Problems understanding Brains do not exist video

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, mp22 said:

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

Stop thinking about self-survival. You're obsessed with it. That's the whole problem here. You base all of your reality on whether a thing helps the illusion of you to survive. You see??

Survival has nothing to do with Truth.

[SOUL]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

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

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!!!".

Thank you confirming my points.

No, the scientific community doesn't get to draw the lines of legitimacy and be deciders what is "real science", the evidence does, and the scientific community gets to put forth their hypothesis about the evidence just like everybody else does. Reality and the evidence it provides is the arbiter of what is legitimate, we are just the observers of it and we hold each other responsible for being unbiased not good old boy system of protecting the establishment. Yet, they have taken upon themselves to act as if they are the High Priests who have the holy authority to decide what is canonized scripture of science or not.

Then you give an example by picking out the most extreme you come across and imply an across the board "quackifying" of anything that doesn't submit to the anointed bearers of scientific truth you attempt to establish initially. Now this doesn't mean we should accept blindly all or any idea just because somebody seized upon some mysterious evidence and extrapolated it out with some extravagant concept. There is way too much ideology and profit behind the establishment's motive for control of these "boundaries" of "legitimacy".

There is no problem with feeding poison to everyone including children in a multitude of forms because there is conveniently no incentive to procure evidence according to the "boundaries" set up by the establishment. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that with the increase in industrialization and chemical infiltration of our food system correlates with an increase in sickly people. It is only seen as an opportunity to prop people up for as long as possible to profit using even more industrial and chemical products and services. The reason for this is that there is no profit to be made in exposing the corrupt industrial and chemical "establishment" which also supports academia so they lobby to prevent exposure and protect their profitable establishment.

I'm glad there is anesthesia, antibiotics and modern medical procedures when I break my leg or something like that but there are way too many *insert disease* societies and foundations that seem more intent on perpetuating donations or corporations protecting profits and appeasing share holders to stop the misdirection and misinformation.

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Thank you confirming my points.

No, the scientific community doesn't get to draw the lines of legitimacy and be deciders what is "real science", the evidence does, and the scientific community gets to put forth their hypothesis about the evidence just like everybody else does. Reality and the evidence it provides is the arbiter of what is legitimate, we are just the observers of it and we hold each other responsible for being unbiased not good old boy system of protecting the establishment. Yet, they have taken upon themselves to act as if they are the High Priests who have the holy authority to decide what is canonized scripture of science or not.

Then you give an example by picking out the most extreme you come across and imply an across the board "quackifying" of anything that doesn't submit to the anointed bearers of scientific truth you attempt to establish initially. Now this doesn't mean we should accept blindly all or any idea just because somebody seized upon some mysterious evidence and extrapolated it out with some extravagant concept. There is way too much ideology and profit behind the establishment's motive for control of these "boundaries" of "legitimacy".

There is no problem with feeding poison to everyone including children in a multitude of forms because there is conveniently no incentive to procure evidence according to the "boundaries" set up by the establishment. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that with the increase in industrialization and chemical infiltration of our food system correlates with an increase in sickly people. It is only seen as an opportunity to prop people up for as long as possible to profit using even more industrial and chemical products and services. The reason for this is that there is no profit to be made in exposing the corrupt industrial and chemical "establishment" which also supports academia so they lobby to prevent exposure and protect their profitable establishment.

I'm glad there is anesthesia, antibiotics and modern medical procedures when I break my leg or something like that but there are way too many *insert disease* societies and foundations that seem more intent on perpetuating donations or corporations protecting profits and appeasing share holders to stop the misdirection and misinformation.

1. Agreed, evidence should be the arbitrator. I just haven’t seen sufficient evidence to belief most if the supernatural claims I hear.

2. There is a ton of research conducted on toxins, including industry. One of the hottest fields in biology is epigenetics, in particular how toxins create heritable changes in chromisomal structure. For example toxins in plastics have been exposed - this was in direct conflict to industry. 

3. I did not give the most extreme examples. I included a mainstream movie produced by supernatural supporters trying to attain legitimacy. These were the BEST theories they had to offer and it all crumbled under scrutiny. 

4. Science makes room for “supernatural” investigations. There are well funded laboratories that investigate string theory and quantum physics. The Two Slit / Eraser experiments are supernatural- they cannot be explained with our current understanding of nature. The scientific community awarded the reseachers with the highest prize in science - the Nobel Prize. If the supernatural can be demonstrated you become rich and famous in the scientific community.

5. You stated evidence should be the basis of wether an idea/claim is legitimate. Could you give me your BEST two examples of “supernatural” hypothesis that are strongly supported by evidence, yet are discredited as illegitimate by the scientific community?

[Leo Gura]

17 hours ago, MM1988 said:

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?

That's precisely correct.

The only way to access infinity is to literally become the sum total of what reality is. You are it, after all.

9 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

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)?

Both:

Discovering the substance of existence is impossible for science, or any symbolic method.

AND

The materialist paradigm of modern day scientists has closed them from being able to explore and explain phenomena which exist outside of their paradigm. In precisely that same way that dogmas of scientists 500 years ago prevented them from exploring the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. The history of science is riddled with epistemic blunders, and today's science is still doing it.

9 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet, also consider that skepticism in science also has value.

My point is that science isn't skeptical enough. The problem with science is that it is ideological and dogmatic. It misapplies skepticism. It uses skepticism to defend its traditions and dogmas.

This is not really a discussion about science. It is a discussion about the nature of the human mind. The root problem of every human being, and every human institution (including science and math) is that they are extremely dogmatic and closedminded.

Nobody actually bothers to investigate reality from scratch. All human knowledge is heavily based on tradition. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Muslim terrorists or Stephen Hawking. They both have the exact same disease of the mind. Just different content of dogma.

See my video about True vs False Skepticism

What science needs to learn to do is apply skepticism to itself, especially to its own foundations. This will make science more accurate and progress faster.

9 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

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.

There is no magic bullet. The point is that all questions are empirical questions, requiring open and unbiased empirical investigation. Differentiating what is true from what is false is a highly non-trivial matter. My point is that people take this for granted. Scientists assume they know things which they do not actually know. They do so to save time and energy. But the trade-off is that they are make big mistakes and dismiss important truths which are right under their nose.

When you believe something is impossible, you cannot investigate it seriously.

6 hours ago, hundreth said:

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.

Science suffers the exact same epistemic problems as religion. There is no difference between the to. The problem is that science thinks it is immune to the problems of religion, which only deepens its problems.

It doesn't do nearly as good a job as it could.

Yes, it DOES claim to answer question beyond this. Science actively DENIES many things which are actually true.

Science cannot not deal with metaphysics. If a scientist says, "I will just do my work and ignore metaphysics." That is a huge epistemic blunder. You cannot do that. That's is not an option. All methodology, modeling, data collection, and data interpretation is metaphysics-dependent. There is no such thing as objective observation. That's the whole point. Science assumes the universe can be studied objectively like a rat in a cage, but in fact the self is deeply involved in the process. The process of science is a lot more like doing surgery on yourself than observing a rat in a cage. You are deeply connected to the process. Your SELF distorts everything you look at. You are the rat!

6 hours ago, hundreth said:

What is it about the New Age movement that makes it a stronger reflection of truth in your opinion? Really want to understand.

Did I tell you to join the New Age movement? The New Age movement commits many epistemic blunders too.

All movements, all belief systems, all paradigms are not reality.

I am talking about things here which do not fit into any movement or category. Virtually no human beings understand the things I am talking about here.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

evidence should be the arbitrator

There are no arbiters of truth. That's is the whole problem. You assume truth can be arbitrated, but it cannot, because the thing doing the arbitration is itself in need of arbitration, and so on, to infinity.

Reality is absolutely relative. That's the only Absolute thing: totally relativity.

The truth you think you see out there, is the truth you're creating.

Science doesn't observe the truth. Science invents it, and solidifies it through consensus and tradition. Science is a human-constructed narrative, similar to history.

Truth is just like time, it is observer-dependent. Just because a billion humans agree on a thing, doesn't make it true. Which is precisely why the consensus must be defended so dogmatically.

The dogma is just a side-effect of the denial of the fact that reality is absolutely relative.

God is just the realization of Absolute Relativity. What Einstein discovered about time, you can discover about existence itself and everything in it. Nothing can ground anything because everything is ONE. Everything is its own ground. Everything is BEing. Everything is magic. But this requires consciousness to see. It cannot be taken on as a belief.

Enlightenment is what happens when you take the scientific method and apply it properly, without any biases or dogmas, to the whole of reality. You discover precisely what everything is.

[SOUL]

@Serotoninluv

Why are you calling it "supernatural claims"? How about just say claims and we could discuss it from there? You proved my point again. Your approach is based in confirmation bias and your baiting communicates your intent. I don't really care to discuss anything with someone like that, there isn't much fruit that can be gleaned from it. I have one particular clear example I could offer but to be direct it's not worth my time to go any further in this discussion.

 

I have things I'd rather place my attention on than this. Peace.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by SOUL

[Faceless]

Can the observer ever see truth in the deepest sense. Truth is the limitless. That which is beyond the limited mecahanical fragmentation of thought and consciousness. Truth implies the whole before fragmentation “thought” distorts a fact or actuality and projects a reality “processed projection” . How can what is limited by fragmentation see the whole? 

This is a good one to ask oneself 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Faceless

[mp22]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Stop thinking about self-survival. You're obsessed with it. That's the whole problem here. You base all of your reality on whether a thing helps the illusion of you to survive. You see??

Survival has nothing to do with Truth.

Fair enough but on youtube you did refuse to give me all your money on account that money is needed for survival in this dream :-) so its important to you as well or you would give it all away as meaningless. Do you see my point? if this is all a dream and you figured out the ultimate truth and you are God who made himself forget etc  then why don't try levitating instead of hoarding worthless symbols on paper?   When I lucid dream for example I try and fly, I don't sit around trying to get rich.

Second, if everything is relative, why can't truth be relative? is the idea that there is only one ultimate truth not your new paradigm ?  

Third, your position (like that of science) has evolved on certain things with the time. For example, you did not always believe that brains did not exist. You even said at some point that westerners did not use a certain part of the brain enough as  I recall. It is therefore possible that you could be wrong on this and that your position will also evolve.  Are you open to this possibility as well ?

Finally, don't take this as some personal attack. You have helped me enormously and I am not in any claiming that you are a fraud or anything like that. I am saying I think you are wrong on this.

[Highest]

Why take science important in the first place? I don't even bother with it because it is clear that we have two different realities here, the first one being science and the second consciousness. But what came before science? What observers this material world? Science mostly can only work on the material world which we experience with our 5 senses, beyond that lies another world, a world science cannot study. It's limitied, reality is not. 

[sweater]

@MM1988 Haaa

 

If 1+1=2... Why cant 1+1=5?

[MM1988]

@sweater Thats more or less my point. You dont know if 1+1=2 or 1+1=5. We know for a fact that it doesnt contradict materialism if a material brain can be made to look at 1+1=2 and 1+1=5 and conclude both to be correct. Its just that 1+1=2 makes sense in a waking state, but when you dream or on some kind of deliriant logic goes out the window and 1+1=5 suddenly could make perfect sense to you. Why shouldn't it be possible to have a material brain manipulated in such a way that it thinks its enlightened? I'm aware that I'm also applying logic here right now, maybe that's my mistake or the reason I don't get it completely.

[sweater]

@MM1988 Im not reading this time is money bro.

 

[MM1988]

@sweater then don't, no need to be rude

[sweater]

Sorry i apologize 

[Forestluv]

12 hours ago, SOUL said:

@Serotoninluv

How about just say claims and we could discuss it from there? You proved my point again. Your approach is based in confirmation bias and your baiting 

No need to be defensive. I’m open minded. Leo has presented claims outside the scientific paradigm that intrigue me.

I’d be happy to rephrase:

Could you tell me two claims supported by evidence that the scientific disregard?

[SOUL]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

No need to be defensive. I’m open minded. Leo has presented claims outside the scientific paradigm that intrigue me.

I’d be happy to rephrase:

Could you tell me two claims supported by evidence that the scientific disregard?

I have nothing to defend so why would you think I'm being defensive? I just don't want to engage in a discussion with someone being disingenuous in it so if we are to have an honest discussion then I hope you will take account of the underlying bias you may be harboring. You may have an "open mind" as you say but if you are here to win an internet argument then find someone else to do it with, if you want to exchange ideas then please have some respect for the process.

I did not make any "supernatural" claims and that wasn't the point of my comment to you in bringing up that word, the point was there is a certain amount of dog whistling within the scientific community by using words and labels. Saying things like supernatural, woo, quack, pseudo-science is meant to dismiss through ad hominem but is mostly motivated through ideology, power or profits. There are certainly a significant amount of the unscrupulous who will exploit the scientific method but those words are typically used to attack because of those mentioned motivations.

We can go on for hours and hours discussing research methods, samples, controls, selection of data, conclusions and hypothesis in trying to ferret out what may be credible science or not. I just find that when the unscrupulous actors come from within the scientific community, established industries or are about previously accepted concepts those labels don't get used as readily. Although if it's about topics or ideas that don't fit the established ideology or industries those words and labels are used as a signal to dismiss it unequivocally.

The other point is when there is enough evidence to support an idea or concept in the scientific community that previously was dismissed while using those words, they unflinchingly shift the word play so to accept the new understanding while continuing to use the words on other ideas. This isn't me saying that any of those other claims are really fact that have yet to be established but that the use of those words are tactics control the narrative and information based on ideology, power and profit.

Those were my points, not to discuss which or if claims has evidence or not, I didn't @ you in support of any of that. I'm not really interested in getting too deep into an internet discussion on specific claims, there is no benefit for me and my inner work to do so. I just know clearing away my own biases conscious of them or not has allowed me to expand my consciousness for well being. That's why I am on here and I thought maybe you were too so why I went to the lengths I have to discuss something I thought I might have seen in the exchange in this thread.

If you are here to discuss specific claims then there are others who will surely step up to do so, you say Leo made claims then ask him about them. I'm not making a claim other than the belief bias that pervades the mind, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this but I doubt there will ever be a pill or medical procedure to change that.... or maybe there will. Until that time I am here for inner work in my consciousness to create well being in my life. We cool now?

Edited November 30, 2017 by SOUL

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Could you tell me two claims supported by evidence that the scientific disregard?

See... the problem with that question is that it takes the notion of "supported by evidence" for granted. That is a paradigm-dependent notion. In other words, if you were given a list of such claims, you would likely reject or dismiss them because they do not fit the materialist paradigm's standards of "evidence".

The problem materialists face overall, is that they ask for gross material evidence of subtle immaterial facts. But you cannot grasp the subtle via the gross in many cases. The materialist paradigm discounts the enormous significance of changes in perspective, awareness, interpretation, and context.

Here are some claims supported but undeniable evidence that science disregards:

• Consciousness isn't limited to the skull
• Intelligence isn't limited to the skull
• Evolution isn't limited to DNA
• You are immortal and can never die
• All boundaries between physical objects are man-made. There is no such thing an "object".
• You are literally every other human being
• There is not one single piece of evidence for the external world
• Psychedelics reveal truth which science hasn't even dared to imagine possible
• All of science is a human invented system. There is nothing universal about it.
• It it possible to die while the body is still alive
• Paranormal phenomena exist
• Time is a concept which doesn't actually exist
• Space is a concept which doesn't actually exist
• Ancient peoples and civilizations like Egypt were WAY more advanced than scientists or historians believe
• Witchcraft is a valid way of investigating reality
• Etc.

But you're gonna have to expand your notion of "evidence" of course. Because if you demand double-blind clinical studies, you're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these truths can only be grasped individually, by you and no one else. Part of the problem of the materialist paradigm is that it only counts as "evidence" that which is communicable, model-able, and provable. But truth far exceeds communicability and provability.

[Forestluv]

@Leo Gura Thanks. I do have a strong bias toward the material. It's interesting how it is easier for me to accept immaterial notions (such as immaterial energy) when presented from what I perceive to be an established science source (e.g. quantum physics laboratories).

Psychedelics are the only tool to dissolve my material perspective. And the weird thing is, I can't dismiss it as some "drug-induced" illusion. It is as real as my sober material mind state. When I read your list, I sense resistance yet unable to dismiss it. Mainly because it resonates with the psychedelic state - which is as real as my sober state. As well, psychedelics kicked my ego's ass. Deep down, my ego knows it isn't the toughest kid on the block. Sometimes when my ego feels in charge as it figures things our - as it analyzes are decides what is true and false - as it is right. . . There are gaps when that Ayahuasca experience enter and my ego backs down. As tough as it likes to be, the truth is - it is afraid of Ayahuasca and high doses of other psychedelics.

[hundreth]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Science suffers the exact same epistemic problems as religion. There is no difference between the to. The problem is that science thinks it is immune to the problems of religion, which only deepens its problems.

It doesn't do nearly as good a job as it could.

Yes, it DOES claim to answer question beyond this. Science actively DENIES many things which are actually true.

Science cannot not deal with metaphysics. If a scientist says, "I will just do my work and ignore metaphysics." That is a huge epistemic blunder. You cannot do that. That's is not an option. All methodology, modeling, data collection, and data interpretation is metaphysics-dependent. There is no such thing as objective observation. That's the whole point. Science assumes the universe can be studied objectively like a rat in a cage, but in fact the self is deeply involved in the process. The process of science is a lot more like doing surgery on yourself than observing a rat in a cage. You are deeply connected to the process. Your SELF distorts everything you look at. You are the rat!

Did I tell you to join the New Age movement? The New Age movement commits many epistemic blunders too.

All movements, all belief systems, all paradigms are not reality.

I am talking about things here which do not fit into any movement or category. Virtually no human beings understand the things I am talking about here.

Thanks for the response. Regarding the New Age movement, I'm honestly not sure. You have alluded to the New Age movement in some of your videos as the ideas starting to make sense, and in your posts on the forum you've pointed to someone moving from a scientist to a New Ager as if that was a forward progression. 

[Epiphany_Inspired]

I had a little difficulty with this as well...but it was different... I found it confusing that this was explained in such a black and white manner. I believe that there is more of a "spectrum" of materialist perspectives....not really just those that "are", or "are not" in this materialist paradigm...the video was awesome...but it came across a bit like: there are only these two states... and they are like open-minded, or not open-minded clubs. 

For example: I began to have "first person perspective shattering experiences" early on (from about age 14), and am really open minded to ghosts etc (personal experiences with most of the things mentioned)...that said, as a result of my many neurosis, and the cultural conditioning mentioned, there is some % of me still in the materialist way of "being"...anyway, the end scared me a little...lol...I will try to "keep up"...but I am extra neurotic so it's a bit unfair...but maybe this is a tortoise & hare thing...not that it's a race...just maybe that being a tortoise is ok too...they just find a different way...lol...