they're unaware of it! They think it's science that led them to understanding! Science is just an illusion. Unfortunately, no word can make you understand it, you have to experience it for yourself.

P.S.S. I'm not in anyway mocking science. I'm just expressing my amazement about the course my life has taken ! Peace!

Edited November 28, 2017 by Serge

[Elisabeth]

6 hours ago, MM1988 said:

What I dont get here is that science to my knowledge isnt as materialistic as leo makes it ought to be.

Isnt science basically admitting that nature is inherently magic. Science doesnt claim to be able to figure everything out. Science says we dont know where the big bang come from, we will probably never know, and even then we dont know what caused that etc. We dont have any idea what existence is, we know the everything goes through first person experience, ...

9

Thank you for writing this bit (I don't agree with all of the follow up, but mostly). The repeated claims of how scientists are ignorant are starting to really, really annoy me. I've know since, like, high school that science isn't asking why but how, that the big bang is a narrative and doesn't help with the infinite regress problem (that I myself understood about god-creator), that science is descriptive and there's no good reason to believe that the laws of physics won't change tomorrow except for consistent observation, and that there's something called philosophy (or metaphysics) of science. 

My high school teachers told me. Astronomers at the local observatory told me. I'd say the scientific and science-friendly community at large knows.  @Leo Gura Please stop painting scientists in an unnecessarily ignorant light - we're just about as ignorant about deep consciousness work as your average population, but we know a tiny little bit more about the limitations of science than what you claim. 

I don't know if being conscious happens in the brain or not, but I know that science can't explain what reality is. 

You spent so much time in the video saying how everyone is misguided, that you didn't explain your main points very well. I, too, admit trouble with understanding. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Elisabeth

[Leo Gura]

@Elisabeth This issue of ignorance still goes deeper than you presently fathom.

I have barely scratched the surface of explaining the epistemic and metaphysical errors of most scientists.

It's a difficult topic to talk about, because it offends the very people who need to hear it.

Even philosophy of science still doesn't understand these issues. Philosophy of science has itself been corrupted by the materialist paradigm. Even Thomas Kuhn -- the philosopher & historian of science who coined the term "paradigm" -- still did not grasp the significance of what a paradigm is and how deep of a paradigm shift is possible.

You can have a paradigm shift so deep that the floor beneath your feet will vanish. That is NOT understood by almost anyone.

This topic is notorious tricky. It's a deception wrapped inside a deception wrapped inside a deception.

But people get very offended when you question the foundations of science. Of course! Because science underpins your very sense of reality. I am not merely questioning science here. Your very life is at stake. Which is why scientists like Richard Dawkins get so heated about this issue. Your mind will conjure up every trick imaginable to keep your reality intact. Which of course means projecting criticism onto me. That's how this stuff works.

BTW, I'm not saying you can't continue doing science. Just do it with an totally open mind. You'll see, your science dramatically improves. I am actually a big fan of science. Which is why I want to purify it of its erroneous metaphysical assumptions.

And of course you shouldn't take what I say on faith. Contemplate all this for yourself. What is science? What is truth? etc.

See, I've been contemplating the foundations of science since I was 12 years old. So to me, it's pretty easy to tell when I'm speaking with a person who has contemplated it for real, or not. I rarely find anyone who has.

[SOUL]

There is no such thing as "truth" as an absolute apart from context because "truth" is a relative state, it's a correlation between what is communicated as "is" and what really "is". Such as I can say the sky is blue or chocolate is delicious but the relative variables of the circumstances I am making this statement from determines whether this statement is "truth".

There is no absolute truth that exists apart from relative states because the word "truth" has a specific meaning and only someone misrepresenting the word's meaning will make this claim. Even "truth" about existence or reality is a contextual relativity, it's based on what we experience and what we are suggesting about it in relation to the experience on including the variables of the universe of which we may not fully have knowledge.

This is why scientific truth, religious truth and personal truth are different things that can not only be different from each other but can contradict each other because the set of variables, the ideology, that the "truth" is determined on are different. Someone can overlap various "truth" sets or choose to ignore one or another but every "truth" is determined by the correlation between the communicated and the ideology.

This is why there is so much conflict, because different groups with a different basis of ideology are trying to claim absolute truth over all others based on their own ideological variable sets. So when someone say "truth" just is and it doesn't need proof they either don't know what "truth" means or are confirming to themselves their own ideology belief paradigm.

Edited November 28, 2017 by SOUL

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Serotoninluv

The whole point of your job as a scientist is figuring out new clever ways of testing the untestable.

Over history, do you think a scientist has ever figured out a new clever way to actually test what was then untestable?

Would this be an example? : A few hundred years ago illnesses were thought to have "supernatural" causes. The current scientific paradigm and lack of methodology prevented scientists from testing alternative hypotheses. Then, a scientist figured out how to create a microscope which led to the discovery of microbes such as bacteria and viruses.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Serotoninluv

Hint: the cleverness you're using to be intelligent, is the very intelligence you're testing for Just how is it that you think you are being intelligent? Randomly? Lol. That's not very intelligent of you to think.

Hmmm, this is a different perspective of "intelligence". It is like the cube illusion you posted. For a while, all I could see was a small cube in a box. Then, a large cube with a corner missing. Here, "intelligence" is generally viewed as a product of the ego/self. "I" am intelligent. "He" is more intelligent than "Her". Yet, if we acknowledge the self is illusionary, there is no self to be intelligent.  Most scientists would still take a 3rd person perspective that "intelligence" can be reduced to physical synapses. Yet, if one opens their mind to a "mysterious" source of the intelligence (nothingness, infinite consciousness etc) it is a game-changer. . . I would say the physical brain is necessary for the cleverness I use, yet perhaps it is insufficient. . . 

Are you familiar with the Two Slit and Eraser experiments in quantuum physics? The results were "shocking" to scientists since it refuted a scientific paradigm. There is just now way for me to reconcile the results with a traditional scientific framework.

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a difficult topic to talk about, because it offends the very people who need to hear it.

I'd be one of those people who needs to hear it. Could you recommend a reading / video that may provide me some more insight regarding epistemic and metaphysical errors of most scientists.? I think I would be more receptive to someone who has an understanding of science and became awakened with a new perspective.

Btw, I will be teaching a neuroscience course for the first time next semester. It could be quite interesting. . . 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would this be an example? : A few hundred years ago illnesses were thought to have "supernatural" causes. The current scientific paradigm and lack of methodology prevented scientists from testing alternative hypotheses. Then, a scientist figured out how to create a microscope which led to the discovery of microbes such as bacteria and viruses.

Yes, of course. The history of science is filled with such examples. For example, the Greeks thought atoms were indivisible. So if you asked them, "Could we ever find out whether atoms were made of smaller parts?" They would have said, "Of course not! Atoms are indivisible by definition. How could you ever look inside one?" But then some clever scientists figured out a way to split atoms in a particle collider.

Here's another example: the resolution of light microscopes is limited by the wave length of light. You cannot resolve down any further. I'm sure that when some scientist figured that out, he said to himself, "Well... I guess we cannot see anything below 100nm. That is the limit of microscopes." But then a century later some other clever scientist discovered that you can build a microscope using electrons instead of light waves. And so a whole new domain of visibility opened up. And so on it goes.

Scientists once thought it was impossible to measure the distance to a star or galaxy. Then some other scientist discovered a way of doing just that using EM waves and Cepheid variable stars.

Today, virtually all scientists assume that direct consciousness of the Absolute is impossible. And yet it obviously is because people have done it. I have done it. Scientists assume this because the materialist paradigm is blind to the possibility that being and consciousness are identical, because they assume a boundary exists between subject and object. But of course there is no such boundary. That boundary is just an materialist assumption which was never empirically derived, but just taken on blind faith.

If you assume you are the Absolute, you have 100% access to it. If you assume you aren't the absolute, you're screwed.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet, if one opens their mind to a "mysterious" source of the intelligence (nothingness, infinite consciousness etc) it is a game-changer. . . I would say the physical brain is necessary for the cleverness I use, yet perhaps it is insufficient. . . 

Actually, the very same force that allows you to make insights -- an instantaneous creative leap of awareness -- is the very same force that drives evolution. Observe very carefully how your mind generates insights. Every insight you have is an act of creation.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Could you recommend a reading / video that may provide me some more insight regarding epistemic and metaphysical errors of most scientists.?

There are few such books. Which is why I'm writing one.

See the Metaphysics/Epistemology category of my book list. That's about as close as you'll get for now. But it's only the tip of the iceberg.

[Edvard]

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Even philosophy of science still doesn't understand these issues. Philosophy of science has itself been corrupted by the materialist paradigm. Even Thomas Kuhn -- the philosopher & historian of science who coined the term "paradigm" -- still did not grasp the significance of what a paradigm is and how deep of a paradigm shift is possible.

You can have a paradigm shift so deep that the floor beneath your feet will vanish. That is NOT understood by almost anyone.

This topic is notorious tricky. It's a deception wrapped inside a deception wrapped inside a deception.

@Leo Gura I wonder, when you know so many times more about reality than the average person, can you do "magic tricks"? I mean Jesus could (do you buy that he supposedly walked on water, fed 5000 peple, etc.?), I guess, and I've seen you write that you wouldn't be surprised if a hardcore mystic could transmute physical matter. Quite an extraordinary claim I can't help but asking you to elaborate. Could you?

Edited November 29, 2017 by Edvard

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Edvard said:

I wonder, when you know so many times more about reality than the average person, can you do "magic tricks"? I mean Jesus could (do you buy that he supposedly walked on water, fed 5000 peple, etc.?), I guess, and I've seen you write that you wouldn't be surprised if a hardcore mystic could transmute physical matter. Quite an extraordinary claim I can help but asking you to elaborate. Could you?

If I could, I probably wouldn't tell you about it. It's hard enough getting people to buy the idea that brains don't exist

The point is that you don't know what is or isn't possible unless you verify it for yourself.

And if you do end up discovering something new and bold, you can be sure that one one will believe you due to the Black Hole Effect.

What people are willing to believe has nothing to do with truth. That's purely a cultural norm. And culture is ALWAYS highly conservative and dogmatic. Because you never bother to derive any truth for yourself, you prefer to suck on the tit of culture. You just assume that culture will deliver truth to you on a silver platter. But that is not how truth works. So you end up having cultural myths, not truth.

Experiencing Absolute Infinity is much more physically radical than transmuting water into wine.

[Edvard]

@Leo Gura Because it would have made it too easy to follow you, and make the world conscious too quickly?

[Leo Gura]

@Edvard If the truth could be given to you, it would have happened 5000 years ago and everyone would have it. No one is hiding truth from you but yourself. You must discover it all on your own. I cannot help you no matter how much I would like. The truth is incommunicable.

The problem is that people assume truth is communicable. But that is another false assumption.

It's as though you and I are inside a dream. I have exited the dream before so I know it is possible. But now I am here in the dream with you again. You have never exited, so you are skeptical and puzzled by the notion. I tell you that it's possible to exit the dream. You nod and say, "Okay, maybe." But you are still stuck in the dream. Knowing you can exit the dream and actually exiting the dream are two totally different things. You need to figure out a way -- on your own -- to wake up. No matter what I say to you inside the dream, it will not wake you up because everything I say is part of your dream.

[Edvard]

@Leo Gura I was more thinking of you showing the tricks, instead of people beliving them. My point was, that by doing something extraordinary, people may understand that, "oh, maybe there is something into this consciousness work..." I mean, it worked for Jesus. Unfortunately there weren't any cameras back then, so all we have today are beliefs, and pervertions of what he meant. But of course, this "magic trick" thing may be out of line, and your point obviously is to just not take anything for granted. But still, what if one can walk on water? That would be the new Messiah, that even Jesus talked about? Jesus raised consciousness from barbarism to religion and dogma, the new Messiah may be the one who gets everyone enlightened (heaven). I'm even surprised of me writing this, have been quite a bit against religion for a couple of years, but I'm opening up. Maybe there is something to those holy books? Just maybe....

[Forestluv]

@Leo Gura Those are all examples in which something seemed supernatural, yet the subsequent breakthrough discoveries were material-based (the discovery of microbes, the invention of electron microscopes etc.). I think the vast majority of scientists would accept that there are phenomena that would appear to be supernatural/metaphysical now - yet future methodological advances will reveal the underlying natural/material mechanisms. It seems you are proposing that phenomena that would appear to be supernatural/metaphysical now will be shown to actually be supernatural/metaphysical with future methodological advances. I'm not sure there is a precedent for this. There are independently reproducible results in quantum physics that cannot be explained through the material - yet I think many scientists would argue we just don't currently have methods to identify the material mechanism. On the other hand, I've spoken to a physicist colleague that seem open to the idea that phenomena like entanglement could involve immaterial influences.