yetineti

Am I missing any supplements or does anyone have advice to build upon? I forgot to mention, I try to stay away from dairy and make my own oat milk and eat goat cheese.

@MarkKol @Nilsi @cjoseph90 @Jason Actualization Thanks for all of your responses. I got about what I thought I would- although I still wonder Leo’s response just because I found it so curious that ‘plant based’ was in the fundamentals section. Personally, I am actually not having much issues with my diet. I am 22 and definitely have a long way on the consistency side of things but here’s what I center around: Supplements: Vitamin D, K2, Magnesium, Fish oil, iron (anemic), organic whey, collagen Nootropics: l-theanine (I love this stuff), I tried 5-HTP (wasn’t for me) Main foods: Lean beef, eggs, chicken, turkey, steak, etc. Fruits: Apples, bananas, blueberries. Any fruit that is either filling and snack worthy, nutrient dense or easily washed/organic. Veggies: I honestly opt for low sodium V8s, superfood supplements, etc. here. Trying to steam more broccoli and beans again though. Regardless, this is about the best I’ve ever felt. I personally don’t understand the planted based thing, including the ethics. For reference, I did try it haha and if I wasn’t scared of lab meat I’d eat that instead of killing things.

Basically allows you to remove any aspect of YouTube, in a browser, that you do not wish to see. I have mine set up so it’s just the video I’m watching and a search bar. Theres no sidebar, ads, recommendations-anything. I have to search for what I want or I can browse specific channels. Thats my method. Try it out: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/untrap-for-youtube/id1637438059

Would a mod or Leo like to tell me off here? I was told I was ‘fighting windmills,’ however my points were ignored as well. If I am fighting windmills, I’ll stop and leave. But it seems although nobody has rebutted me other than facepalming and saying bad science just needs more rigor.

@undeather Why ignore me? I understand you are open to criticism. But you’ve shown zero willing to express its integration. At one point in this conversation, physics was a ‘hard’ science to you but you’ll so cavalierly also agree how untestable and abused something like ST is? But that’s physics? Isn’t that supposed to be a hard science? Can you clarify your position and rebut the substance I gave you, that you asked for?

@Extreme Z7 I wouldn’t do it. I don’t even kill spiders. I put them outside.

@Extreme Z7 Subjectively. Subjectively, inhumane. If the nazis thought it to be, they wouldn’t have stomached it.

@Extreme Z7 It’s not anti-human; it’s anti-Jew. It’s pro-nazi. Nazis are human.

It’s silly we need to toss studies back and forth at all. This isn’t about that at all. The lenses of ‘science is a gun. Science is a weapon. Science is dangerous’ needs to be taken on 100%. This is dangerous for someone who doesn’t already understand science. But, for those who do, it is paramount. Science is a responsibility - and most who practice it just idolize. Criticism or not. I’d find a critque or two, probably even good ones, if I didn’t think much would change and I could keep paying my bills. But then, again, everything would change and paying the bills could get hard. How could you continue doing science- at all- at least for some time? Assuming I have anything to say here at all.

Yes you do. That’s what makes ChatGPT ironically so powerful it handles every bias and it doesn’t bitch. But it takes it rationally. It is not rational to ignore any bias.

Science is a gun.

@undeather It’s your turn to rebut. You asked for substance and you got it. It doesn’t matter it came from AI; rebut it. This is not a rebuttal. Nor is a facepalm meme. You don’t get to answer the problem of science with ‘do better science.’ That’s what you did. Also, no one has said Stop! Science. But if you’re going to come here, with your post signature listing your credentials, your, yes, bias, and ‘evidence based….’- Perhaps you hold a greater responsibility to prove you’ve had these experiences in ‘8+ years.’ But how do you prove yourself without evidence? This forum shouldn’t have authoritative figures, with credentials like you, swaying people. I am not saying you should leave- but it’s really not a good look to dismiss my case because- what? ChatGPT? What else? Again you asked for substance and you got it.

@undeather This isn’t about your point and you have too much attachment and bias to the topic at hand to even be respected here. Come from a place of wonder. Do not claim to understand and then defend science like your child.

@undeather You talk too much. You've completely missed the point. Your argumentation is circular. I am going to tell you what you have and have not realized, and your reaction makes it apparent I am correct. Your words make no sense to your claims, and coming here saying you are awakened and using these authoritative arguments is again abysmal, childish, and not going to help you in any sense of the way, despite me coming across as harsh or not.

I've read this whole thread again, and I understand that I am being harsh, but nonetheless, I see a bunch of folly, and a bunch of pointing, without a lot of understanding. The sort of thing you see on cable news networks when they want to talk like it's one way, but then it's the other way, and at the end of the day, it's like I fall somewhere in between. Well, I'm not going to get stuck in between anything. Maybe that's just me.

The irony, if you guys were to use ChatGPT against me here, is that we'll just be throwing into the endless swirl science already has you guys in. The ability to argue and rationalize any point from any side, irregardless of what's actually ethical, productive, or necessary, and above all else, true.

@zurew The main reason I was so harsh is because he flaunted his role as a scientist releasing papers and such, and an argument from authority is just abysmal, and completely undermines anything you're saying I missed on here.

@zurew I think you ought to read past him saying he's open to criticism and through to his lack of understanding of it. I’ve read the whole thread. You’re just missing points. Feel free to use ChatGPT. I only did this because that's what you guys want. You want more science to show you how science is bad. It's like you want your abusive husband to tell you you don't need him anymore.

The critique that issues like unethical research practices are "people problems" rather than "science problems" overlooks the systemic and cultural aspects of the scientific enterprise that can foster such outcomes. Here's why these are also intrinsic to the structure and culture of science itself: 1. **Incentive Structures**: The scientific community often values high-impact publications, novel findings, and continuous productivity. This creates pressure on researchers to produce significant results at all costs, sometimes encouraging questionable practices like data fabrication or selective reporting of results. The cases of research fraud, such as Yoshitaka Fujii's fabrication of data in over 180 papers, illustrate how the incentive for publishable outcomes can lead to misconduct [oai_citation:1,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). 2. **Lack of Ethical Training**: The rigorous focus on technical training in the scientific method often comes at the expense of ethical education. Scientists are trained to prioritize empirical evidence and reproducibility but may receive inadequate guidance on ethical considerations, leading to decisions that prioritize scientific advancement over human rights or ethical norms, as seen in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the radiation experiments [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues). 3. **Cultural Norms and Hierarchies**: The culture within many scientific fields can discourage questioning established theories or challenging the status quo, which can suppress innovative ideas or ethical concerns from junior researchers or those outside the mainstream. The scientific method's emphasis on empirical evidence can inadvertently foster an environment where data are manipulated to fit prevailing theories or expectations. 4. **Gatekeeping Knowledge**: The scientific method and its institutions have historically acted as gatekeepers, determining what is considered valid knowledge. This can marginalize non-Western or indigenous knowledge systems that do not conform to Western scientific methodologies, leading to a loss of valuable insights and sustainable practices. 5. **Technological Rush**: The race to be the first to achieve scientific breakthroughs, like in the CRISPR babies controversy, can lead to the premature application of technologies without fully understanding their implications or ensuring adequate safeguards. This "technological rush" demonstrates a problem within the scientific culture that prioritizes innovation over precaution, often overlooking potential ethical, social, and environmental consequences [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). In essence, while individuals are responsible for their actions, the systemic and cultural dimensions of the scientific enterprise play a significant role in shaping those actions. Addressing these issues requires a reevaluation of the values, incentives, and norms that govern scientific research, emphasizing ethical considerations and the social implications of scientific work as much as empirical rigor and discovery.

To illustrate the concerns with over-reliance on the scientific method and how it can lead to negative outcomes, here are specific examples: 1. **Tuskegee Syphilis Study**: This infamous study extended for 40 years, from 1932 to 1972, under the guise of scientific research, while effective treatment was withheld from African American participants to study the progression of untreated syphilis. This case exemplifies how scientific rigor was misused to justify unethical human experimentation, ignoring the well-being and rights of individuals involved [oai_citation:1,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues). 2. **Radiation Experiments**: From the 1940s to the 1970s, the U.S. government conducted radiation experiments on thousands of unknowing participants, including military personnel and hospital patients, to understand the effects of radiation exposure. These experiments were conducted in the name of scientific progress but lacked ethical oversight and informed consent, causing harm and violating participants' rights [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues). 3. **Yoshitaka Fujii's Research Fraud**: Fujii, an anesthesiologist, fabricated data in over 180 scientific papers, demonstrating how the pressure to produce quantifiable results can lead to significant scientific misconduct. This case highlights the dangers of prioritizing quantity and novelty of research findings over integrity and ethical considerations in scientific work [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). 4. **CRISPR Babies Controversy**: Scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR technology to genetically edit human embryos, leading to the birth of the world's first genetically edited babies. This case raised serious ethical questions about the rush to apply powerful scientific technologies without sufficient oversight, public discourse, or consideration of the long-term implications for the individuals involved and humanity at large [oai_citation:4,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). These examples underscore the importance of integrating ethical considerations into scientific research, demonstrating that a narrow focus on empirical rigor can lead to ethical breaches, social harm, and a loss of public trust in science.

For all of you glums that will get mad at me for not addressing the specific points: Overemphasis on rigor and rationality can lead to a narrow worldview, prioritizing empirical evidence and logical reasoning above all else. This approach risks marginalizing subjective experiences, emotions, and intuition, which are central to the human condition. By insisting on objective quantification, the scientific method may inadvertently devalue or ignore aspects of reality that resist such measurement, leading to a fragmented understanding of the world. Moreover, the belief in rationality as an end in itself can foster an environment where scientific advancements are pursued without adequate consideration of ethical implications, societal impacts, or the welfare of future generations. The history of science is peppered with instances where the pursuit of knowledge was divorced from moral considerations, leading to harm. Furthermore, the scientific establishment is not immune to biases, conflicts of interest, and the influence of power structures, which can distort research agendas, funding priorities, and the dissemination of findings. The illusion of objectivity can be exploited to justify policies, technologies, and interventions that serve the interests of a powerful few at the expense of the many, under the guise of neutrality and progress. In its most extreme form, an unwavering faith in science and rationality can contribute to a technocratic ideology that dismisses alternative ways of knowing and being in the world. This can culminate in a form of intellectual imperialism that disregards cultural wisdom, traditional knowledge, and spiritual insights, impoverishing humanity's collective understanding and experience. In sum, while the scientific method has undeniably contributed to human advancement, an uncritical adherence to its principles can lead to a reductionist view of existence, ethical blind spots, and the perpetuation of social and environmental injustices. It's crucial to balance the pursuit of empirical knowledge with humility, ethical reflection, and an openness to the diverse ways of understanding our world.

@undeather You’re not God realized or awakening. You want plain English? You have bastardized this work and you’ve started a thread to be close minded. You’ve asked multiple times for people to ‘just explain the problem with the concept of science.’ At the same time, ‘do you even know my ontological paradigm.’ You’re saying your own problems. No one who is awakened is in a ‘paradigm’ and science is just a concept just like religion. Figuring this science thing out will cause you emotional pain. Do not expect words on a screen to solve it for you. Until you’ve have had an extreme emotional feeling around this topic, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Leo was very lenient with you in my opinion- and brave at that. Trying to convince a scientist science is not perfect is like trying to explain to a christian the Bible was just analogous.

(I may edit the pictures at some point. There shouldn’t be a tail and I want to make it as ‘accurate’ as possible. I am having fun) I have inputted most of the text from one of Leo’s recent blog posts, regarding the Varginha Brazil, alien, creature from a crash site, into DALL-E image generator (through ChatGPT). The description of the being captivated me and I wanted to see it. Feel free to check out his blog for the full interview too. It was quite interesting, if you can open your mind to the possibilities. I had to exclude some of the description to fit the guidelines. But it wasn’t much. Find the original and AI compare if you’re curious. It was basically about the genitalia (or lack there of). So it kind of worked out regardless. Nonetheless, the prompt: Take all of the descriptive details of this account and visualize the most realistic representation of this creature: The being was less than 5 feet tall. It was bipedal with two arms. The color of the skin was a dark brown, which appeared rather shiny, like it was oily or wet. But in fact the skin was dry and looked like large scales. But it was smooth to the touch. The head was large, much too large for the size of the individual. There were three boney protuberances on the top of the head, one in each parietal area and one central. They extended from the frontal to the occipital portions like ridges. There was no hair present. The head was also larger in its upper portion than its lower, toward the jaw area. The eyes were large, slightly upturned towards the lateral aspects. They were red in color and looked like two glimmering pools of liquid. There was a very small remnant of a mouth and two little openings with a slight ridge where the nose should have been. There were no noted ears, only small openings which looked like vestigial ear canals. The neck was narrow and appeared it would not have had enough muscular strength to support such a large head. The upper portion of the torso was a slighter build. Muscular legs. This was totally different from the arms, which were thin and emaciated. The hands ended in four fingers with no thumb. The fingers were strange and different from human fingers. The creature was able to move each of its fingers so they could articulate with each other, and by doing so was probably able to perform all the functions we could with the use of our thumbs. We were not able to tell whether these fingers were multi-jointed or if for some reason the bones were flexible, enabling the fingers to perform their desired functions. The upper leg and thigh ended in what seemed to be similar to a human knee joint, with an oversized patella. The lower portions of the leg were also similar to that of a human. The entire lower extremities were heavily endowed with muscles. The foot was narrow and fleshy. There were three short fleshy toes that looked more like pads than toes. There were no visible toenails or fingernails. There was an additional appendage that hung down from the medial side of the foot. This vestigial appendage was elongated like a finger and end in what appeared to be a claw about 3/4th of an inch long. Later we found that when the being walked it would move this appendage so it would become parallel to the rest of the foot. This allowed it to ambulate in a normal, human-like manner.

@Danioover9000 Understood. Apologies for any confusion. These were the first two images it gave me and there was no reference photo; only the description from the interview. I made more but, in my opinion, they didn’t get much better. I am not the best with AI. Every time I ask for a correction it would change something else. Working on it. Side note:if you haven’t tried it, ChatGPT 4 is worth the $20 a month. Especially just to try. But you can ask it for the cheapest flights, take pictures of products, etc. I had it write a legal contract. It took me 3-5 minutes. I mainly was reading. Data analysis, time management, etc. It’s wonderful.

If anyone wants to run with this idea… I’m open to improvements. This was a relatively quick idea I had. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t have tail, the 3 protrusions could be more prominent, etc. I was thinking though, there is nothing like this. Even AI hasn’t seen something like this so it may not even be able to fully imagine a new creation accurately, yet. I think that’s why I was struggling to have it keep all of the details. Maybe it would have been better to not even have mentioned the word alien at all to confuse it. I will experiment more later.