Breatharianism Mega-Thread

[zurew]

You still have 0 reply to the problem of induction.

Yes reality is reality, hardware is hardware, but you have no clue what rules reality has, you just assume that you are right about those rules beyond any doubt, and the reason why you are pushed on this, is because epistemically you cant accept the fact that you can be wrong about this.

12 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Notice again how I say something like going without water for years is nonsense, and some of you may respond with all kinds of abstract arguments as reaction to it. What's underlying that?

What got us here is your 100% credence talk ,where you think you cant be wrong on this topic. Notice that I only wanted you to say "I can be wrong about this" - but you cant say that. You understand that you saying that "I can be wrong on this", from that doesnt follow, that you are commited to the position that breatharianism is likely to be true, right? 

 

Do you know why the snakeoil salesman shit works in philosophy and spirituality? It works, because people have unwarranted high credence in mystical shit. Do you know whats ironic about that? The fact that you have an unjustifiably high credence in your position. Do you know what the solution to that is? Its to reflect on what you actually know and what justifications you have for your positions and to iteratively improve on your knowledge and iteratively update your credence on things.

Saying that there is room for error doesnt commit you to getting fucked over by snakeoil salesman, but it gives you room to update on your beliefs about reality if and when enough evidence / a good argument is provided. In certain cases it might actually be the case that its impossible to change your position on certain things, given all the pragmatic and epistemic limitations we have, but even in those cases the conclusion isn't that you are right beyond any doubt, the conclusion is that given those limitations you won't change your position on certain things, but thats still compatible with you being wrong about those things.

 

Stop and actually reflect on how do you know that breatharianism is false beyond any doubt - again not just that it is more than likely to be false, but reflect on how do you know with 100% confidence that it is false. Check what actual justifications you have for that and how that actually warrants a 100% credence.

 

 

Edited December 5 by zurew

[UnbornTao]

@zurew

Got confused with the other thread. Setting notions of the after‑death aside - which is mostly what my earlier claims about philosophy and spirituality were related to - I'll stick with the basic physical needs for this one. The claims about it being BS were specifically referring to prolonged (years‑long) abstinence from water, sleep, and food. I acknowledged that, in some extreme cases, people have reportedly gone without food for several months. These are not the same claims, though. 

Can the human body survive without oxygen for long? That's already a "rule." We could call it a fact, a valid belief, or an educated guess, but it really does seem to be how things work. There's no way around that. Likewise, the human body can't perceive sounds outside certain wavelengths. That limitation is part of the body's design. The domain of objective physical reality is the most grounded and "real" one we have, and we notice that it doesn't operate randomly or arbitrarily - hence the hardware analogy. Just in case, I wouldn't brush it off so quickly because of its simplicity.

Not a very satisfactory answer but I might say more at some point.

Edited Monday at 09:53 PM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

You are saying things that I mostly agree with , the issue that I have is your level of certainty about those things.

"Can I be wrong about this?" - as long as the answer is yes, I have 0 issue.

Reality having a consistent set of rules is compatible with you having wrong ideas about what those rules are, and even your very ideas about what is supposed to be a law or rule - those ideas can also be wrong.

The human body having a particular design which constrains what the body is capable of is compatible with you having wrong ideas about those limitations and constrains.

This whole back and forth on my part wasn't to establish  whether breatharianism is false or not, it was to establish that we shouldnt be 100% certain about almost anything science related. And no, this doesnt give credence to breatharianism, it is just an honest reflection on what we know and what level of certainty we can establish given the epistemic tools and limitations we have when it comes to science.

14 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Can the human body survive without oxygen for long? That's already a "rule." We could call it a fact, a valid belief, or an educated guess, but it really does seem to be how things work. There's no way around that.

I want you to actually engage and to give a direct answer. How do you know what is a rule and how do you know what you can get around and what you cant get around? 

[UnbornTao]

On 12/9/2025 at 0:16 PM, zurew said:

You are saying things that I mostly agree with , the issue that I have is your level of certainty about those things.

"Can I be wrong about this?" - as long as the answer is yes, I have 0 issue.

Reality having a consistent set of rules is compatible with you having wrong ideas about what those rules are, and even your very ideas about what is supposed to be a law or rule - those ideas can also be wrong.

The human body having a particular design which constrains what the body is capable of is compatible with you having wrong ideas about those limitations and constrains.

This whole back and forth on my part wasn't to establish  whether breatharianism is false or not, it was to establish that we shouldnt be 100% certain about almost anything science related. And no, this doesnt give credence to breatharianism, it is just an honest reflection on what we know and what level of certainty we can establish given the epistemic tools and limitations we have when it comes to science.

Sure, I can always be wrong. No problem with that. At the end of the day, the main assertion being made was that surviving without water or sleep for years is BS - for humans, at least.

At the same time, there's also the possibility of discovering the principles behind things. You can't get around those. If an object breaks, its integrity is compromised. That ties into the point about openness needing to be paired with rootedness or groundedness - not just the intellectual stance of "anything could be possible." We can always entertain the notion that Earth might be triangular, for example. You can always come up with ideas that contradict your former ones, but the issue here is that not everything in this context is just an idea. Something deeper or more real can be discovered.

Maybe the right word here is something like factual, or parameter, or principle, or rule. Do certain things, and they will produce certain consequences. Etc. The main assertion here isn't that these things point to some absolute reality, or that they're ultimately true. Just that they're objectively ocurring.

Quote

I want you to actually engage and to give a direct answer. How do you know what is a rule and how do you know what you can get around and what you cant get around? 

In the context of this conversation, scientific hearsay, for the most part. Add to that some personal extrapolations - some of them based on limited experience - plus the domain of what we might call valid beliefs.

Edited 22 hours ago by UnbornTao