undeather

E. Coli O157 & Taenia saginata approve of this message.

The answer is unequivocally - YES! Longevity, both through lifespan and healthspan, is impacted more through exercise than any of the other behavioural variable we have. Your comparisons are flawed. There is (at least) one huge difference between machines and the human body - and that's the wonder of hormesis in adaptive or complex systems. While you car breaks down due to a buildup of mechanical strains over a long period of time - the biological organism has the propensity to build itself back stronger once challenged in a meaningful way. Your immune system get's more resistant and more capable once it comes into contact a wide variety of pathogens. Children who grow up in rural-regions with a wider variety of microbe-density tend get less autoimmune issues and a more specific immune-response once invaded with a novel pathogen. Lifting weights or combat sports will increase bone-density and musculo-fascial integrity - therefore making the person more reistant to mechanical injuries. Muscle muss increases by damaging your tissue first - which then will adaptively get build back stronger - more muscle-mass means more compensation for blood sugar control. By raising your pulse & blood pressure through exercise, your arteries will increase their compensatory threshhold through a better NO2-signaling and many other mechanisms. Your heart muscles efficiency will improve. Your blood will improve it's capacity to carry oxygen and....and...and! Do you see what I am hinting at? Your comparison between lions and turtles also does not work. You just can't compare 2 species with a completely different genetic make-up. The bowhead whale who basically swims around all day gets up to 200 years old, while sloth who chills out usually only gets around 20 years. It doesn't make sense.

Leo is right. In 6 years of medical school, the topic of chelation therapy came up about two times. We are talking about a highly specific therapy which, outside of functional medicine circles, is only used in a very particular context. You either need to find an experienced functional MD in your vicinity or get it somewhere off the black market (which I strongly advice against!).

I might be biased because Daniel and I are friends - but one of the reasons why Neurohacker prodcuts are so expensive is because they go out of their way to control for contaminants and pollutants. Everyone familair with the supplementation-industry knows how big of a problem contamination actually is. The ingredients are usually well sourced and the stack in general is a thought-out product. From all the nootrpics I have tested, Qualia mind gave me the most subjective beneifts (which was at least to some part due to placebo of course) This post was sponsered by neurohacker collective

That thing must drop some good loot

I adore Sapolsky, but I agree. There is just something about accomplished scientists who go into philosophical topics ...

I find the intellectual discourse around the topic of free will pretty exhausting. The hardcore determinists (Robert Sapolsky, Sam Harris, Hossenfelder..) base their argument on the reductionistic notion that human beings are finite automatons. Behaviour is seen as an emergent property of mind-states. Mind emerges from complex interactions between patterns of neuronal activity. Those are regulated by your DNA - which is made out molecules - which are made ouf atoms - which are made out of subatomic particles - which at some point are best described by patterns of excitation of a quantum field. There are a lot of arguments that support this propositon. First and foremost - we can easily observe that nature acts according to the principle of cause & effect. We have mathematical laws that describe those dynamics almost perfectly. Randomness or chaotic systems can be explained by our lack of computational power. Quantum mechanics has explanatory models which are consistent with deterministm (Hidden variables/Many Worlds-Interpretation). From a neurobiological or anthropolgoical point of view its outright shocking how well we understand the emergence of behavioural tendencies through the integration of genotypes and environmental influences. We know that damage to the brain (especially the prefrontal cortex) can result in a complete shift of someones cognitive- & personality-architecture. The case of Phineas Gage shows this pretty spectecularly. Where it falls short: It's usually based on the metaphysical assumption of materialism, which isn't questioned at all. Materialism is a weak form of ontology and suffers from multiple explanatory gaps, some of which are impossible to circumvent. If conciousness takes a primary role, then "will" could be an inherent quality of such substrait. The "uncaused cause" is only a problem in a physicalist paradigm. Idealism or certain forms of panpsychism would allow for freedom to the extent of identification - prior to the deterministic window of genes & environment. Dualism would in principle also allow for free will. We also have no idea how to correctly interpret quantum mechanics - deterministic models are highly criticized. Real randomness would not solve the free will debate - but it could support a plausible case for free will. There is also a huge problem with this generalization of observed tendencies. Let's say for the sake of the argument that you observe a genetic defect which tends to increase someones propensity towards anger-issues, physical violence and therefore imprisonment. Let's also assume that you use this argument against the reality of free will. The issue is that even if genuine free will was possible, then we could be absolutely certain that it's more like a spectrum than a binary phenomenon. A simple fact of life is that most people sleepwalk through it - in the average persons mind there is slim to none awareness around their thoughts, feelings and impulses. Most people ARE walking automatons, while only an increase of conciousness/awareness could free you from the grip of such tendencies. So, if you are observing a group of random people with this anger-inducing genotype - of course you are going to find evidence that supports the biolgogical-propensity-hypothesis. You are studying NPCs. I would argue that you would in fact see a different outcome studying a more concious group of individuals. Does this count as an argument for free wil? I don't know - but I think it's an point of inquiry.

Well, I would argue that you don't need SORA to work 100% or even 10% perfect in regards to the various inconsistencies that will inevitbly pop up in complex scenarios - since it's will always be infinitely easier to just adjust those issues afterwards than comming up with a completely novel CGI-production from scratch. Just from footage we have seen now, this is beyond industry breaking in my opinion. I am curious if there will be an emergent evolutionary niche for animation-tech giants like Disney to move towards - something that isn't yet possible to produce with those technologies. Yeah, I am flip flopping between "that's amazing" and "that's dystopian" as well. We are comming closer and closer to AI's terminal velocity and it might break our culture in ways we have not experienced so far. If Huxley's brave new world and David Foster Wallace's infinite jest had a metaphorical baby with each other - than that's what I would prophesize our nearer future is going to look like. But then again, humans have shown that adaptability is one of our greatest strengths - so maybe this fear is really baseless at the end. In the end, I don't fuckign know - let's enjoy the shitshow!

Video game designers better start practicing those burger flipping skills in their freetime

Holy shit, that's insane!!!

"How to clean the shitstains on your carpet after 5-MeO God-realization" By Leo Gura

I am propably biased, but Austria is fucking amazing!

I agree with your point, but I don't think the metaphor is very fitting. The locomotoric modalities of a bee are based on an evolutionary process that stretches over hundreds of millions of years. There is an insane amount of intelligence encoded in this dynamic itself. Bees don't need to align with the same spacial constraints (streets, other vehicles...), nor with the moral conditions (i.e trolley problem) that are inherent to this conceptual framework of vehicle-transportation. The decision tree underlying just one , very standard traffic situation is basically infinite - and I don't see how computing power will deal with this problem even theoretically. But then again, I have no idea what I am talking about in this area lol.

Yes, we are tragically aware of all the home-cooks who spiraled down a hellish path of pornography and fentanyl-addiction after adding some millilitres of white wine to their bolognese sauce.

Hmm, I don't know. Recent estimations by surveying over 2000 leading AI-experts were roughly at around a 50% chance that we get "high level machine intelligence" by 2050. Here is the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02843 Personally (and I am clueless), I think that AI-developement will hit a really tough roadblock sooner or later. But we will see what happens

You really should not be concered about adding some red wine to refine your savory food-ideas. If you don't have serious medical (like cirrhosis of the liver), religious or strong personal reasons, I don't see how it would change anything. You are certainly not going to make or break your health by adding some red wine. That said, you could look into alcohol-free red wine if you want to retain the taste without the alcohol.

Then you were one really unlucky woman! Gout in women is even rarer, especially at normal weight. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that in his case, he shouldn't really worry about getting gout. 3-4x fish a week is perfectly fine.

Cholesterol is the most important risk factor for atherosclerosis. That said, in most individuals egg intake does not have a deleterious effect on plasma lipid profiles. There are some exceptions to this, sicne some phenotypes present themselves as so called "hyper-absorbers". Don't stress about it - just regularly check your cholesterol numbers. Young, lean & physically active individuals just won't get gout if there isn't a significant genetic component running in the background (50-60% of uric acid variability is genetically determined) So if his family history isn't full of gout-patients running around with swollen ankles, he should be fine. It's not really a thing, even if you focus in on carnivore-dieters - who basically indulge in purine-rich foods like organ meats every few hours. The average onset of gout is above 60 years old and usually manifests in metabolically unstable or kidney-patients. Additionally, salmon or tuna are NOT necessarily very high in purines.

I would be pretty nervous right now if I was CEO at Disney Pixar or Sony.

About one month ago, the youtuber Formscapes posted a video called "How science became unscientific" - which is a critique of the scientific process, the philosophy of science, dogmatic tendencies & corruption. As a scientist myself, I found the video interesting but lacking in many important nuances and in general, a prettty fallacious misrepresentation of the topic as a whole. Anyway, some days ago, the science youtuber & debunker Professor Dave responded to his video in a 1 hour long takedown of Formscapes arguments. Dave makes some very good points but also lacks awareness (due to being hardstuck in stage orange) about some of the true shortcommings of this process we call science. That said, I think it's a pretty neat case study in scientific epistemology.

I can relate to this so much! Communities like this one, as much as I love it, tend to lock you into a certain paradigm (if you are not extremely catious). It's a bit like being an active member of an atheist/materialist subreddit - just on the opposite side of the ontological spectrum. Leo preaches the virtues of contemplation, questioning believes and studying onces tendencies or conditionings. Yet I would argue that you find at least as much ignorance on here as anywhere else!

Under Formscape's current video. I think you can. But you need to use the same rhetorical language though. Dave could never argue himself out of a well defined formal logic argument. Some of his takes are nonsense, and provably so - all it needs is someone epistemically equipped enough to deal with his gibberish. I hope he get's butthurt - that was the purpose of that paragraph Yes, I think residing to a sophisticated argument based on formal logic would be the best way to deal with his antics.

Dave sometimes interacts with comments under response-videos. Let's see - I would even debate him on that.

It depends. As a general rule, plants are way cheaper than meat or fish products. This margin even grows if you factor in food quality - cheap cuts of meat are usually cheap for a reason. Higher quality, organically raised animals usually cost a multiple more than the less costly variants. On the contrary, high quality plant products usually just cost a few percent more than their counterpart. This might change from country to country, but as a general rule, it's true! (for obvious thermodynamic and complexity reasons) But then, you could also go full californian-vegan as well. Fancy salads with avocdo, blueberries, macadmia-nuts, the latest beyond-meat product & various other tropical toppings. That shit will make you poor!