Why Daniel is a genius

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

All I hear here from Daniel is a bunch of bubdle expensive words linked together and little Actuality. Concept and Imagination running wild and exploding through the windows as green goo. Sheldon from The Nerdy comedy Show can do it better, and funnier

There are certainly people who do that in a way that doesn't make sense, but Daniel doesn't strike me like that. His speech is super focused and goal-oriented. Compare him to someone like Eric Weinstein: he is also a really smart guy, but the difference is that he likes to use very peculiar metaphors or odd words for saying basic things. Daniel does not do that imo. When he uses a big word, he is generally pointing to a big concept. When Eric uses a big word, it's 50/50 a big concept and something basic.

If by "Actuality" you mean non-duality (and not the actual substance behind words), I say get lost. You won't solve complex societal problems by being a hippie. We tried that in the 60s with Tim Leary.

[Danioover9000]

@Rafael Thundercat

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

All I hear here from Daniel is a bunch of bubdle expensive words linked together and little Actuality. Concept and Imagination running wild and exploding through the windows as green goo. Sheldon from The Nerdy comedy Show can do it better, and funnier

   What do you mean? Everyone who's a genius uses bunches of expressive words. Yet it takes a special genius, like Eminem, to see another genius that uses expensive words. Because when you can do complicated abstraction of the universe and capture all that in the English language, you are certainly an English man.

[Razard86]

5 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Razard86

   The main problem is that alone is not compelling enough to argue why Daniel Schmachtenberger is a genius. Just stating everyone's a genius dilutes the meaning of genius, and you stating it takes a genius to know a genius, so what? It's like stating it takes a person who remembers everything in their life, photographic levels of memory, to know one, plus everyone's great with their memories, therefore why should we care about people like these when everyone is really great remembering everything in their life:

 

   This also dovetails to why hierarchies in existence are important, and why flattening those hierarchies might have many costs such as immense devaluing of what makes a genius a genius and not a genius, right?

It doesn't dilute the meaning at all, that is just a justification to not search or open your mind to see the genius. If you want to see his genius, search for it. If you search long and hard enough it will reveal itself. That's the point of the message. Search for it!!! It's there, only your bias gets in the way.

But I'll do you a solid and show you how he is a genius.

These are notes I took from the first 4 minutes of his video.

Emergence: Means something new arises that wasn't here before.
1. Asks questions of a deep nature and investigates it.
2. Recognizes that science observes emergence and realizes that emergences operates like magic
but the term magic isn't considered a scientific admissible term. (Reveals a bias in Science)
3. He said how do you have a cell that respirates made up of molecules that don't respirate.
He also mentioned how different parts had properties that other parts did not.
He explains that synergy is about whole systems that have properties not found in the whole systems
where emergence is about where everything comes from.
He mentions that because the parts do not share the properties of the whole system that the emergence
becomes unpredictable.

His genius is being able to accurately describe the current limits of human science. He basically is describing the
current gaps in Science's ability to measure accurately the variability that exists between individual systems
but even with those gaps in variabilities there is enough synergy that they are able to discover consistent laws.
He mentions Bucky Fuller called Love Metaphysical Gravity.
He then uses the term allurement to describe quantum foam and says you cannot get to subatomic forces without allurement which is another way to say the attractive forces/love/metaphysical gravity. (In his own words)
He uses this to show how you can state that attraction is driving the whole story of the universe

 

^^^GENIUS^^^ And that was just the first 4 minutes. Majority of humanity does not have this knowledge that he is causally sharing in this 25 minute video. Einstein did not have this knowledge, other respected current intellectuals do not have this knowledge. Because he has this knowledge he will be able to do physics at a level higher than his colleagues because he won't have the issue they will have which is bias skewing the results away from the existence of God.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Razard86

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

I think most game B people agree with that including Daniel. I think most of them have the position of trying to put down the groundwork for game B in their lifetime if they are lucky.

I disagree. What I saw from Daniel recently is this expectation that the whole world needs to come together and stop global warming for example, in a radical Game B manner, by ending all carbon emissions, or we all go extinct. This is what he is telling government leaders. It's complete fantasy. And no, we are not going extinct. These people have lost their minds with this extinction talk.

These people have become so wise that they are being stupid. Mankind is not ending carbon emissioms. Carbon emessions will even increase and that is not a mistake. Don't just blindly accept whatever hippie fantasies these people are selling you.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Princess Arabia]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Princess Arabia

   I partly agree, but that's not the main point I'm making and arguing for, that was towards @Razard86  when he posted this:

   So @Princess Arabia, what is the quickest way for me to devalue you as a person, as a human being, logically speaking? For example, if you claimed in the past the following:

   'I don't really believe this, infact, that's not how attraction works. Good looking? Good looking to whom. Put 10 pictures up and you will have different opinions as to who finds who attractive and good looking. An "ugly" (just for communication purposes because I donlt see people as ugly), an ugly person can see themselves as quite attractive and get more dates than someone physically attractive who don't view themselves as that, and that goes for both male and female, but more towards the male side since men usually go for looks first.'.

   And I said to you 'So? Everyone is attractive, and everyone is ugly, and every man goes for the looks, and every man and woman that's ugly can see themselves quite attractive. However, it takes a sexy attractive person to see the attraction, it takes the ugly person to see the ugliness, it takes both ugly males and females that see themselves as quite attractive to see their attractiveness.'. Am I devaluing you by hyper generalizing your take?

You can only feel devalued if you give yourself permission to feel devalued. I don't know if you're trying to devalue me (not saying you are or you're not, just trying to answer your question) but my take is just my take. Your hyper generalizing my take says nothing about me and my take, so no, I wouldn't feel devalued. My take can change as yours too, so I don't identify with my take. I don't take it personally.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Francis777]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It will be possible in the future but within our lifetime it is not how things will run. Nobody is at the levels of development needed to sustain Game B. And they will not be for another 100 years.

why don't you run in politics Leo? is that not in line with your highest good, or simply not your main interest?

Edited October 16, 2023 by Francis777

[Leo Gura]

42 minutes ago, Francis777 said:

why don't you run in politics Leo? is that not in line with your highest good, or simply not your main interest?

I am too radical for people to want me. And I do not want them either.

11 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

What makes you so sure about that? Saying that we're going extinct is an assumption, saying we're not is also one. What do you base this assumption on?

Mankind is not going extinct from a couple degrees change in temperature. We are not snowmen.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Juan]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Mankind is not going extinct from a couple degrees change in temperature. We are not snowmen.

Those couple of degrees are going up each year, it could get to a point to be irreversible damage to save let’s said our poles. This year in Puerto Rico we got some new records on hot temperatures compared to past years, and I find that worry some. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Juan

[AerisVahnEphelia]

@Leo Gura  

___

Definitely a sort of waste. But that might still have an impact on the collective shift.

Even though everyone is stuck within the 'limit of the physics' they have been bestowed with.

___

You can have a very strong computer but if you are using all the GPU process to turn Trojans you are wasting it and a modest computer might still go further.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by AerisVahnEphelia

[Carl-Richard]

@nuwu I think you're a good example of using too many big words 

[MuadDib]

On 14/10/2023 at 10:39 PM, Happy Lizard said:

@MuadDib where do you find the course, and much did it cost you?

I got it from my mom. She attended it live and is friends with Wyatt Woodsmall. I paid $5000 for access to his platinum passport at a discount which gives access to this course and all his other ones with Wyatt Woodsmall, including many other business orientated training.

https://ebenpagantraining.com/product/platinum-passport/

I later found copies to most of his stuff from a librarian at my university. Libraries are O.P.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

@Carl-Richard  I think @nuwu has legit good insights off the matrix.

the most intelligent guy I've ever met was just trolling most of the so call'd " I m smart people ".
legit artist, he could weave words that would have destroyed the brain of weinstein & john varvaeke just by pure rhetorical violence sent at the speed of light.

who would have thought. 

fun twist god cursed the most intelligent people with pain so deep that they are only able to permanently insult the world to ease it.

Edited October 16, 2023 by AerisVahnEphelia

[Girzo]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Mankind is not going extinct from a couple degrees change in temperature. We are not snowmen.

I don't think too many people are worried about total extinction, but loosing complexity, both in terms of our civilization but also complexity of natural ecosystems like oceans. or suffering of a billion people living in the places with the harshest conditions. These are terrible and catastrophic on their own.

[Danioover9000]

@Princess Arabia

11 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

You can only feel devalued if you give yourself permission to feel devalued. I don't know if you're trying to devalue me (not saying you are or you're not, just trying to answer your question) but my take is just my take. Your hyper generalizing my take says nothing about me and my take, so no, I wouldn't feel devalued. My take can change as yours too, so I don't identify with my take. I don't take it personally.

   Great you understand my example of @Razard86's take of my post, when he generalizes to say 'everyone' is a genius, and it takes one to know one, completely devalues my points, and attempts to corrode the meanings of my words and the words 'genius', which is why I provided those videos of those people gifted with incredible memory, not many have that capacity to remember everything in their lives, some do, some don't, some even have aphantasia and can't remember images and visuals, do you understand? Even here there's a hierarchy based on genetics, and other developmental factors, so @Razard86 trying to flatline the meanings of my words is disrespectful. Glad you understand how I felt when he did that.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I disagree. What I saw from Daniel recently is this expectation that the whole world needs to come together and stop global warming for example, in a radical Game B manner, by ending all carbon emissions, or we all go extinct. This is what he is telling government leaders. It's complete fantasy. And no, we are not going extinct. These people have lost their minds with this extinction talk.

These people have become so wise that they are being stupid. Mankind is not ending carbon emissioms. Carbon emessions will even increase and that is not a mistake. Don't just blindly accept whatever hippie fantasies these people are selling you.

   True, this apocalypse and world extinction talking points have even corrupted Adyashanti of fear mongering hippies and spiritualists that visit him. As much as a genius Nikola Tesla was, in his last 5-10 years he was getting obsessed with making a death ray machine or something. I guess we're back to a yin-yang asymmetrical yet balanced, and too much genius could also be an excess too.

   Too much of a good thing can be bad too.

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

12 hours ago, Razard86 said:

It doesn't dilute the meaning at all, that is just a justification to not search or open your mind to see the genius. If you want to see his genius, search for it. If you search long and hard enough it will reveal itself. That's the point of the message. Search for it!!! It's there, only your bias gets in the way.

But I'll do you a solid and show you how he is a genius.

These are notes I took from the first 4 minutes of his video.

Emergence: Means something new arises that wasn't here before.
1. Asks questions of a deep nature and investigates it.
2. Recognizes that science observes emergence and realizes that emergences operates like magic
but the term magic isn't considered a scientific admissible term. (Reveals a bias in Science)
3. He said how do you have a cell that respirates made up of molecules that don't respirate.
He also mentioned how different parts had properties that other parts did not.
He explains that synergy is about whole systems that have properties not found in the whole systems
where emergence is about where everything comes from.
He mentions that because the parts do not share the properties of the whole system that the emergence
becomes unpredictable.

His genius is being able to accurately describe the current limits of human science. He basically is describing the
current gaps in Science's ability to measure accurately the variability that exists between individual systems
but even with those gaps in variabilities there is enough synergy that they are able to discover consistent laws.
He mentions Bucky Fuller called Love Metaphysical Gravity.
He then uses the term allurement to describe quantum foam and says you cannot get to subatomic forces without allurement which is another way to say the attractive forces/love/metaphysical gravity. (In his own words)
He uses this to show how you can state that attraction is driving the whole story of the universe

 

^^^GENIUS^^^ And that was just the first 4 minutes. Majority of humanity does not have this knowledge that he is causally sharing in this 25 minute video. Einstein did not have this knowledge, other respected current intellectuals do not have this knowledge. Because he has this knowledge he will be able to do physics at a level higher than his colleagues because he won't have the issue they will have which is bias skewing the results away from the existence of God.

   Sure, I partly agree with you, but you do understand why we have definitions to define terms in the real world right? So when you're stating to me that 'Everyone's a genius, and it takes a genius to see a genius.', you do realize you were trying to generalize and devalue the definition of 'genius' and falsely equate that quality of genius to everyone, which by consequence means that everyone's a Daniel Schmachtenberger, and it takes a Daniel Schmachtenberger to know and see another Daniel Schmachtenberger right? So if everyone's a genius, then genius becomes very mundane and ordinary right? Do you understand you were trying to flatline the hierarchy created with various degrees of intelligence and genius, and trying to democratize genius yet devalue it's significance right?

[Princess Arabia]

5 hours ago, nuwu said:

In contrary, correlation between symbolic complexity and secular originality may be weak. 

1. Misalignment: Semantic entanglements are disproportionately more trivial to generate than to converge into cohesive simplicity, overemphasizing artificial appearances | dissolving verboseness with intents of reputational inflation or self-serving sophistry, rather than truth for truth's sake.
2. Reflective Stochastic Loss: Repeating sources of originality while overlooking observations | empiricism, inductive | deductive | adductive logical reasonings, transrationalism, and important nuances sustaining original balances required for net positive utility.
3. Cognition Asymmetry: Inability to manage stress-derived social pressures, low self-esteem, second languages, and discriminatory traumas may significantly alter communication skills, orthogonally to internal capacities.
4. Surface / Essence: Imprecise symbolism is inherently detached from internal abstraction and may fail to fully encapsulate the complexity of visions. In addition, iceberg surface may obfuscate significant subconscious inertia, with latent value imbued into their dynamics instead of immediately available utility.
5. Local Extremum: While constructs may be considering imposing at a given point within space-time, potentials may be reduced by overcomplication inefficiencies, one-way specialization, and narrow scopes.
6. Cultural Conformism: Assessment of tasteful expression and eloquence varies with respect to art eras and temporal factors.
7. Funposting: uwuwuwuwuwuw
8. Algorithmic Mimicry: Advanced natural language models like AI can generate lexically complex outputs but lack genuine understanding. This mechanical generation serves as a cautionary example, illustrating that complexity in expression is not a reliable indicator of depth or ingenuity. It challenges our traditional metrics for evaluating intelligence and calls for more holistic, discerning criteria.
9. Obfuscation: Exploiting excessive intentional abstraction, jargon, and meta self-exploration, to mitigate conceptual insensitiveness in public environments or to filter immediate common reactions, detached from appropriate matching linguistic depth relative to subject.

Sure, I get it. Understand perfectly.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I disagree. What I saw from Daniel recently is this expectation that the whole world needs to come together and stop global warming for example, in a radical Game B manner, by ending all carbon emissions, or we all go extinct. This is what he is telling government leaders. It's complete fantasy. And no, we are not going extinct. These people have lost their minds with this extinction talk.

These people have become so wise that they are being stupid. Mankind is not ending carbon emissioms. Carbon emessions will even increase and that is not a mistake. Don't just blindly accept whatever hippie fantasies these people are selling you.

   In fact, I could claim that the entire case Daniel Schmachtenberger put forth, is a gigantic matrix of motte and bailey fallacies stitched together.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiR0czO4fqBAxXDUUEAHVzWDl8QFnoECAsQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMotte-and-bailey_fallacy%23%3A~%3Atext%3DThe%20motte%2Dand%2Dbailey%20fallacy%2C(the%20%22bailey%22).&usg=AOvVaw238YAz05CQ2mncsZ7b_sHY&opi=89978449

   For example, Daniel's goal is to try and persuade/convince more people to adopt towards game b and move away game a, but when pressed to give an argument for this either he doesn't address those arguments back directly, or he often will string many irrelevant points and features of many contexts together, extrapolate them and weave some narrative for why we all should game b instead of game a, and then push for people to adopt game b despite not making an argument for why game b should be adopted, and doesn't demonstrate the limitations of game a, because by definition we're all under game a and gridlocked by Moloch, by perverse incentives to not move to game b when game a gives benefit and more power to some groups, therefore maintaining game a meanwhile making game b less convincing as a field to move into. Never mind the group level changes that have to happen, even to convince and persuade a person into pursuing and transitioning from game a to game b is tricky because that person will lose benefits gained and sustained by game a moving into game b.  

[UnbornTao]

On 15/10/2023 at 9:19 PM, Leo Gura said:

It will be possible in the future but within our lifetime it is not how things will run. Nobody is at the levels of development needed to sustain Game B. And they will not be for another 100 years.

And even then...

Human nature doesn't seem to have changed much, in the same way that our bodies haven't evolved much or at all either. What's changed has been mostly the environment we live in and the technology we use, with some learning added on top of our condition.

Edited November 3, 2023 by UnbornTao

[AerisVahnEphelia]

@nuwu i feel discovered by this