Deconstructing The Myth Of Science - Part 3

"Systems, scientific and philosophic, come and go. Each method of limited
understanding is at length exhausted. In its prime each system is a triumphant
success: in its decay, it is an obstructive nuisance." - Alfred North
Whitehead

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more
progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." -
Nikola Tesla

• Potential misuse of deconstructing science : Leo Gura warns of the dangers associated with the deconstruction of science, cautioning that individuals with pre-rational perspectives might exploit his critique to justify science denial and conspiracy theories. He emphasizes that this undertaking's intention is not to affirm baseless ideologies but to advance intellectual progress through honest self-examination.
• Actualized.org as a process, not an ideology : Gura clarifies that Actualized.org is not pushing a specific philosophy or ideology but rather advocates for the mental deconstruction of all beliefs, including one's own. This process is intended to lead to freedom and liberation from all ideologies, not the establishment of a new one.
• Acknowledgment of visionary scientists : Leo acknowledges the presence of high-quality, visionary scientists who have transcended materialist and rationalist paradigms. However, he notes their rarity and lack of mainstream recognition due to prevailing institutional paradigms that do not favor post-rational science.
• Science and language are inseparable : Leo highlights the deep connection between science and language, emphasizing that modern science cannot operate without the linguistic labels and categories. He discusses the evolution of language in tandem with scientific progress, and how its constructive role may influence our understanding of reality.
• Subconscious and metaphysical baggage of language : Gura points out that every word, even seemingly straightforward terms like "rabbit," carries subconscious implications and implicit metaphysical baggage. He questions the taken-for-granted nature of words and their meaning in science, suggesting that our minds and language may be so intertwined that it becomes hard to distinguish their origins and influences on our perception of reality.
• Challenging the assumption of language's solely descriptive role : Gura argues against the notion that language is merely descriptive, instead proposing that it actively constructs our perception of reality. He suggests that language acts as an augmented reality system, overlaying and projecting onto raw phenomena.
• The possibility of experiencing reality without language : Leo challenges the audience to contemplate the potential of experiencing reality without language, highlighting the limitations that language can impose. He suggests that scientists' lack of awareness about meditative practices prevents them from exploring non-linguistic modes of experiencing reality, which could offer a more direct insight into its nature.
• Non-Linguistic Understanding of Reality : Linguistic approaches have dominated human perception of reality, but there may exist non-linguistic ways to approach and understand reality which have not been sufficiently explored or validated scientifically.
• Scientific Validation of Linguistic Modality : The scientific community has largely operated under the assumption that language is the best tool for understanding reality without thoroughly testing and validating this assumption against non-linguistic methods.
• Challenge to Scientists : Leo challenges scientists to experience reality for one minute without linguistic thought to reveal potential biases in their understanding, as constant linguistic thinking suggests an entanglement with a specific mode of perception.
• Inherent Duality of Language : Language intrinsically imposes a dualistic framework onto reality by creating categories and oppositional pairings, which may not align with nature’s potential nonduality.
• Methodological Bias of Science : Modern science is criticized for not realizing that its methodological reliance on dualistic categorization could be projecting unnatural divisions onto a fundamentally nondual reality.
• Critique of Common Scientific Terms : Leo urges scientists to deeply contemplate common scientific labels, such as "experience," "reality," and "existence," noting that these terms are often used without a full understanding of their implications and are products of the mind.
• Semantic Significance in Science : Every term used in scientific exploration shapes our understanding and must be deeply questioned; this is not merely semantic wordplay but affects how scientists, and society at large, conceptualize and interact with reality.
• The Map-Territory Distinction : Leo warns against confusing symbolic models and representations with reality itself, highlighting that while models are refined over time, they will never truly embody the complete truth of the territory they attempt to represent.
• Inherent bias towards symbolic representation in science : Leo Gura criticizes science for being heavily biased towards exploring reality through thinking, symbolism, and representation via modeling. He argues that this limits scientists to only one modality, overlooking direct methods of understanding reality that do not rely on thinking or symbolic mechanisms.
• Possibility of direct consciousness of reality : He suggests the potential for direct consciousness of reality—direct access to the absolute truth without the intermediaries of models or symbols. This method differs from the conventional scientific approach and is not yet taught or recognized within academia, which focuses primarily on symbolic representation.
• Definition of science and its future expansion : Leo challenges the current narrow definition of science and proposes that it should be expanded to include direct experiences and consciousness. He predicts that the perception of what is considered science will evolve drastically over the next couple of centuries.
• Limitations of the scientific consensus : He foresees that mainstream academia is unlikely to accept his views in the short term because they defy entrenched worldviews and professional reputations. Change within science frequently follows the retirement or passing of older generations and the fresh perspectives brought by younger scientists.
• Scientists trapped in their models : Leo notes that scientists often become overly attached to their models, mistaking them for reality itself. This attachment becomes an obstacle to deeper understanding, as models are inherently simplified and limited representations of the complex and infinite nature of reality.
• The "Substance Problem" in scientific inquiry : Leo highlights a critical issue he dubs the "substance problem" in science, where science does not—and arguably cannot—explain the true essence of anything. Science can describe how entities behave but fails to address what they fundamentally are.
• Circular Definitions in Scientific Explanation : He critiques the use of circular definitions in scientific explanation, where terms are continuously redefined in terms of others without ever arriving at a fundamental understanding of what these terms actually signify.
• Symbolic representation's limitations in grasping substance : Leo asserts that symbolic representation cannot provide a direct understanding of the substance of entities. This realization undermines the belief that physics or any other field can truly get to the essence of what things are through their traditional methods.
• Philosophical dismissal as a defense against substance questions : He notes that many scientists dismiss philosophical inquiry into the substance of things as impractical or irrelevant, labeling it as a job for philosophers and not scientists. However, Leo argues that understanding the substance is not only possible but vital, requiring methods outside of current scientific practices.
• Misconception of Substance Questions in Science : Leo critiques the scientific community for disregarding substance questions as irrelevant or meaningless. He challenges scientists to become directly conscious of the substance of any aspect of reality, highlighting that traditional science avoids answering "what is" type questions, which he believes is a dogmatic limitation.
• Arthur Eddington's Perspective on Substance Questions : Leo shares a quote from physicist Arthur Eddington, who expressed skepticism about the ability of science to address substantial truths. Eddington's viewpoint suggests that scientific methods lead to a "shadow world of symbols" rather than to concrete reality, emphasizing the inability of physics to define the intrinsic nature of the atom.

• Methodological Error in Science : Leo argues that a significant methodological error within science is the belief that reality can only be investigated through a network of pointer readings and symbolic models. He insists there is something profound beyond these symbols, which scientists miss due to dogmatism and close-mindedness.
• The Validity of Unconventional Scientific Methods : He posits that to validate any scientific claim, one must use the method prescribed by the claimant, not an alternative method. This principle is demonstrated through the necessity to use a telescope, not binoculars, to observe Jupiter's moons, asserting the right of the claimant to dictate the validation method.
• Contemplation as a Valid Scientific Method : Leo defends contemplation as a bona fide scientific method, arguing that refusing to accept it due to its unconventional nature is itself unscientific. He claims that deep contemplation can verify truths that cannot be found in books or nature.
• Empirical Claim of Identity and Consciousness : Leo makes an empirical claim that one is not truly human and can experience being an inanimate object. He introduces Salvia as a method for experimenting with consciousness, potentially demonstrating that personal identity can shift dramatically under its influence.
• Prejudgment and the Openness of Science : He criticizes the prejudgment of unconventional methods and claims without actual experimentation, emphasizing that true science requires open-mindedness and the willingness to personally test methods, even if they appear unorthodox.
• Inherent Dangers in Scientific Exploration : Leo recognizes the intrinsic dangers of scientific exploration, exemplified by the potential risks of using Salvia. He argues that danger does not invalidate science; instead, it often accompanies groundbreaking discoveries, as seen historically with pioneers of radiation.
• The Evolution of Science through Testing Beliefs : Leo suggests that science advances through the testing of beliefs, challenging listeners to personally experience and test his claims. He emphasizes that personal experience is necessary for validating scientific claims, regardless of whether the method of validation fits traditional scientific criteria.
• Fear and scientific truth : Many individuals claim to be interested in scientific truth but are actually more concerned with comfort, survival, and defending their belief systems, indicating a lack of genuine scientific pursuit.
• The "Black Hole Problem" in sharing radical discoveries : Scientists who experience radical shifts in understanding, such as finding out they're not actually human through psychedelic experiences, face the "black hole problem" where they cannot convey this to others who haven't shared the same experience.
• Direct experience as a requirement for paradigm shift : Convincing others of profound scientific discoveries often necessitates them having the same direct experiences, which they may be reluctant to have due to closed-mindedness towards unconventional methods.
• The softness of "hard sciences" and the challenge of "soft sciences" : Contrary to popular belief, "hard sciences" like physics avoid addressing fundamental questions about reality, making them less concrete than typically assumed. "Soft sciences" like psychology are inherently more difficult due to their complex, holistic nature.
• The artificial hierarchy between sciences and bias towards reductionism : The belief that hard sciences are more tangible and important than soft sciences is debunked as reductionist bias. All aspects of reality, including the softer, more emotional elements, are equally valid and should not be artificially ranked.
• Relativity of terms 'natural', 'supernatural', and 'paranormal' : What is considered to be 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' today may, with time and scientific development, be reclassified as 'natural', illustrating the shifting nature of these terms, and suggesting they're largely arbitrary labels.
• Challenge against false distinctions in science definitions : Leo Gura criticizes the distinctions between science and pseudoscience, and natural and supernatural, as being abstract barriers created by current scientific paradigms rather than grounded in the actual investigation of phenomena.
• Science and Magic as Interchangeable : Leo Gura explains that what we currently see as technology might have been perceived as magic in the past, and advanced future technology, if presented today, would seem magical to us. This suggests that the boundary between science and magic is porous and based on familiarity and understanding, not on absolute differences.
• Relativity of Scientific Terms : Leo emphasizes the relativity of terms such as 'natural,' 'physical,' and 'normal' within science, pointing out that these are context-dependent and change with time as our collective understanding evolves.
• Misunderstanding of Objectivity and Subjectivity : He criticizes science's misunderstanding of objectivity and subjectivity, showing that the very process of doing science is subjective, as it occurs within human consciousness, which is inherently subjective.
• Consciousness as the Foundation of Reality : Leo contests the scientific marginalization of consciousness, arguing that it is the most fundamental component of reality. He contends that everything in science occurs within consciousness and there is nothing beyond it, asserting that the current scientific paradigm is incapable of understanding consciousness.
• Science as Relative to Human Neurology : Leo claims that science is not studying an external reality but is essentially mapping the neurology of human consciousness. If human neurology were to change, the entirety of science as we know it would change.
• The Self-Reference Problem of Science : He discusses the issue where science tries to explain itself using tools incapable of such introspection, likening it to an eyeball trying to look at itself or a snake trying to eat its own tail.
• Science as a Perception : Leo posits that science is ultimately just a perception, with the material world, brain, and reality all being perceptions. Hence, science itself is a perception within a perception, leading to the conclusion that all of science could be a hallucination.
• Circularity of Scientific Substance : He challenges scientists to explain the substance of science itself, demonstrating the circularity of scientific explanations that rely on concepts like atoms, quarks, and strings, which ultimately trace back to thoughts or perceptions.
• Imagination as the Basis of Science : Leo states that all of science is nothing but imagination, putting forward the notion that scientific concepts and the material world are as imaginary as unicorns or Santa Claus.
• Map vs. Territory in Understanding Science : He distinguishes between the map (theories and ideas about science provided in his lecture) and the territory (the actual empirical understanding of reality), urging listeners to move beyond the map to arrive at the territory themselves.
• State of Consciousness Dictates Scientific Truths : Leo explains that scientific truths are valid only within a certain state of consciousness. Different states, such as drunkenness or dreaming, can negate the relevance of scientific truths, indicating their dependency on our normal state of consciousness.
• Subjectivity of States of Consciousness : Leo Gura questions the special status of our ordinary waking state of consciousness, suggesting that it's only one among thousands. Through experiences such as dreaming, being intoxicated, or taking psychedelics, our state of consciousness can radically shift, causing the entirety of scientific understanding to 'fly out the window.'
• Science's Bias Towards Demystification : Leo criticizes the methodological bias in science that aims to demystify reality, cautioning against the notion that mystery is a problem to be solved. He suggests that the fundamental nature of reality may be intrinsically mystical and that the relentless drive to demystify could be a result of cultural brainwashing rather than empirical necessity.
• Mistakes in Science vs. Religion : Leo points out the double standard in how society forgives scientific errors while harshly judging religious mistakes. He argues that while scientific errors are often dismissed as part of the scientific process, religious missteps are never excused, even though religion evolves or improves its perspectives.
• Evolution and Openness of Religion : Leo discusses the evolution of religious institutions like the Catholic Church, showing that they, too, can evolve over time to integrate progressive values and scientific facts. He underlines the unfairness in how critics permanently attribute old errors to religious institutions but allow science the flexibility to evolve and correct itself.
• Science's Historical Mistakes : Leo brings to light forgotten historical errors made by scientists, such as the initial disbelief in heavier-than-air flight or the dangers of high speed. He asserts that science is just as fallible as religion, but it is treated as if it's a flawless repository of knowledge.
• Contradictions Within Science : Leo delivers an extensive list of contradictions inherent in the scientific process. These range from the scientific claim that all perceptions are generated by the brain to the inability of science to prove foundational concepts like the existence of an objective external world, self, and mind.
• Dismissal of Unorthodox Scientific Claims : He criticizes science for dismissing unorthodox ideas that don't come from established sources, emphasizing that this is essentially an appeal to authority—which is ironically, what science accuses religion of doing.
• Double Standards of Science and Open-Mindedness : Leo notes the hypocrisy in science’s self-representation as open-minded when it often rejects methods and worldviews that fall outside its established norms, branding them pseudoscience.
• Science's Claim to Practicality versus Objectivity : Leo questions science's simultaneous claims to practicality and as the pinnacle of cultural truth. While science is often pragmatic, it also claims to hold objective truth, except when other worldviews provide practical solutions—these, however, are not afforded the same status of truth.
• Emphasizing the Importance of Evolving Science : Leo suggests that science will evolve to include understandings currently deemed mystical or supernatural, revolutionizing our approach to the natural world. This echoes the advancement of science in history, leading to the acceptance of phenomena once considered paranormal.
• The "Science and Responsibility" Conundrum : Leo points out the double standard in attributing the consequences of scientific advancements. He notes that harmful outcomes, such as nuclear bombings or opioid overdose deaths, are often attributed to politics or business rather than science, whereas religion is directly blamed for its negative impacts. This, he argues, demonstrates a significant hypocrisy in how science is critiqued compared to religion.
• The Intelligence Fallacy in Science : Leo criticizes the assumption within science that the universe cannot possess intelligence, contrasting it with the recognized intelligence of humans, who are a part of the universe. He explains this as a flawed separation between humans and the universe, emphasizing that human intelligence is essentially a manifestation of universal intelligence.
• The Limitations of Logic in Science : Leo argues that science relies heavily on logic, which in turn depends on the validity of its premises. However, logic cannot prove the truth of its foundational premises, making it insufficient to ground scientific inquiry entirely, revealing a fundamental limitation in the scientific method from a logical standpoint.
• Science and the John Stuart Mill Paradox : Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill, Leo highlights the ironic situation where both religion and science have been destructive forces historically, despite their contributions to hope and progress. He critically addresses the hypocrisy and double standards displayed by some atheists and rationalists when evaluating the historical impact of science versus religion.

• The Unacknowledged Harms of Science : Leo discusses the unintentional yet significant harms caused by scientific progress, such as drug abuse and weaponry. He argues that the scientific community often distances itself from the negative applications of its discoveries, thus refusing to accept responsibility for the repercussions of scientific advancements, which impacts society and various aspects of reality.
• Science's Role in Social and Cultural Dynamics : Leo emphasizes that science cannot exist in isolation from society and culture, including government funding, universities, and the overall wellness of society. He stresses that scientific development is intertwined with the healthiness of communities and the dissemination of information, such as on social media.
• Leo's Definitions of Science : He offers a multifaceted view of science by presenting multiple definitions, including science as an imaginary scheme, a projection of the mind, a human invention, a shared cultural belief, an epistemology and metaphysics, trial and error, symbolic representation, an ideology, a state of consciousness, survival mechanism, linguistic structure, sense-making activity, and a hallucination within the Universal Mind.
• The Importance of Internalizing the Definition of Science : He concludes by urging the audience to spend years contemplating what science is, understanding its vast implications, perspectives, and connections to reality—an exploration that he asserts should expand beyond academic and laboratory confines to personal, everyday experiential learning.
• Application of Science in Daily Life : Leo Gura illustrates science as a natural part of everyday life, like searching for lost car keys. This process is a fundamental practice of science — observing, hypothesizing, and experimenting. He emphasizes the importance of keeping an open mind to all possibilities, which is essential in scientific endeavors and life in general.
• Inner Science : Gura encourages the study of one's own emotions and subjective experiences, viewing this introspection as a legitimate form of science. He advocates for recognizing the scientific merit in understanding personal phenomena such as anger, joy, or sadness and the effects these have on one's life.
• Personal Responsibility for Science : Leo underscores the importance of taking personal responsibility for exploring and understanding one's own life scientifically. He wants people to actively engage in this "inner science" rather than passively accepting knowledge from external authorities like scientists or gurus.
• Practical Critiques of Modern Science : Gura offers a list of areas where he believes modern science is fundamentally mistaken, including misconceptions about materialism, realism, objectivity, Western medicine, perception, consciousness, psychedelics, rationality, the existence of paranormal phenomena, mystical experiences, birth and death, and the nature of immortality.
• Misunderstandings in Core Scientific Concepts : He argues that science's current understanding of God, infinity, nothingness, artificial intelligence, the Planck length, evolutionary mechanics, and the Big Bang is flawed. He claims these views will evolve radically in the future as science advances.
• Epistemic Questions for Contemplation : Leo Gura presents a list of fundamental epistemological questions about the nature, function, and underlying assumptions of science, inviting listeners to explore these for a deeper understanding of scientific practice.
• Metaphor of Knowledge and Limitations of Science : Gura uses the metaphor of a carpet in a house to depict the vastness of the universe's knowledge compared to the minuscule portion humans comprehend through science. He envisions a future where science includes the mystical and paranormal and recognizes the reality as infinite love.
• Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Science : Leo Gura raises profound inquiries into the nature of science, challenging the very foundations and assumptions upon which scientific knowledge is built. He advocates for an open-minded approach that encompasses a broad spectrum of human experience and consciousness.
• Future Outlook of Science : Anticipating revolutionary changes in the scientific field, Gura predicts that future generations will have an expanded understanding of phenomena currently dismissed as pseudoscience, leading to a more comprehensive and profound grasp of reality.
• Call for a Deeper Exploration of Reality : Leo challenges listeners to dive deeper into the exploration of reality, emphasizing the profound impact this can have on the richness and depth of their lives. He urges people to take a more serious and inquisitive approach to life.
• Role of Actualized.org : Gura clarifies the purpose of Actualized.org as a platform that encourages independent exploration and growth, rather than providing conclusive enlightenment. It serves as a guide for individuals on their journey of personal and philosophical discovery.
• Infinity of Universal Consciousness : Leo Gura draws a comparison between the universe as an infinite carpet and human scientific knowledge as a single fiber within it. He asserts that even a million years of scientific advancement will only reveal a minuscule part of the vastness of the universe, emphasizing the limitations of science in comprehending infinity.
• Nature of Infinity : Leo illustrates how any finite method, including science, will always fall infinitely short of truly understanding the infinite nature of reality. This intrinsic characteristic of infinity positions science's capabilities as profoundly limited when it comes to grasping the full extent of the universe.
• Fisherman Analogy : A fisherman hooking the bottom of the ocean serves as an analogy for scientists who believe they understand a portion of the universe but unknowingly are dealing with the totality of it. Gura points out scientists often falsely believe they've captured a significant truth when, in reality, they've barely scratched the surface of understanding.
• Revolutionary Changes in Science : Predicting significant evolutionary changes in scientific understanding, Gura suggests that future generations will view current scientific practices as archaic. Pseudoscience and spiritual concepts such as non-duality, God, and immortality will be integrated into mainstream scientific thought.
• Role of Individual Responsibility : Emphasizing the power of individual initiative, Gura argues that the evolution of science depends on each person's willingness to entertain unconventional ideas and methodologies. He attributes societal collective consciousness and openness to shaping the future of scientific progress.
• Integration of Science and Spirituality : Foreseeing a future where science and spirituality merge, Gura envisions the acknowledgment and realization of the infinite nature of reality and love within the domain of science, moving beyond the confines of materialism and realism.
• Call for Self-Exploration : Leo Gura advocates for personal exploration and inner science, stressing the profound importance of self-study and deeply understanding one's own existence as the ultimate science.
• Conclusion and Quotes : Concluding his points, Gura shares quotes that sum up the notion of science as both a limited and profound human pursuit that intertwines closely with our intuitions and fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality.

• Seriousness in Exploring Reality : Leo calls for a more earnest and deep approach to life and reality, urging listeners to transform their lives into a pursuit of extraordinary discovery and understanding, challenging the status quo and venturing into the mysteries of existence.