Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Madness

Pages: 1 ... 321 322 [323] 324 325 ... 340
Philosophy & Science / Re: Rupert Sheldrake
« on: September 15, 2013, 05:10:06 pm »
I for one appreciate correction when necessary.

Let me see the Inverse Fire ;).

Well, from what I gathered from the Soylent blog, the food industry already manufacturers LARGE quantities of vital nutrients, it just puts them in different products.

Point. We've significantly altered our consumption with additives and irradiation, not to mention next-level advancements like genome sequencing, etc in an effort to compensate for a diet we lost because industrial agriculture is the only option for our problems of scale... which leaves me very incredulous. But there are prevalent historical examples of nutrient deficiency so it is also possible that they are saving us from ourselves...

Also, any species we harvest in an industrial manner already experiences a feed system. However, this is evidently problem-filled for those species and ourselves in our continued consumption of them.

There is at least one real problem with only getting your "food" through liquids - your teeth. Chewing and bitting is a very important part of keeping your mouth healthy. Especially your teeth (and gums). Also your saliva has some important functions that also only get into action if you have the food in your mouth for long enough.

james mentioned that chewing gum was common.

I'm very sceptical about this. Not saying that it is all BS (because i obviously haven't tried it or have any inside data) ... but there are already so many nutrition supplements that have been hailed as "the end all be all" of nourishment that were "disproved" by studies that i will wait for a more thorough research into this product before i forsake the traditional intake of food.

I think the conversation can move to include generalizations beyond Soylent.

No matter what we eat, it's something that was conceived, researched, implemented, and embodied by people up to and including ourselves. Unless you're fortunate enough to inherited the nomadic lifestyle of your forebears, but honestly, the game is everywhere now and many of the few isolated environments left are built in laboratories.

Would it be awesome if all about Soylent is true and we have found the "holy grail" of foods? Sure it would. Is it likely? I doubt it.

As for positive effects of said products for some of the customer-base...well, unfortunately, this is no proof that it works. Remember, placebo-effect aka the power of the mind is a very powerful tool. If you believe in Soylent with all your heart it indeed can have a positive effect without it being the product itself that helps you. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this product will continue. Maybe it IS the holy grail of foods...

The need for sustenance persists.

Unless you've achieved a measure of self-sufficiency than we are subject to a similar illusion. There are all sorts of easy paranoias to adopt. And james' intial points about the common consumption still stand. I'd make some difference arguments about tact - disseminating the why and how of practical instruction about growing, caring, and consuming food - but, perhaps, there are/will be arguments about the benefits and/or advantages of feed for humans.

Does that include "what comes after money"? I have that on my to read list :)
He wrote that one with Ken Jordan,and it is not altered states related(I think),so you might have missed it.

I've read many of the essays individually that contributed to the book. Charles Eisenstein is another interesting member of that cabal to pay attention to.

Creativity fallacy: Drugs do not enhance creative ability, only alter neuro physiology.  This may or may not enhance ability in a favourable way.

I'll repeat - it seems helpful to adopt a perspective whereby to your brain, everything is a drug.

Dopamine bias: I am too scientifically ignorant to speak on this, but would I be correct in saying most drugs release a short burst of pleasure chemicals which cause us to crave them in spite of other more detrimental affects?

I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate so I'll throw some description at it.

Some drugs seem to manipulate/hijack the release of specific neurotransmitters in areas of the brain that are usually densely populated with those specific neurotransmitters to begin with. It is extremely misleading to think of any one specific neurotransmitter as being exclusively active in any one specific area. For instance, a dopaminergic neuron is simply an area of the brain, which utilizes more of the neurotransmitter dopamine than other neurotransmitters that are also present in dopaminergic neuron. It's a concert, not a solo.

There are number of competing perspectives but essentially those drugs, which manifest the most destructive behaviors of addiction, seem to all co-opt the same dopaminergic structures and their normal release of a number of neurotransmitters, including dopamine.

You can imagine how that science, as it disseminates, becomes "my dopamine made me do it" ;).

Erowid bias: the tendency to attribute mystical or religious insight to a conscious state brought about by narcotics while remaining in total ignorance of the physical state of ones brain. It is not controversial to say that certain neurological states are responsible for our feelings of religious insight. A sounder method would be to scientifically deduce these rather than shovelling dubious plants into our stomachs and hoping for the best.

Well,you just slammed many cultures who have used these substances for thousands of years :) I think we need to show some humility toward this,because this seem to work in these various cultures.To throw science in their faces would not do any good.

I actually think its helpful to imagine the mundane results of culture and society as conceived by drugs users with fanatical followers - it's historically prevalent. A certain number of sages, wise-men, kings, emperors, etc, regularly consulted with drugs in various forms for insight.

Yesterday's visionary is today's junkie.

I'm decided that the Semantic Apocalypse is Shadowrun.

I can't divide the time I want to put in forty minutes this morning to research for this thread and I never seem to make it back to offer cogent arguments in the evening so I apologize to the Quorum for not addressing other points I want to - like checking antecedents histories (for instance, how these dietary criteria are decided).

While I want to get into the meat of this thread, I have an analogy that I feel doesn't belong in the equally enticing drugs thread.

There is, and has been for a number of years, a DIY community (more than one) grown about the concept of 'Stacks.'

james made the point in the drugs thread about drugs simply altering neurophysiology, which I think is a good point, but one that misses some implicative marks. I think it's a good point because it provides a framework for reflecting on the patterns far outside one's ken. I would amend his statement, in light of that framework, to suggest that to your brain, anything that you ingest, is a drug. But more on that when I get around to engaging the other threads.

Stacks communities consist of a whole swath of the disciplinary breadth constituting neuroscience - as james has suggested the Soylent community attracts people qualified with more expertise - but also DIYers who are simply interested in fulfilling the first stage niches of social adoption.

Joe Rogan's even got his own line of Nootropics.

Literally, I've read hundreds of discussions about different stacks - people who adopt a regiment of intake - like james is talking about with diet here.

I felt compelled to add this to the conversation here as I don't feel my writing is going to touch on that in my initial foray into the drugs thread.

Diet is interested with preserving the function of organs generally, not specifically one organ, which I do think is a perspective lost in the Stacks communities. It doesn't matter if you ingest in order to facilitate cognitive function, if the functional preservation of your organs is ignored.

There's no reason we can't manufacture the actual ingredients in vegetables on a mass scale, a lot faster, more efficient and more refined than actually planting the seeds and waiting for the sun and the soil to do it for us.

Excepting vested interests, friend.

General Misc. / Re: Disseminating Bakker
« on: September 13, 2013, 01:46:10 pm »
Honestly, I'm happy he's on the list and that it's quite possible that, conservative guess, some 30% - 40% of Bakker's digits are unaccounted for - allegedly.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Rupert Sheldrake
« on: September 11, 2013, 06:02:31 pm »
1) how many of you know how to work scientifically (is that a word?) aka how many of you are academics/working in scientific fields and not just readers of some academic work (or even pseudo-academic work)?


For my money, the most stringent and well-flowing arguments were made by anor (which is not to say that i agree with all his statments). Disclaimer: Not counting Madness here...he obviously works as an academic (i hope? at least you know how to build an argument and you have good structure in your posts). But he didn't contribute as much (post count wise) as others.

I claim my stake where and when I feel necessary.

My autobiography, however, remains, for now, shrouded in mystery ;). But to answer your question, directly, I would not qualify, at the moment, as a practicing academic. I'm still a mature undergrad.

I should qualify my desire to cut linguistic funding out - linguistics related to education should be kept, but there are studies that seem to be based around satisfaction of curiosity. [Probably a host of studies we can cut in a variety of fields, not to mention we should also consider tax payer money going into public universities.]

What I'm really getting at is if the public at large is more interested in Psi than space, do government appointed experts have the right to say one is more valuable to us than the other? I suppose you can try and justify space programs by noting possibly colonization benefits?

Seems like research into urban farming, or this Soylent stuff, [or computer science], would be of more immediate use than learning about the cosmos or trying to pin down what miniscule amount of telekinetic power may exist. [In those cases experts can supersede public opinion, but deciding whether money goes to space or Psi might be better put to referendums of some sort.]

I'm definitely interested in what qualifies as constituent criteria, which is necessary to distinguish what (individually or collectively) counts as worthy research according to our subjective subjectives.

I agree with you there... But can you imagine, at least in America, letting the public decide what research is important and what is not? .... I shudder just thinking about it.


To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities)  rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?

Vested interests ;).

To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities)  rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?

Oh, I have a huge problem with what I see as excessive funding for the humanities. Not exactly money down the drain but sometimes you have to wonder how much time is possibly wasted in the school curriculum that could be better spent.

But that seems like a particularly egregious example.

I am wondering. Specifically, what hits our bullet-points? And what are our bullet-points?

I am not to be taken very seriously in any way,since I don`t have the qualities you are looking for.Have not worked scientifically,nor am I an academic.Just having a conversation,that is all :) I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.

I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.

lol requirements. This is a place for doing just that, having conversations with people who have vastly different backgrounds and experiences to draw from. This is the TSA noosphere. There should be no in-group that denies the access to comments on any of these topics.
Kellais was probably just wondering if anyone actually knew what they where talking about  :P

This is the TSA noosphere. Nuff said. There are no requirements or restrictions. All shall have voice on the slog. I am the rule.

It doesn't help us to decide anything, unless you plan to reevaluate your entire understanding of science and research on account of some person named Kellian on the internet.

Maybe I do...

lol...i'm sorry if i poked into a hornets nest here.


this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.
Another problem is the misrepresenting of points made by many times does one poster "put words" into another posters mouth that this poster never "said" that way etc etc . It can get frustrating real fast (and somehow i guess we saw some of that in the discussion between Wilshire and anor).

Hrm...i think i come of way to snob-y...i'm sorry but i can't put it better into words (how imprecise of me, right?!  ;D ) ... but english is not my mother tongue so at least i have an excuse ;) Just kidding, all languages are imprecise tools (at least compared to math).


Suffice it to say (just to have something that is at least a bit on topic), i do think that this Mr. Sheldrake needs to proof his stuff (how did Madness put it - the onus is on him)...and not that he can come in, throw a theory in the room, and then just leave and say something like "Well, it was not disproved..." ... THAT is definitely not scientific work.

You've done nothing wrong. I stirred the pot by suggesting that 'Science' as a whole owes a debt of knowledge to the plebletariat, the unwashed masses, including disabusing contentions, like "paranormal phenomenon." Either the phenomenon is evident to be studied or 'Science' hasn't accurately discerned what phenomenon it is they are trying to study in the first place. There are no "unstudiable" phenomenon, in my opinion.

I think demanding a high standard is not only fine but something I know I'd like to approach, but without something concrete to note it's hard to pin down what anyone means when they critique dialogue.

A noble aspiration. We are, all of us, deceived.

Glad its all straightens out before  Madness had to swoop in an scold us all  ;)

You know I'm lurking. Few instances so far have qualified, by my count, intervention as necessary. My hedonistic philosophies of communication will allow for a broad, if not unlimited, spectrum of perspective. The crux is to balance that with open, honest, and rigorous engagement.

News/Announcements / Re: Forum Ranks
« on: September 11, 2013, 05:45:46 pm »
Will this png work?  It should have a transparent background.  What's the pixel size of the icon you need?  Maybe I can fiddle this to show more detail.

You make me happy. I can't tell you how much that white border annoyed me.

15x15: Good luck with that ;).

Literature / Re: Ender's Game
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:20:19 pm »
Seventh Son (moreso than the Ender Quartet) is likely a goldmine to Hollywood. Alvin Maker's comparable to a lesser known Harry Potter.

@Madness: Why the Lol-ing against Pinchbeck? Mind you I've only read about 2/3 of Breaking Open the Head and checked in on his blog long ago.

The value of ibogaine in the treatment of addiction was the thing that caught my interest, as well as the apparently common experience of a life review.

I've read all his stuff and for a number of years tried hard to be involved in the Evolver Network. I particularly appreciate the Evolver Spores, which are representative of an efficient global model for information dissemination.

I lol'd because I find life's random connections humorous. Though, Pinchbeck has certainly behaved and espoused beliefs, which a number of people do ridicule.

News/Announcements / Re: Forum Ranks
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:13:18 pm »
Just post the edited version in this thread as an attachment and then I'll reupload it to our server - unless, of course, I get to it first ;).

Literature / Re: Ender's Game
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:11:34 pm »
Well, Card actually had a hand in delaying the making of Ender's Game for that past ten years to facilitate the age of the actors (what is acceptable today in terms of embodied portrayal by a child, wasn't not too many years ago).

I tried reading the Alvin Maker series... never quite caught me like the Ender Quartet did (and even that suffered some serious setbacks during Xenocide and Children of the Mind).

General Misc. / Re: Disseminating Bakker
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:05:48 pm »
Probably there is no precedent because fans are not fanatics.

It takes some zeal, no doubt.

General Earwa / Re: The road to Shimeh
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:04:35 pm »
A modest estimate puts a moving army at something around 10 km a day... which would take a thousand days from Ishual to Shimeh.

However, historical Ninja's were known to run anywhere between 50 - 80 km in a single instance, which would put Kellhus, alone, at a significant advantage.

Also, as was mentioned, Cants of Transposition vary the time frame considerably.

News/Announcements / Re: Forum Ranks
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:01:15 pm »
Anyone got a tiny picture of a chorae that could be used in place of the yellow squares that currently represent rank? That would be sweet.
(I always kind of picture them as marble sized, and covered in the weird writing that is found on the covers of some of the older books)

Done. But if Somnambulist feels like editing the background at anytime to match the palate of the site, I would appreciate.

EDIT: Actually impossible as the background varies from post to post. That whiteness bothers me...

Pages: 1 ... 321 322 [323] 324 325 ... 340