Problems understanding Brains do not exist video

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@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.

There is no such thing as a non-mystical phenomena. All phenomena are mystical. Science is playing a mind game. What it does is attach the word "material" to every single thing it sees and learns how to calculate. Before it is calculated it is called mystical superstitious nonsense. After it is calculated, it is called "material". Although the calculation never explains anything. It just allows you to manipulate reality.

Notice that you can learn to juggle balls no matter what they are. You can juggle oranges, peaches, apples, tennis balls, etc. The substance of the ball is irrelevant to the juggling. Science is purely in the business of juggling. It can juggle any and all phenomena, but it never knows what the substance of the thing it's juggling is. Nor will it admit that it matters.

If a ghost is photographed by a scientist today, after much resistance and make years of fighting, eventually ghosts will become reclassified as "material" things. And after a few hundred years pass, you will be thought of as crazy for doubting the existence of ghost. "Ghosts must obviously exist! It was only those fools back in the 21st century who were so closeminded as not to see them." That's what scientists of the 25th century will tell you.

The distinction between science and pseudo-science is a moving goal post. Pseudo-science is just the stuff that science hasn't successfully modeled yet. So course it cannot exist. Until we model it. Then it can't not exist.

100 years ago x-rays where considered absurd psuedo-science. Today, you would be called irresponsible if you refused to get x-rayed by your dentist.

Today parents are called crazy and dangerous for not injecting their children with bit of the plague (vaccines). 300 years ago, if you told a parent that you were going to inject their child with bits of the plague, they would have you arrested for attempted murder.

200 years ago doctors didn't wash their hands before operating on patients. When the first doctor discovered that washing hands reduces death rates in hospitals by like 90%, you know what happened? He was kicked out of the hospital and called a quack. His career with destroyed. Because no respectable doctor washed his hands 200 years ago. That was mystical nonsense. Magical germs that kill people? Only a fool would believe in such a thing.

You know what happened when Galilio tried to give his telescope to his intelligent colleagues to look up at the planet Jupiter and count its moons? They told him that only a Devil would dare to look through such a thing and believe what he saw. And then they arrested him.

[SOUL]

"Brains do not exist" is mystical knowledge to those that believe it based on their personal experience but if someone were to assert that it is scientific truth/fact they are misusing this personal mystical knowledge.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, SOUL said:

"Brains do not exist" is mystical knowledge to those that believe it based on their personal experience but if someone were to assert that it is scientific truth/fact they are misusing this personal mystical knowledge.

It's no more mystical knowledge than it is to say that Santa Claus is a fiction.

[RichardY]

 

[SOUL]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's no more mystical knowledge than it is to say that Santa Claus is a fiction.

Well, if you are nice maybe he will bring you a brain for Christmas.

[RichardY]

Why & How am I conscious of being entity "X" and not some other entity/individual? If "the" everything came from the "Big Bang". Could electrical wires in a vehicle be said to be it's "brain". What makes the "human brain unique". Apparently a sea hydra loses it's brain(Navigation) once it attaches itself to a rock (J. Peterson). A lot of nerves are located in the gut, as well as the skull.

[SOUL]

@Leo Gura  I think I need to provide more context for my reply, my apologies.

I was initially making a fair observation to hopefully bring some clarity to the topic and you replied with what appeared to me as a somewhat farcical straw man so I continued down that path with even more humor. Honestly, your reply needed more context as well, there was the actual Greek Saint that the folklore was built on so Santa Clause is both a real figure in history and a fictional legend.

So...there's that. If you had used Easter Bunny instead I'm not sure i would have been able to make the topical joke and I thank you for the set up.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

Why & How am I conscious of being entity "X" and not some other entity/individual? If "the" everything came from the "Big Bang". Could electrical wires in a vehicle be said to be it's "brain". What makes the "human brain unique". Apparently a sea hydra loses it's brain(Navigation) once it attaches itself to a rock (J. Peterson). A lot of nerves are located in the gut, as well as the skull.

You are what you hallucinate. If you hallucinated being a sea slug, you would literally be a sea slug.

Your current hallucination of being THIS human is precisely what makes you not be everything else you could be (and actually are).

[MM1988]

@Leo Gura If you know the absolute truth like you claim you do - there are still two possibilites.

1. You are correct - the materialist view is false, there are no brains, you know the truth.

2. The materialist view is correct, but your brain has undergone some modification that makes you believe you know the truth together with all the evidence you need.

How would you ever know the difference between the two from a first person perspective? There are schizophrenic people in mental hospitals who delude themselves into being the next jesus christ, and for them thats a reality. If the materialist view is correct, and your brain can be modified to believe/experience whatever it wants than everything goes. Even when you sleep at night and dream, suddenly logic goes out the window, 1+1=5 could make sense to you in this state, so you cant even rely on that.

For all I know you don't even exist and I lie in a coma somewhere due to an accident and my brain comes up with this whole reality. How would someone ever be sure about anything, yet you make these absolute claims.

BTW I'm not trying to "debunk" anything here even if it sounds like that, I'm merely highly interrested in this topic.

Also, WAKE UP LEO! Actualized.org doesnt exist, you had an accident, it was a car crash when you were 18 years old and you are in a hospital, your family is worried!!!

Edited November 29, 2017 by MM1988

[Leo Gura]

@MM1988 You cannot understand what you're asking without being enlightened.

There is nothing I can say that will convey it to you.

You can only discover it through enlightenment. But once you do, you will understand that it is Absolute. And there is nothing beyond it because it is infinite.

You cannot fathom the totality of infinity. Not only have I been in a coma or in a car crash, I simultaneously exist as every living being and non-living particle that can ever exist under every physical configuration of every universe possible, out to infinity. There is not a single possibility which I am not. So anything you can imagine, I am that, plus an infinite number of more things. I am an infinite hallucination.

The energy you're wasting worrying about my delusion is a distraction from your own.

None of what I say is to be believed. Go self-inquire.

I have discovered for myself that the materialist view is not correct because I have been infinite. And a material brain cannot be infinite. This cannot be understood until you yourself become infinite. I hope you get there one day.

[MM1988]

@Leo Gura So you basically claim that the experience of the absolute is  "on another level" to such a dregree that it can't possibly be implanted into or experienced with a materialist brain? Assuming technology exists that can modify such a brain to the smallest particle without killing the organism.

Alright, if thats your claim there is nothing left for me than to accept it and it makes no sense discussing this topic any further. As I said I'm not really worrying about your delusion or try to debunk it, these are just the kind of questions that came up for me while watching your video.

Edited November 29, 2017 by MM1988

[Forestluv]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Notice that you can learn to juggle balls no matter what they are. You can juggle oranges, peaches, apples, tennis balls, etc. The substance of the ball is irrelevant to the juggling. Science is purely in the business of juggling. It can juggle any and all phenomena, but it never knows what the substance of the thing it's juggling is. Nor will it admit that it matters.

In this analogy, all of your examples of breakthrough science discoveries were about identifying new balls (not the underlying substance). So is your overall point that the scientific paradigm closes minds such that discovering new balls is more difficult (yet does happen over time) and/or that the scientific paradigm closes minds which prevents the discovery of underlying substance (these discoveries have never happened)?

 

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The distinction between science and pseudo-science is a moving goal post. Pseudo-science is just the stuff that science hasn't successfully modeled yet. So course it cannot exist. Until we model it. Then it can't not exist.

Yet, also consider that skepticism in science also has value. Each example you cited was an idea that was discredited as nonsense, yet later turned out to be true. Yet there are also many examples in which discredited ideas turned out to be nonsense. Just having an idea or making a claim doesn't make it true. Sure, the prevailing scientific skepticism will filter out some false negatives, yet it also filters out LOTS of false positives. We are bombarded with baseless claims from pseudo/bad science. "Tree bark extract shown to prevent cancer", "Mega-muscle-booster shown to get you buff in two weeks as you sit on your couch eating Cheetos". A few years ago, I met a guy in a mall claiming his "cutting-edge" new enzyme product would restore hair growth. He went on and on about the "miracles" of enzymes. I first asked him the ROA and he said oral - super easy!! . . . I immediately became skeptical and asked him how his enzyme would maintain it's tertiary structure within a pH2 gut environment. He had no answer and didn't have an understanding of amino acids, protein synthesis, folding and denaturation. Was I "close-minded" to discredit his claim? Is it just a matter of time until we find out that 80yrs of consistent reproducible results are actually not true and his enzyme will survive in a ph2 environment? . . . "Pseudo-science" is often "Bad science". Consider homeopathy and their "law of infinitesimals" in which enormous dilutions of a medicine improves efficacy. Sure, essentially no active ingredient remains, yet there is still the original "essence" within the mega dilution. An interesting idea that is contrary to the prevailing view of dose dependence curves. Experiments have indicated that these mega dilutions are at best equivalent to a placebo. Would a scientist be "close-minded" if, based on the data, s/he didn't accept the claim that mega dilutions are more effective? 

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If a ghost is photographed by a scientist today, after much resistance and make years of fighting, eventually ghosts will become reclassified as "material" things. And after a few hundred years pass, you will be thought of as crazy for doubting the existence of ghost. "Ghosts must obviously exist! It was only those fools back in the 21st century who were so closeminded as not to see them." That's what scientists of the 25th century will tell you.

The distinction between science and pseudo-science is a moving goal post. Pseudo-science is just the stuff that science hasn't successfully modeled yet. So course it cannot exist. Until we model it. Then it can't not exist.

There is a difference between not accepting the claim "ghosts exists" and accepting the claim "ghosts do not exist". A good scientist does the former: s/he simply does not accept a claim without reason. You are writing as if all claims will turn out to be true. There have been and are countless bogus claims that never turn out to be true. We could replace the claim that "ghosts exist" with claims that santa claus, Bigfoot, the Lochness monster or an invisible farting teapot exist. People can make all sorts of shit up. Simply claiming something doesn't make it true. 

I'd like to know the metric(s) you would recommend to scientists to discern between ideas/claims that warrant an investment of time, energy and money to scientifically investigate vs. ideas/claims that do not warrant this investment. 

I agree there are scientific areas that are too closed-minded. I'm particularly intrigued by the notion of a form of "intelligence" (such as cleverless) arising from immaterial. . . Yet, there seem to be suggestions here that discrediting any idea is close-minded, which I'm not on board with.

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[MM1988]

@Serotoninluv I think you are correct, science simply doesnt have the capacity to verify every bullshit claim. That doesnt mean science is closed minded and refuses to even test it. Leo is also correct when he says science is in bed with business, you are more likely to get funding for stuff that might turn into a sellable product. Homeopathy is a great example because it would be even more sellable than it already is if it were backed by science. So, was science closed minded here? No, this was investigated by science because there was tons of anecdotal evidence of homeopathy working which turned out to be bullshit, but you cant just go after EVERY claim someone makes. Granted, this also makes it unlikely for science to investigate existential questions as long there is not much public interrest, because there is no money to be made.

Edited November 29, 2017 by MM1988

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, MM1988 said:

@Serotoninluv I think you are correct, science simply doesnt have the capacity to verify every bullshit claim. That doesnt mean science is closed minded and refuses to even test it. Leo is also correct when he says science is in bed with business, you are more likely to get funding for stuff that might turn into a sellable product. Homeopathy is a great example because it would be even more sellable than it already is if it were backed by science. So, was science closed minded here? No, this was investigated by science because there was tons of anecdotal evidence of homeopathy working which turned out to be bullshit, but you cant just go after EVERY claim someone makes. Granted, this also makes it unlikely for science to investigate existential questions as long there is not much public interrest, because there is no money to be made.

profit motives is a major issue in data integrity.

Also, don’t underestimate fame. You get famous for new discoveries that change the way we view nature or developing innovative methods like crispr. This is a strong motivation for many scientists.

I think funding for sellable products is more of an issue in biotech/pharmaceuticals and less of an issue in nonprofit academic funding via NIH. Here, there may be limits regarding the granting agency of what “real science” is and what is most likely to contribute to health.  . . I’ve seen many researchers taylor their grants to what is “hot” or what they think the granting committee wants to hear - rather than their own intuition and interests. Yet, I’ve also seen older researchers become more free toward the end of their careers - to follow their calling.

I received tenure a few years ago and a HUGE burden was lifted. I had been so consumed about job advancement and security, what experiments would most likely lead to publishable results, getting funding, my reputation in the field, getting goid letters of recommendation. When I got tenure, all of that evaporated. I had thought all that pressure motivated me. Yet, I’m so much more effecient and productive now that I don’t give a shit and just follow my curiosity. What a paradox 

[SOUL]

It is a misnomer to say the totality of infinity because by it's very nature it isn't limited to a 'total' otherwise it wouldn't be infinite. I could say we can expand our consciousness to the 'ultimate state' of infinity so that we can be aware of it's absolute....but that is a mistaken perception. It would be inaccurate to suggest there is a totality of infinity or an end of time it can be accounted for that we can be aware of 'all' because...infinity.

Enlightenment is perpetual as infinity has no 'end' to it or 'total' of it so we cannot 'get it all', no 'be all and end all' to enlightenment, there is always the potential to 'expand' consciousness. So, we can have intimate experience in our awareness of infinity and it's nature but the mind will conceptualize it in a finite terms in an attempt to contain and understand it.

It can boggle the finite mind in trying to grasp this infinite dynamic and I know it may sound vague but language is limited so is inadequate to communicate the experience. Many years of the inner work in expanding consciousness has allowed me to experience being one with infinity while simultaneously being able to continue to expand because there is no all or end....it's infinite.

I'm at peace with it.

 

[hundreth]

@Leo Gura I agree 100% with your Metaphysics. Reality is a hallucination grounded by nothing. 

I don't understand the condemnation of science and the propping up of religions / New Age ideologies. Science is in the business of explaining the world of appearances in our dream reference state. It does a very good job at this. It doesn't claim to answer questions beyond this. Science is a tool. You condemn science for not dealing with Metaphysics, that's like condemning a hammer for not being a screwdriver. 

Here's where it gets more perplexing to me, religions and New Age ideologies also believe in a material world that is "real." Religions generally have a foundation of a "real" material world created by a divine creator. For the New Agers, it seems that Aliens have become their gods, and they are mostly concerned with how Aliens have manipulated our material world to "create" us. 

All three of religion, New Age, and science make claims about our world of appearances. For example, abrahamic religions claim the world is 6000 years old. The New Agers believe aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. They are both immensely concerned with "truth" related to this dream appearance. Science's methodology is a lot better suited to making sense of this realm. When scientists discover tons and tons evidence that the Egyptians themselves built the pyramids and no Aliens are required, the New Agers are the ones who can't handle this truth. 

Now I'm not claiming that science has all the answers, even when it comes to this appearance world, but if your major critique is the metaphysical foundation of a material reality, then all three are guilty. Just because the other two dabble with immaterial ideas while being completely wrong about this appearance world, doesn't make their foundations any stronger. At least science has some level competency in dealing with one frame of reference. New Age ideals on the other hand, they haven't touched truth in any frame. They simply believe what they want to believe. 

There's a world of a difference between not attaching to appearances, and attaching to all appearances. What is it about the New Age movement that makes it a stronger reflection of truth in your opinion? Really want to understand. Thanks.

[SOUL]

@Serotoninluv I find that there is quite a bit of 'moving the goalpost' reasoning and ad hominem labeling done by the scientific community to save face or discredit others.

One example is the use of the word 'supernatural' to refer to things we cannot currently detect or measure which is done to imply if we can't it must not be natural so doesn't exist. When in reality the ability to detect and measure continues to increase so something that was said to be 'supernatural' in the past to discredit it now gets relabeled in acceptable terms to then justify it while they ignore they perpetrated this slight of hand tactic in the process.

By this labeling they want to 'quackify' anyone who would even have any interest in anything they want to consider 'woo'. Then if there is a change in knowledge with the detection, measurement and understanding of something previously thought of as 'woo' they attempt to obscure their paradigm lock from themselves and others to justify their confirmation bias as being 'scientific'.

[Pointer]

Th words “brain” and “exist” seem to cause so much suffering so why not go with the Buddha and take the middle way? Because I assume that “Leo” and ”the scientists” agree that to say “do not” does not exist? For “Leo” it is instantly obvious, the scientists gets it when failing enough experiments and the “do not” give the intended results is the only place left to find something to publish.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

@Serotoninluv I find that there is quite a bit of 'moving the goalpost' reasoning and ad hominem labeling done by the scientific community to save face or discredit others.

One example is the use of the word 'supernatural' to refer to things we cannot currently detect or measure which is done to imply if we can't it must not be natural so doesn't exist. When in reality the ability to detect and measure continues to increase so something that was said to be 'supernatural' in the past to discredit it now gets relabeled in acceptable terms to then justify it while they ignore they perpetrated this slight of hand tactic in the process.

By this labeling they want to 'quackify' anyone who would even have any interest in anything they want to consider 'woo'. Then if there is a change in knowledge with the detection, measurement and understanding of something previously thought of as 'woo' they attempt to obscure their paradigm lock from themselves and others to justify their confirmation bias as being 'scientific'.

I can see how the scientific community wants to define the boundaries of what counts as legitimate and "real science". 

To me, the term "supernatural" means something beyond our current understanding of nature. As I've stated many times, there will be future discoveries that would appear "supernatural" now. Yet, these are rare discoveries. Science seems more comfortable building upon what we already know vs going for leaps. Yet, anyone can speculate and make supernatural shit up. It doesn't mean it should be taken seriously.

For example, I was discussing my research with a woman who is into metaphysics and paranormal. I told her that I work on a bacterium that infects insects and I am currently trying to determine how the bacterium localizes to brain tissue. She replied "Maybe it's an alien!!!". She was serious and she wanted me to seriously consider her alien hypothesis as valid and worthy of study. . . I just couldn't. We have a good understanding of cellular transport machines. Her idea would be the equivalent of noticing a stack of firewood near your shed and trying to figure out how it got there. Your friend tells you "Maybe an alien put it there!!!". Your friend wants to be taken seriously and wants the two of you to start searching for aliens. Wouldn't he seem a bit whacko?? Now what if he tells you how closed minded you are. That's what it sounds like to me as a cellular biologist. Just like we know firewood can be transported via pick up trucks and roads - we know that bacteria can transport via molecular motors and microtubules. Yet, if someone had no idea about trucks and roads - the alien idea might seem more reasonable. Similarly, if someone had no idea about kinesins and actin, the alien idea would seem more reasonable. Most people don't have an understanding of the underlying biology/science - that is one reason "supernatural" explanations seem more plausible.

Consider the 2004 movie "What the Bleep Do We Know"? It was a serious effort to present "supernatural" ideas and gain legitimacy. I remember people criticizing scientists as being closed-minded. Yet, upon closer scrutiny the movie is filled with half-truths and inaccurate scientific claims. Bullshit that would seem plausible to uneducated people.  It's been 13yrs since the movie was released - has even one idea in that movie been shown to be valid?

Yes, there are phenomena we are unaware of that would seem to be "supernatural" with out current understanding of nature. Yet, that doesn't mean people can make shit up and be taken seriously without a plausible basis.

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[mp22]

On 11/28/2017 at 8:28 PM, Leo Gura said:

Math certainly CANNOT say that!

Godel's Incompleteness theorem proved that all logic and mathematics is necessarily self-contradictory.

There are truths within mathematics which mathematics itself can never prove or grasp.

Truth is a much stronger notion than proof. Truth necessarily always eclipses proof, because proof itself is a subset of truth.

All these topics that you guys are bringing up are incredibly complex and tricky. You cannot take any of this stuff for granted. It requires decades of research to wrap your mind around all the problems plaguing fields like physics, mathematics, logic, and science. I've spent a lot energy studying these topics. I think about these topics more than I do personal development. It's mostly what I think about.

 

If you get cancer tomorrow, will you go to a Doctor or a Shaman?