Lol, so your claim is that people with excessive cholesterol levels require it because they are making more brain…?

No is claiming you shouldn’t have any cholesterol in your blood, just that there isn’t reason to have an elevated amount.

If your body actually needed the excess lipids being produced it wouldn’t be saturated in the blood, it would be getting used.

The body literally makes it because you need it

For what?

People with high cholesterol live longer…

I don’t think that’s really a conclusive study. It only focuses on people who are already 80 or older and ignores the majority of people who suffer from cardiovascular issues that don’t make it to their eighties because of it.

From this study you could also conclude that people who have a natural resistance to high cholesterol live longer.

Youd wanna lower arterial plaque so cholesterol doesnt get stuck?

Plaque forms when cholesterol lodges to the walls of arteries. This happens at a greater rate when you have more lower density cholesterol in your blood.

An arterial calcium scan is the best indicator for heart disease etc. Not cholesterol

But calcium buildups are formed from clacified plaque, which is made from cholesterol…

If all forms of high cholesterol were really beneficial Americans would modern day Methuselahs.

Kinda a crazy move considering that they were charging 8k for “fsd” before, and are moving to a monthly subscription of a hundred bucks a month.

You would have to own your Tesla for six and a half years for them to make the same return. My guess is that the hundred dollars a month is just the initial price which will drastically inflate over time. That or they are just going to raise prices by 8k and still charge you a subscription cost anyways…

Sure thing Orgnum… I guess we can go visit the reptile exhibit again?

Yep, and if you don’t use them the body will break down the sperm and absorb it. So op is basically advocating young men to absorb fat loads into their bodies.

Or DMSO… My man is not doing organic chem I guess?

It’s not just weird, it’s materially impossible.

I was mainly talking about the people being weirdos. Every monarchist I’ve ever run into have been extreme oddballs.

Technically you can be an anticapitalist and still not a leftist. You could be one of those weirdo turbo conservative monarchists.

even though farming is credited with allowing for population density supporting civilization (tech, stratification etc) plenty of peoples subsisted on the coast for numerous generations prior

Generations prior to agriculture? I don’t really see how that’s relevant to the current conversation.

but fish ponds off the coast supported relatively large populations in antiquity, just by then farming was also a thing so there was no reason not to do both

Since the advent of agriculture grain, legumes, and vegetables have made up the vast majority of calories that have supported human life. Up until relatively recent times animal protein was a relatively small part of most people’s diets.

Not really… No major civilization around bodies of water subsists without agriculture. Fishing just supplements the protein requirements of the population, and unless they’re fishing just mackle it’s not likely to be sustainable.

we don’t like corn syrup right?

Yeah, we need corn syrup…please do not be insensitive to our addiction.

There is no stopping the impulsive need to add corn into everything. Corn for the fuel, corn for sugar, corn for the livestock, corn for the hole. If you can cram corn in it, we’ve done it.

Trotsky’s plan of Permanent Revolution rested on the idea that the peasantry would erode socialism, because he thought they could not be truly aligned with the proletariat.

Isn’t that just in the case of later developing capitalist countries? My understanding was that he believed later developed capitalist countries would be unable to build the industrialized economy that creates a large proletariat class. So in these countries the existing proletariat would have to seize control and then later form an alliance with the peasantry down the road.

However, I don’t think that means he only wanted to develop socialism with western nations. I mean Stalin and him had a major rift develop over Trotsky wanting to support the Chinese communist and Stalin siding with the kmt. One of the things I kinda agree with when it comes to Trotsky was his opposition to the socialism in one country policy.

This is kinda dependent on what year it is of course, Trotsky was kinda all over the place once he fell from grace.

That’s a large part of it, carrying on the blood line is super important to most East Asian cultures. The other part of the equation is that their cultural ideas leave no place for queer people in their idea of modern society.

It’s kinda strange, but pre-western influenced East Asia was arguably less conservative in a lot of ways when it came to sexual orientation. There were more gray places in society for nontraditional relationships like court eunuchs, harams, and other noble positions that diverged from today’s cultural norms.

government is the issue there, not cultural attitudes

Ehh… Not really. Homophobia is just different in East Asian cultures. A lot of Asian people don’t really care if someone they don’t know is gay, but are incredibly harsh towards their own family members if they come out. Pretty much all East Asia is still extremely culturally conservative and still holds onto Confucianist social values like abiding to strict social expectations.

This is kind of the elephant in the room that every large scale political/economic model like to ignore.

While I don’t agree with a lot of what he writes about, Murray Bookchin makes some pretty persuasive arguments about how hierarchical structures themselves are an issue no matter what system theyre found.

Something tells me you’re not nuanced in the use of sarcasm…

Great rebuttal…really proves you know what you’re trying to talk about!

No it is proof that it is true because a system that does not have the data to create an experience cannot create the experience.

You claimed that dreams were unconstrained by sensory input… A limitation caused by the lack of sensory input is a natural constraint.

am 100% saying the body is a computer with sensory attachments I have no idea where you go the things about peripheral and central nervous system from.

Cognitive science? The brain and peripheral nervous system develop and act together. You cannot have one without the other, and if you damage one you damage the other. There is no natural or logical delineation from sensory input organs and the brain. A lot of the processing, especially from reactive functions don’t even require the brain, and are handled by just the spinal cord.

The idea that the body is a computer with sensory attachments is outdated. Our metal and physical development is a reaction of us engaging with our environment on a physical level.

reality is something we aren’t capable of understanding because it exists outside of our set of sensory input unless we can use tools to collapse information to within our range of sensory input.

I would say that reality consisist of what we can engage with in either a physical or metaphysical way. If it’s simply something that we can’t either mentally or physically interact with, then it is definitionally unimportant.

Tibetan buddhists are suggesting which is the non dual reality of experiencing things through the lens of perception.

While I accept a dualistic version of reality, I propose that perception alone is not what determines reality. I think embodied cognition gives us a much more accurate depiction of reality we engage with.

For example, without a body what is a bicycle? Through just pure observation alone, it is nothing but a chunk of odly shaped metal and plastic. It is our physical interaction with the bicycle that gives it its true meaning.

Reality is not just what we observe, it is what we interact with on a physical level.

People blind at birth dream of perceiving hearing unconstrained by sensory input so yes it is true still even for people blind from birth. I have a friend who is this case actually.

Right, but your original claim was that it was unconstrained by sensory input. The fact that they lack the ability to dream up sensory information they have no previous sensory input for is proof this claim is not true.

My point is that you are making an unfounded delineation between sensory input and the brain. That the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system should be viewed as a whole system reliant on each other, rather than a computer with sensory attachments.

There is nothing narcissistic about it because it only proves that we are individuals with individual experience, something that everyone has been aware of for a long time, we still all operate on the substrate that is outside of our body with its brain and sensory organs.

People having “individual experience” does not preclude people having shared experiences, and shared experiences do not preclude individuality. Your claim is only supported by an underdeveloped preconceived notion of perception and it’s effects on cognition.

What you are arguing is similar to Solipsism, which basically boils down to “I can only prove to myself that I process consciousness, and everyone else’s experiences are just subjective observations”. Which means if all observations are subjective in nature, then a person can only really prove that they themselves posses “real” consciousness.

Now that might not have been your original point, but it is the natural conclusion of the argument. And others have thought it out and argued against it for a long time. It’s known as the The Problem With Other Minds.

Dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input

That’s not really true… Dreaming is a cognitive function that is still limited by how we engage with our surroundings normally. Congeniality Blind people do not see in their dreams, and deaf people do not hear.

Reality is dreaming constrained by sensory input

Imo that is a bit of a narcissistic way to view reality. Reality is shared, and not defined by an individual person’s sensory input. There are natural laws that persist even if there is no way for a person to perceive them.