Breatharianism Mega-Thread

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, TheSomeBody said:

tell me what exactly will put me in danger here

 

Quote

dangerous

/ˈdeɪn(d)ʒ(ə)rəs/

adjective

    able or likely to cause harm or injury.

    "a dangerous animal"

https://www.google.com/search?q=dangerous+definition

Doing an activity where people routinely die attempting it is dangerous. Climbing Mount Everest is dangerous, jumping from an airplane is dangerous, driving a car is dangerous.

I also mentioned spiritual practices in general: meditation (it can trigger psychotic breaks), psychedelics (psychotic breaks, hurting yourself in a delirious state, severe life changes).

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[TheSomeBody]

52 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=dangerous+definition

Doing an activity where people routinely die attempting it is dangerous. Climbing Mount Everest is dangerous, jumping from an airplane is dangerous, driving a car is dangerous.

I also mentioned spiritual practices in general: meditation (it can trigger psychotic breaks), psychedelics (psychotic breaks, hurting yourself in a delerious state, severe life changes).

say what part of breatharianism practice i can die or get ill because of it. that what i ment...

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, TheSomeBody said:

say what part of breatharianism practice i can die or get ill because of it. that what i ment...

... Try to guess yourself. Why do you think some people die from trying it?

[TheSomeBody]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

... Try to guess yourself. Why do you think some people die from trying it?

it is very rare to die from it. it is pretty easy to not, just monitor your weight and see that it doesnt change  

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, TheSomeBody said:

it is very rare to die from it. it is pretty easy to not, just monitor your weight and see that it doesnt change  

There are like a million reasons and rationalizations why a person would continue despite losing weight.

 

Quote

Jasmuheen (born Ellen Greve) was a prominent advocate of breatharianism in the 1990s. She said, "I can go for months and months without having anything at all other than a cup of tea. My body runs on a different kind of nourishment."[21] Interviewers found her house stocked with food; Jasmuheen claimed the food was for her husband and daughter. In 1999, she volunteered to be monitored closely by the Australian television program 60 Minutes for one week without eating to demonstrate her methods.[22][23]

Jasmuheen stated that she found it difficult on the third day of the test because the hotel room in which she was confined was located near a busy road, causing stress and pollution that prevented absorption of required nutrients from the air. "I asked for fresh air. Seventy per cent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breathe," she said. On the third day, the test was moved to a mountainside retreat, where her condition continued to deteriorate. After Jasmuheen had fasted for four days, Berris Wink, president of the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association, urged her to stop the test.[24]

According to Wink, Jasmuheen's pupils were dilated, her speech was slow, and she was "quite dehydrated, probably over 10%, getting up to 11%". Towards the end of the test, she said, "Her pulse is about double what it was when she started. The risks if she goes any further are kidney failure. 60 Minutes would be culpable if they encouraged her to continue. She should stop now." The test was stopped. Wink said, "Unfortunately there are a few people who may believe what she says, and I'm sure it's only a few, but I think it's quite irresponsible for somebody to be trying to encourage others to do something that is so detrimental to their health."[24] Jasmuheen challenged the results of the program, saying, "Look, 6,000 people have done this around the world without any problem."[25][26][27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[TheSomeBody]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There are like a million reasons and rationalizations why a person would continue despite losing weight.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

i have read all of those stuff.
i think i should commit to what i said that i dont care about your opinions and i care only about people that are intrested and not nay-sayers. i can give you some arguements but it will just waist my time 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, TheSomeBody said:

i have read all of those stuff.
i think i should commit to what i said that i dont care about your opinions and i care only about people that are intrested and not nay-sayers. i can give you some arguements but it will just waist my time 

I'm not a "nay-sayer", nor am I a person that is "not interested". I did not say breatharianism is impossible (in fact, I think it very well might be possible; see my earlier comments). I'm saying it is not a harmless practice that should be taken lightly.

You should be honest about what it is you're practicing, and saying you "don't care" and claiming that people who disagree with one aspect of what you're saying are "not interested" or "nay-sayers" gives a picture of a starry-eyed fanaticism that frankly is not welcome on this forum.

I have meditated for more than 1000 hours. I don't think meditation is harmless. I think it can cause a lot of harm if you're not careful and you're not in the right situation and you lack the right prerequisite knowledge. Ideally, meditation should be taught by a teacher who is fully aware of the potential harms of meditation and knows how to mitigate them and will withdraw the teachings if they don't seem suitable for the person.

Similarly (and prefacing this as "in theory" and not a recommendation), if somebody wants to learn about breatharianism, I think they should go to somebody who knows about the potential harms of breatharianism and will withdraw the teachings if they seem unsuitable for the person (and in actuality, I would be seriously cautious about even that considering the apparent level of delusional thinking that exists in that domain).

 

Take a look at the guidelines:

Quote

WARNING: Spiritual work is inherently risky and dangerous if misapplied or misunderstood. Some Actualized.org teachings are not suitable for people with mental disorders. If your mind is chaotic and unstable, these teachings may lead to a deterioration of your condition and even suicide. If spiritual work is causing your life to unravel in unhealthy ways, discontinue the work until your mind has stabilized and you are safe. [...]

WARNING: Psychedelics are inherently risky and dangerous. Only use psychedelics if you are willing to take 100% responsibility for the consequences. Do not take psychedelics if you are too young, too immature, on mind-altering medication, if your mind is unstable, or if you have a serious mental disorder. [...]

https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

If you can't admit that the practice of ceasing the consumption of food and water deserves at least a similar level of precaution, I think that's delusional.

Edited just now by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

23 hours ago, zurew said:

You need to differentiate between different notions of impossible. You can have logical , nomological, metaphysical impossibility. Logical impossibility would be something generally that would violate the laws of logic or generally things that would actually entail a contradiction. Metaphysical impossibility is more blurry and more complicated. Nomological impossibility would be things that would violate the laws of nature.

The math example is logically impossible, but when it comes to nomological laws (anything science related) there are a lot of weird things that are logically possible that you dont even want to entertain and you dont even have the capacity to entertain and at the same time nomologically impossible (where it would violate some scientific law)

You can say that we shouldnt entertain all logically possible things ,and we should only focus on the nomologically possible things and thats fine, but your sense about what is nomologically possible is grounded in your current understanding of the Universe and all of that is subject to be wrong. Almost all of that shit is based on inductive reasoning that is super subject to be wrong - just take a look at how many things we adjusted in the 20 and 21st century about our understanding of science and the Universe.

You can also think about it this way - go back to the 10th century check what set of things would be rational to accept given the scientific knowledge they had back then and tell me how you wouldnt be the guy back then who would make the exact same argument you are making right now. Think about what sense they had back then about what is nomologically possible.

 

When it comes to your claim about openness, i agree with you in 99.9999% of the cases , but not when it comes to claims about what is logically possible, because none of what you did  shows how those things are logically impossible,  at best it only show that given your current understanding of the Universe some thing might be violated (but even that claim is often times too strong) - and again to be clear, I agree with you that when it comes to appealing epistemic norms - we shouldn't appeal to what is logically possible and we should appeal to our sense of rationality that is grounded in our current understanding of the Universe, but not when it comes to philosophy and not when it comes to claims about impossibility.

It doesnt matter how weird or absurd a given proposition is to you, because that doesnt prove that the proposition is actually false. Its fine to say that we shouldnt entertain it, or that we dont yet a have good reason to entertain it (again an appeal to our current understanding, which is totally fair), but its not fine to say that it is therefore definitely false.

What? I'm saying that not sleeping (or not drinking water) for just a day or two will start to fuck you up - let alone going weeks without them. Analogously, hardware is hardware: it functions in a particular way because that's what makes it that specific form of hardware in the first place. Its specificity is the whole point.

I suspect you might be reacting to what comes off as my assertiveness or arrogance, which could be read as closed-mindedness - but either way, it's fine.

[UnbornTao]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Life is more strange than the very limited scope of current materialistic scientific discoveries, with all their cultural, institutional, economic and methodological constraints, being the end-all be-all of reality.

Okay, maybe. Then again, setting the stories aside, try living with some of those guys for a week and see if they can function, or stay healthy, without some of those basic needs for any length of time. 

[Carl-Richard]

34 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Okay, maybe. Then again, setting the stories aside, try living with some of those guys for a week and see if they can function, or stay healthy, without some of those basic needs for any length of time. 

Ok 😆

Edited 19 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok 😆

- No water. 

- But reality!