A rant against intelligence as Leo sees it

[Azza]

I'm here to quote one thing from leo's video. 

"How do you get intelligence from.. from... just..... balls?" 

ok I'm done. I had to share this somewhere.

[George Paul]

Yeah, Leo's unmistakable style.

[Azza]

1 minute ago, George Paul said:

Yeah, Leo's unmistakable style.

I can also quote "you are not doing intelligence, intelligence is doing you".  but I'll stop at that cause if I keep going I'll quote the whole video lol

[lmfao]

@Leo Gura I agree with the essence of what you're saying your video Leo (I've only seen 30mins so far) , but I don't understand why it is that you think that the universe being "infinitely intelligent" (I'm using this term as a way of indicating that I'm referencing your view on intelligence) somehow points away from materialism being true. 

Materialism is the view that all of reality is a massive intricate system of energy configurations through space and time (all though space and time are not absolute things in a scientific view of things). 

You ask us to consider how it is possible that energy moving randomly around can create intelligence, and you're referring  the type of intelligence that average humans are familiar with. You're asking how is it possible for balls bouncing around in a box to produce intelligence.

But do you not think it is possible for matter/energy configurations in the universe to be responsible for human intelligence? Even if intelligence is a fundamental property to reality, that doesn't mean that every day human intelligence can't be the expression of matter/energy. I mean sure, you might ask "what's behind matter/energy", but even so I think you're "wrong" to think that this conception of infinite intelligence means that materialism is irreconcible with everyday human intelligence. Even if there's something behind matter/energy which is responsible for intelligence, it doesn't mean that matter/energy are definitely not possible expressions of intelligence. 

In short, I just think it's strange that you think that infinite intelligence can be used as a way to point people out of a materialist paradigm. What I'm saying now probable sounds really pedantic, but I'm not hostile. 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by lmfao

[DMM710]

7 minutes ago, lmfao said:

@Leo Gura I agree with the essence of what you're saying your video Leo (I've only seen 30mins so far) , but I don't understand why it is that you think that the universe being "infinitely intelligent" (I'm using this term as a way of indicating that I'm referencing your view on intelligence) somehow points away from materialism being true. 

Materialism is the view that all of reality is a massive intricate system of energy configurations through space and time (all though space and time are not absolute things in a scientific view of things). 

You ask us to consider how it is possible that energy moving randomly around can create intelligence, and you're referring  the type of intelligence that average humans are familiar with. You're asking how is it possible for balls bouncing around in a box to produce intelligence.

But do you not think it is possible for matter/energy configurations in the universe to be responsible for human intelligence? Even if intelligence is a fundamental property to reality, that doesn't mean that every day human intelligence can't be the expression of matter/energy. I mean sure, you might ask "what's behind matter/energy", but even so I think you're "wrong" to think that this conception of infinite intelligence means that materialism is irreconcible with everyday human intelligence. Even if there's something "intelligent" which goes deeper than matter/energy, it doesn't mean that matter/energy are definitely not possible expressions of intelligence

 

What is creating the matter/energy configurations though?

[lmfao]

@DMM710 yeah I've edited my message now. And if materialism is true idk what would be behind the energy/matter configurations. 

Edited June 10, 2018 by lmfao

[George Paul]

@lmfao

Materialism is not true long before Leo issued this last video. And it is not because of "infinite intelligence".

Materialism is not true because the the infinite consciousness creates the existence. Meaning that mater exists only as a thought of  God.

When it comes to intelligence there are two facets of it , one of which is rejected by Leo, and the other being adopted by Leo in his last video:

- first one (rejected one, materialist origin): there exists intelligence as an emerging property of matter, think about "brains" that can solve mathematics equations. Leo rejects this, and he says that even this intelligence is the property of God. Maybe he wanted to say that all matter is a property of God, no sense to talk about emerging intelligence, but it is not undestood like this, maybe I was not paying enough attention.

- the second one: infinite intelligence, being a property of God, with the meaning that this existence looks so perfect that God must be intelligent.

In my opinion both are wrong because intelligence is an abstract concept that does not exist in both of the worlds. In first case, the ability so solve mathematics is relative not absolute. We can only define intelligence as a comparison between two systems that are supposed to solve some kind of problem. One is more efficient than another. If we want a term to name it, we can chose "intelligence" but it is only a cover. In this aspect, this is an emerging intelligence of matter, it is not the creator's intelligence, and here is where Leo is wrong.

 

The second aspect is also debatable because there is no need to qualify the infinity with any property, including intelligence.

 

The problem is tricky because we are used to the materialist concept of intelligence from case one, Trying to bring this artificial construct to the infinity comes with a lot of problems such as : if existence is intelligent it is limited not infinite.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by George Paul

[Alex bliss]

That is why its always better to take instructions from an authentic realized being. Trying to explain that which is a whole different dimension with your logical mind which is not yet in your perception is utterly nonsense. Too much knowledge is only destructive.

 

 Leo is not qualified to teach anything as long as he is not fully enlightend himself. Right now actualized is basically a buisness in the name of spirituality.. 

   

Edited June 10, 2018 by Alex bliss

[George Paul]

@Alex bliss

Yes and no. 

At this point there is no need to ask a realized being.

And that's because what I want is to prevent importing a material abstract artificial concept to the world of infinity.

So, before asking a realized being about the intelligence of infinity, I propose not even open mouth speaking about it, what about making a full movie about this.

 

Lol, and I am talking about it all day

Edited June 10, 2018 by George Paul

[Azza]

I don't think leo is teaching as much as just sharing what he experiences. If he is giving instructions he wont keep mentioning the fact that it's hard for most people to understand what he means unless they experience it themselves. Do you think a teacher would say "you won't understand this and the chances are one in a million"? And let's assume he's trying to teach, it's up to you to consider this teaching or consider it a point of view

[SgtPepper]

3 hours ago, George Paul said:

I have a question though about Leo, guys . Does it matter if he is or not enlightened ?

I believe that what matters for me here and now, is to understand a little piece of philosophical / logical / scientific problem: the definition of intelligence.

Using thinking of course, not direct experience.

As bad as Leo might be in your eyes, so far I have heard far more interesting things from his mouth than from your keyboard.

 

 

But the whole point of video is to point out that Intelligence cannot be Boxed in. Science has failed to capture intelligence in its purity. To paraphrase Leo, science has only captured an aspect of intelligence.

 

3 hours ago, George Paul said:

@Outer Thinking has led human race to the point it admitted that matter has not an objective existence.

 Also thinking make us believe there might be a creator.

 

Now I try through thinking to figure out if there is a need to qualify the creator as intelligent

Not true in my experience. God is experienced through consciousness which is the foundation of experience. 

There is no need to do anything. Leo is just using words to express a quality about existence, but he is only doing this to communicate it to people, not to actually box intelligence, that would be impossible or inevitably inaccurate because intelligence in its pure state is impossible to grasp, like a tongue trying to taste itself.

You are also not considering what made humans and what made humans to think. But I wouldn't even try to figure this out with thought.

1 hour ago, Alex bliss said:

That is why its always better to take instructions from an authentic realized being. Trying to explain that which is a whole different dimension with your logical mind which is not yet in your perception is utterly nonsense. Too much knowledge is only destructive.

 

 Leo is not qualified to teach anything as long as he is not fully enlightend himself. Right now actualized is basically a buisness in the name of spirituality.. 

   

Leo is doing a service for the western world by bringing spirituality into the domain of rationality and English. Just because Leo is not enlightened doesn't mean he does not have ideas to share that can help other grow. In addition, Leo does not even encourage individuals to grasp truth via logical mind. He explicitly encourages individuals to experience this himself via consciousness. 

Edited June 10, 2018 by SgtPepper

[George Paul]

@Azza In some videos Leo is teaching, in others he gives instructions and in others he is sharing his experience.

This particular video fall in the kind of videos where he introduces new concepts, such was the one with what is ego, consciousness, life is a dream, etc.

But this time he did something wrong: he mixed a word that is defined purely inside matter, without redefining it. I am ok with redefining concepts in the sens of broadening them and applying at a higher level of conceptualization.

But this time he didn't define the new word intelligence. He started talking about it (after IQ introduction) and applied directly to God.

If he tried to redefined it to make sense , this video had not been made.

Because what he talked about was consciousness which encompasses the so called intelligence that he thought about. I know what he meant by infinite intelligence, but this is nothing else but consciousness.

 

It can't be other way because if let's suppose we broaden the concept intelligence and we come with something like this (ilustrative example): the capacity of something to have a solution to a problem.

I can't imagine now where a broadening concept may lead, but in any way, God is not posed to any problem to solve. Because all is God, he can make things without figuring out how to.

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by George Paul

[Azza]

2 minutes ago, George Paul said:

@Azza In some videos Leo is teaching, in others he gives instructions and in others he is sharing his experience.

This particular video fall in the kind of videos where he introduces new concepts, such was the one with what is ego, consciousness, life is a dream, etc.

But this time he did something wrong: he mixed a word that is defined purely inside matter, without redefining it.

Well again, even if leo is trying to teach and give instructions, you can just consider it a point of view. You can choose to be free from the idea that the truth will come to you on a golden plate and just try to personally grasp it from difference sources. Actually i think you're trying to do that right now by refusing the idea of teaching (: And about intelligence, honestly in my own opinion i think leo was basically trying to change our understanding of the word intelligence the entire video. So when you say he didn't try to do that, i think you might have lost the point of the whole video. But again that's what i personally see. 

 

I really wanna ask leo about this example of the mosquito though. Out of all the examples there could he in this world you chose the example of a mosquito. I think it was a very interesting coincidence since in the quran it says "(2:26) Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example – that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, “What did Allah intend by this as an example?” He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient". Were you try trying to channel prophet Mohammed by any chance? C: jk I just find it an interesting coincidence. @Leo Gura

[George Paul]

3 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

He did say that it's not like human intelligence. And that the consciousness and intelligence are actually the same thing.

If he said that it is ok, must have been only a flash in his video, because to much time has been spent talking about infinite intelligence, which equals consciousness, which has been presented in many other videos. This was a waste, and dangerous because people might think now God is intelligent.

[George Paul]

6 minutes ago, Azza said:

And about intelligence, honestly in my own opinion i think leo was basically trying to change our understanding of the word intelligence the entire video

Nope, he repeatedly says that intelligence is a property of consciousness, or infinity. So consciousness is intelligent. Why would it be ? For what reason ? Any problem need a solution ?

And he nowhere explains what is to be intelligent ? What that means ? What the consciousness does so that it can be cataloged as intelligent ? And what is intelligent anyway when it comes to God ? A catch 22

Edited June 10, 2018 by George Paul

[George Paul]

At 16:40 Leo says that in the next trip he will ask the universe" Why are you intelligent?" .

If we were to expand the word intelligence with its definition, lets say "the ability to solve problems", or anything else, you can put anything there, the question Leo was supposed to ask the universe becomes:

                                             "Why are you able to solve problems? "

 

See ? WTF ? How can you ask God this thing? It doesn't make sense.

If you can come with a definition that would make sens , please write here, it would be an interesting exercise.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by George Paul

[Faceless]

I haven’t watched the video...

What do you think intelligence is@George Paul

??

[George Paul]

7 minutes ago, Faceless said:

I haven’t watched the video...

What do you think intelligence is@George Paul

??

For now, the only meaning is the one that people gave it to it: "an ability of the brain to solve problems". Other variants are the ability to make connections between concepts in your brain, etc.

All seems to be related to the efficient organization of people brain.

A first order expansion of this concept would it be: "the ability of a system to adapt to the environment changes"

All of these are materialistic concepts.

I have no idea how a pure idealistic definition would lock like.

 

Looks like to be intelligent means to respond somehow to external stimulus.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by George Paul

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, George Paul said:

For now, the only meaning is the one that people gave it to it: "an ability of the brain to solve problems". Other variants are the ability to make connections between concepts in your brain, etc.

All seems to be related to the efficient organization of people brain.

A first order expansion of this concept would it be: "the ability of a system to adapt to the environment changes"

All of these are materialistic concepts.

I have no idea how a pure idealistic definition would lock like.

 

 

 

 

So your referring to intellect. THOUGHT. Right? 

The conditioned brain. THOUGHT BEING memory knowledge/experience. 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Faceless

[George Paul]

Just now, Faceless said:

So your referring to intellect. THOUGHT. Right? 

Yes, no other clue for now .

 

But not necesary. I admit extensikon of the definition to any phisical (for now) system than reacts to external stimulus.