A Challenge

[Anonymous No.12280647]

Leo Gura is an expert in philosophy and metaphysics, he has gained quite a lot of traction on YouTube over the past few years. Having read hundreds of books on various subjects in the search for truth, and having explored the depths of the mind through DMT and psychedelic use, he has come to the realization that he is God. That everything is subjective, relative, and that you too are God. He was a huge advocate of Science but has now publicly come out against it because of his recent revelations. He's so confident infact that he's issued a challenge to anyone bold and coherent enough to challenge him. To refuse to engage him, in his words would be "a defence mechanism of the ego"

"Announcement: I am thinking of supplementing this 4 part video series with a 5th part which would be a live Q&A with a professional person within academia or science, wherein I answer any of their objections or critiques. If you are reading this and you are a professional within academia or science and you would like to record a live Q&A session with me with your objections, please reply below. I need to see that you are able to articulate strong and cogent objections if this session is to take place. I'm open to a live Q&A with anyone who is serious about contemplating the points I make in good faith with openmindedness. I'm not interested in debating trolls or ideological debunkers who show no sign of intelligence or depth of comprehension of epistemology or science. Let's see if anyone in the audience is up for the challenge. Please note, this would not be a debate but a conversation wherein I answer your questions and help you understand reality deeper. If you really want your ideas of science challenged, this is an opportunity for you. If you want you defend some ideology, then this is not for you. This is not a publicity stunt but a way to help viewers gain a deeper understanding of the tricky epistemology of science."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwyPdXtl0HU

You're up /sci/

[Anonymous No.12281014]

>>12280647
Let me guess he’s just gonna redefine god as “consciousness” or “everything” and therefore he’s god. No body cares.

[El Arcón No.12281082]

I have this letter from the rabbi at my Hebrew school that says my name is God.

[Anonymous No.12281100]

>>12280647
Imagine being so dense you have to read hundreds of books to come to a conclusion that is observably wrong.

[Anonymous No.12281316]

>>12281082
Gedalya Gershon , son of Haya Lea...
No god in any of these names.

[Anonymous No.12281333]

>>12280647
there are a ton of high school girls who want to get laid by guys like this
let that sink in
you're there to make crackling fire-like sounds
it's a form of entertainment for them
makes 'em feel comfy
same basic principles as PUA
http://www.pickupguide.com/puguide.htm
this guy even looks like a PUA

[Anonymous No.12281546]

>>12280647
>its not a debate ill converse with you to help you understand reality better, OPENMINDEDLY of course
The ego on that guy

[Anonymous No.12281550]

>>12281014
Yes. typical redditfag, low IQ psychonaut Alan watts philosophy 101 schizobabble cope bullshit

[Anonymous No.12281552]

>>12281546
Ironic, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.12281556]

>>12281550
This. It's absolutely cope because he's ugly and an underachiever. The inferiority complex on this motherfucker got so bad that he deluded himself into a god complex.

[Anonymous No.12281572]

>>12280647
This dude meshes with the bullcrap in my mind. His is the only site I ever bookmarked. Two years ago. Never found the time to get around to checking it out though.

[Anonymous No.12281724]

>>12280647
this dude is a loony
i watched the first 24 minutes and then couldnt stand it anymore, he didnt manage to make a single argument or good point during that time but was just babbeling about how sophisticated and smart this is and how much of a critical mind you need to have to shit on science when it fails sometimes
>the absolute levels of self deluded fart sniffing and fedoratipping
>the dude thinks hes the shit and takes "meaningful" pauses after every sentence to inhale the aroma of his farts and fetid ego
>"i spent 1000 hours thinking about this within 15 years"
just in the past 3 months i spent 1000 hrs on a single videogame, and i play also other video games besides that
and this is all you could come up with? embarrassing!
its only verbal diarrhea hes vomiting out, with minimal meaning, point or seeming organizational structure
literally 2:40 hrs of what might aswell be schizo rambling
the way he talks sounds like someone trying to sell you a scam, that wants to keep your attention for as long as possible without saying anything but just producing gibberish

these are the people that think they are "enlightened" while likely having an average IQ at best
i cringe at the patheticness

[Anonymous No.12281734]

youtube is such trash holy shit
>>12281546
god i wish that were me

[Anonymous No.12281871]

>>12281724

His entire argument at its core comes down to this:

all logic is subjective and is built off of mental models created by individuals or society, which is based on language. You were culturally indoctrinated into the cult of reason and are thereby trapped by it's limited worldview.

For example, the scientific method uses mental models such as deductive and inductive reasoning, it uses peer review and double blind placebo trials with lengthy papers to prove a hypothesis. This is known as the scientific method. People came up with these rules and methods, there were never set in stone and are ultimately flawed.

These mental models are subjective and relative because of the lack of absolute certainty and are prone to reform. Whatever statement you make that you believe to be an absolute fact (e.g 1+1=2), needs a plethora of assumptions and existing foundations to support it already. The presumption that you exist, that you're not in a dream, that the language or numbers you're even using have the meanings prescribed to them that you think they have.

Everything can only be probability, but there can never be certainty (deductive reasoning), because after all you might be dreaming. Even though deductive reasoning can take place within a fantasy or a hypothetical scenario..for example, mewtwo is stronger than caterpie..it still is ultimately uncertain.

Hey says. quote:

""All justifications of logic are in fact circular and every logical system must be self-contradictory, as Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show."

An example statement would be this:

"If nothing is definite then wouldn't the statement "nothing is definite" not be definite as well?"

This shows the limitations of logic. When you reflect a mirror back at itself, the logic of the brain interprets that as a circular. The mind also gets stuck when it thinks about god (who created gods god, and who created gods gods god, and who created etc etc).

Rebuttals, thoughts?

[Anonymous No.12281909]

>>12281871
of course, nothing is axiomatic. Did he need a 1 hour video to explain that? It seemed like he assumed that everybody who watches the video is a dawkins fan or something. Also, he was saying that there are post-rational ways of acquiring truth. I'd be interested to see what those are.

[Anonymous No.12281919]

>>12281871
So the guy's just ripping off lyotard and derrida 40 years after they were relevant

[Anonymous No.12282278]

>>12281871
Hilarious

[Anonymous No.12282354]

>>12281871
There is nothing wrong with logic being, ultimately, circular.
The circle is a perfectly consistent form.

[Anonymous No.12282412]

Dude's an actual pedophile

[Anonymous No.12282446]

>philosophy and metaphysics
very onions

[Anonymous No.12282449]

>>12282412
based

[Anonymous No.12282465]

Just look at how much this fag charges for his minimal-effort rambling videos. Im sorry you were scammed, OP!

[Anonymous No.12282682]

>>12281082
BEGONE TOOKY

[Anonymous No.12283217]

>>12281871
>all logic is subjective
wrong.
>built off of mental models
what is a mental model supposed to be? what makes it different from a regular model?
>created by individuals or society
well every single model is created by some individual at some point
>which is based on language
what?
>You were culturally indoctrinated
what a bold assumption to make about an anonymous stranger
>culturally indoctrinated
what culture exactly?
this where the lunacy shows.
>cult of reason
lol
>and are thereby trapped
false premise, invalid conclusion
>by it's limited worldview
logic is not an ideology and was little to do with a "world view"
this guy talks like an regressive leftie who views all facts and evidence as per se trivial, absolutely retarded
this is done to avoid having to admit to any possible absolute truth, the mental state from which this kind of reasoning originates is one of deeply internalized inferiority
>scientific method uses stuff to prove a hypothesis
the scientific method relates to more than that, but yes, this is an element of it
>People came up with these rules and methods
correct.
>they were never set in stone
these rules can change, but their value is in providing a common ground to hold a discussion in a meaningful way
>are ultimately flawed
how so? he is not being specific with this at all, a common theme during the video
nothing of substance
he doesnt even bother to point out some ill addressed or proven wrong method, but since its possible that some methods are likely flawed he concludes that the whole scientific method must be flawed and should be disregarded
this is not a valid conclusion at all, but for a person that seems to reject logic, not surprising
>These mental models are subjective and relative
wrong.
a scientific model of a system like for example a pendulum has zero subjective elements
all information about the model lies in its description, a description based on a language and formalities that are regarded as axioms

[Anonymous No.12283220]

>>12280647
schizo

[Anonymous No.12283276]

>>12281871
>lack of absolute certainty
this is nonsense.
the modelling provides determinism, thats the whole point of making a model
>Whatever statement you make ... needs a plethora of assumptions and existing foundations to support it
yes, those are called axioms
without a common language and standards, meaningful exchange is impossible
>presumption that you exist
this doesnt mean anything, and is also a pointless question to ask
what even constitutes existence for a person who likely would reject any mathematic definition as arbitrary, without providing any frame of substance himself
>that you're not in a dream
irrelevant still, to the discussion about the scientific method
>language or numbers you're even using have the meanings prescribed to them that you think they have
sounds like he pretends there is an intrinsic meaning to numbers besides that, which is given to it by individuals?
this doesnt fit in line with the other parts of his narrative
>Everything can only be probability
a statistician would say that, but they too use scientific and mathematical models for everything that are "made up" and therefor to king autismo are somehow subjective and have limited merit to them
this is an inconsistency
>there can never be certainty
from a statistical standpoint? maybe
>because after all you might be dreaming
this doesnt relate at all and is not an excuse
>Even though deductive reasoning can take place within a fantasy or a hypothetical scenario
>it still is ultimately uncertain
wrong.
non sequitur, like half of his stuff.
there is zero merit to the conclusion he draws
>deductive reasoning is uncertain
no. and he also doesnt explain why and how this is supposed to be the case
non stop, stuff he pulls out of his ass
>All justifications of logic are in fact circular
logic doesnt require justification
the premise is already horseshit, like in every other sentence

[Anonymous No.12283305]

>>12283220
are you a bigot? hateful of mentally oppressed identities? shame on you, why are you such a hateful monster, like wow, really? honestly, im really suprised you would think such a thing, its sad really, there's no reason to hate people with oppressed mental health identities.

[Anonymous No.12283319]

>>12281871
>>its circular
ironic, coming from a person who uses circular argumentation himself in his attempt to "prove the scientific method wrong", without providing any basis for his argumentation and not even trying to justify this narrative over himself
>every logical system must be self-contradictory
wrong
>as Godel's Incompleteness Theorems show
his theorems are a thought experiment, more than anything
again, ironic how a person who rejects the concept of objective truth is still capable of labelling things he considers to be true as a reference to base his narrative on
even more ironic how directly before this he talks about "self-contradictory"
the retard has truly zero self reflection
>"If nothing is definite then wouldn't the statement "nothing is definite" not be definite as well?"
a contradiction based on the limited expressiveness of the common language, rather than picking an actual mathematic example?
this is just lazy
dead ends like this do not prove anything, no clue why king fartsniffer likes to paint this as a "really makes u thonk" case, when its really not
>This shows the limitations of logic
wrong.
none of this shows anything, besides the person writing it having a very limited understanding of the topic it is talking about
half of the gibberish seems as like its produced by a language generator that was fed pseudo bullshit beforehand
>When you reflect a mirror back at itself
this statement makes no sense
light (or waves in general) are reflected, the mirror itself is not reflected
>the logic of the brain interprets that as a circular
this doesnt make any sense
>The mind also gets stuck when it thinks about god
wrong.
this smells like projection
>who created gods god, and who created gods ...
this has nothing to do with the scientific method, it isnt even an example for anything
>Rebuttals, thoughts?
it seems like the person who wrote this doesnt have english as their first language
he is inconsistent and imprecise with his language