- Encounter with Thiago : Leo shares how meeting Thiago, the most religious person at his school, opened his eyes to a new perspective on religion and spirituality which contrasted with his own pragmatic beliefs about the universe and existence.
- Confronting dogmatism : Through debates with Thiago and his friends, Leo recognized a dogmatic emotional reaction both in himself and others. It confused him how knowledgeable individuals could also hold beliefs that seemed factually wrong or outdated, like the young age of the Earth.
- Cultural beliefs in history : Leo's study of history gave him insight into how cultures are often blind to one another's worldviews, leading him to question the certainty of his own beliefs in comparison to those from other times and cultures.
- Intellectual errors over time : He found that many intelligent people throughout history have made serious intellectual mistakes, causing him to ponder if modern society could be repeating these errors.
- Self-doubt about self-deception : The realization that others might view his beliefs as deluded led Leo to seriously consider the possibility of his own self-deception.
- Delving into Epistemology : Leo turned to the study of Epistemology to understand how knowledge is justified and to confront his own uncertainties about truth and belief.
- Self-inquiry on belief justifications : He embarked on a process of deep introspection, questioning the validity of his beliefs, including his disbelief in God, and ultimately recognizing they were based more on intuition and how they fit into his overall worldview rather than solid evidence.
- The self-judgment dilemma : Leo acknowledged the difficulty in impartially judging one's own beliefs, likening it to a conflict of interest seen in a self-judged trial, highlighting the challenge of personal bias.
- Questioning practical beliefs : He applied this scrutiny to everyday beliefs, like the expectation of the sun rising, realizing they are taken on faith rather than absolute knowledge.
- Acceptance of personal bias : After recognizing his own biases, Leo understood that there was little actual difference between his atheist views and someone else's theistic beliefs; both were influenced by personal intuition and could be considered biased.
- The bias in scientific evidence : He argued science does not escape personal bias and questioned if his reliance on scientific evidence was also a form of self-deception.
- Epistemology and the quest for truth : Leo's journey into epistemology was rooted in a sincere desire to discern truth from delusion, to understand why intelligent people believe what they do, and to uncover the assumptions that underlie all our knowledge.
- Uncertainty of scientific laws : Leo questions the certainty of scientific beliefs, such as the consistency of gravitational laws or the sun's behavior. He outlines how previous models like Newtonian mechanics have been revised, contemplating the potential flaws in current models like Einstein's theories, thus acknowledging the potential for change and imperfection in scientific understanding.
- Existential doubt and the foundation of beliefs : Deep existential doubts led Leo to conclude that all justifications for beliefs are essentially baseless, grounded in fundamental assumptions taken on faith. This realization extends to all beliefs, including scientific ones, which made him recognize the intrinsic bias and personal intuition involved in validating beliefs.
- Bias and emotion in belief validation : Leo points out that belief systems are not purely intellectual constructs but are influenced by personal bias and emotional investment. This bias permeates debates and discussions, showing that disagreements about factual matters often stem from individual intuitions.
- Underdetermination of knowledge graphs : Leo discovers philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine's model, which illustrates human knowledge as a graph with interconnected beliefs, where empirical data only touches the edges. This model highlighted the "underdetermined" nature of knowledge, providing flexibility in interpreting facts, which subsequently explains differing worldviews despite identical evidence.
- Reconfiguration of beliefs in light of new evidence : Quine's model suggests that when new empirical evidence challenges an existing belief, adjustments are made throughout the knowledge graph to accommodate this evidence. This flexibility in belief adjustment illuminates why deeply held beliefs can be tenacious and resistant to change, even with conflicting evidence.
- Difficulty in disputing fundamental beliefs : Quine explained that core beliefs, even if challenged by new evidence, can be protected by making extensive adjustments in the rest of the belief system, often resorting to alternative explanations such as hallucinations or changes in underlying logical laws. This characteristic makes it profoundly challenging to debate and alter someone's fundamental beliefs.
- Debating and the resilience of belief systems : Leo acknowledges the challenge in changing someone's belief system through debate. He observes that when confronted with conflicting evidence, people tend to restructure their belief system to rationalize the evidence away, which allows them to maintain their original beliefs without conceding to the new information.
- Reality of Logical Laws : Leo Gura explains that even the logical laws are a part of the constructed knowledge graph, suggesting that there is nothing that exists outside of this system. Everything, including deeply held fundamental beliefs, is part of this model.
- Mechanics of Belief Preservation : Leo notes that beliefs at the center of the knowledge graph are the most protected and hardest to change, even with substantial evidence, due to layers of other beliefs that need to be modified first.
- Challenge in Arguing with Fundamental Beliefs : Arguing against fundamental beliefs of any kind, not just religious ones, is extremely difficult because of the interconnected layers protecting the core belief within the knowledge graph.
- Scientific and Religious Beliefs Levelled : He emphasizes that scientific truths are not inherently more empirical or verifiable than religious beliefs. This challenges the supremacy of scientific claims, placing them on the same level as cultural posits.
- Physical Objects as Conceptual Entities : Leo explains how our belief in physical objects or forces is conceptual rather than directly experienced. These entities are integrated into our knowledge graph because they are useful for making sense of empirical data.
- Science as Model and Concept Creation : He reaffirms that science is about creating models and concepts buttressed by empirical data but emphasizes the heavy influence of interpretation and the potential for arbitrary models.
- Nature of External World Statements : Statements about the external world are evaluated holistically, not individually. When questioning one belief, the entire belief system of a person is challenged, which can result in emotional and defensive reactions.
- Personal Preference in Knowledge Construction : According to Leo, knowledge graphs are mostly arbitrary and filled with personal biases, hence why they can sometimes seem like "complete fictions of the mind".
- Holistic Functionality of Worldviews : He points out that holistic worldviews are challenging to question due to their integrated structure and ability to adapt and rationalize away contradictions.
- Argumentation as Justification : Leo sees argumentation as a tool that the knowledge graph uses to preserve its integrity. This is true not only for high-level philosophical beliefs but also for everyday attitudes and ideologies.
- Preference for Practicality Over Truth : Leo states that most people, including himself, are more concerned with practicality and the convenience of beliefs rather than seeking absolute truth.
- Empirical Experience as the Truest Accessible Element : The closest we can get to absolute truth, per Leo, is the empirical experience that interacts with our knowledge graph, though this, in turn, is limited by the unique sensory capabilities of human beings.
- Surrendering the Search for Absolute Truth : Concluding that the search for absolute truth might be futile due to the inherent biases of our knowledge graph and the limitations of human senses, Leo suggests that focusing on practicality might be the more accessible goal.
- Disillusionment with philosophy : Leo realized that his search for absolute truth through philosophy was unattainable, leading him to initially abandon his ambition of becoming a philosophy professor and focus on more mundane aspects of life.
- Practical implications of philosophical models : Despite distancing himself from philosophy, he couldn't shake the hunch that there was a practical side to understanding human interaction through these philosophical models.
- Doubts about the effectiveness of science : Observing the successes of science and technology, Leo grappled with questions about why some fictitious entities created by science worked effectively in the real world while others did not.
- Introduction to enlightenment : After years of sidelining philosophy, enlightenment literature offered Leo a "master stroke" idea - the possibility of eliminating the self, or the perceived boundary between an individual and the external world.
- The self as a concept : Leo hypothesized that the self could be a conceptual node within the knowledge graph, challenging the idea that it is a physical separation from reality.
- Direct access to empirical reality : He contemplated that by removing the illusory self, one could have direct access to truth and empirical reality, bypassing the need for constructing entities or models.
- Truth versus explanation : Leo differentiated between explanations, theories, and models, which he viewed as attempts to explain truth, from truth itself, which he saw as what remains once the knowledge graph is destroyed.
- The problem with adding more to the knowledge graph : Leo suggested that merely incorporating new theories into one's knowledge graph doesn't lead to a true change in understanding.
- Real change through deconstruction : He proposed that to bring about genuine change, one must not add to but entirely destroy their existing knowledge graph.
- The paradox and goal of personal development : Leo explained the paradox that while all concepts, including his own, are additions to the knowledge graph, recognizing this as an illusion can be the first step toward seeking to dismantle that graph. The ultimate aim of personal development, according to Leo, is discovering the truth of one's own being and the nature of reality.
- Systematic deconstruction of Leo's knowledge graph : Committing to destroy his knowledge graph as an example for his audience, Leo hoped to demonstrate how this could lead to a profound understanding of truth, transcending biases and barriers.