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…

They all know we all fucking hate AI and yet no one refuses to crank up the money generating machine

Because there really isn’t any money in building things people actually want. Creating an actually useful product takes investments in infrastructure and labour, all the things that shareholders hate.

In our economy we don’t make money by building things, we make money by withholding things and selling access to them.

It’s why the monied class is so obsessed with AI. It sells the dream that you can not only get rid of labour cost, but actually make money off of selling access to the simulacrum of it.

Yeah… I build and fit prosthetics at a university hospital. I constantly have to explain to people how cyborg technology will most likely never be on par with your regular human arm.

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.

What I’m saying is that for example, dreams are not real, and yet they can and often are indistinguishable from reality, many even have dreams where they are aware they are dreaming and can control them the same way we can control what we do while awake.

I think to adopt that argument you have to be operating on some preconceived assumptions.

Dreams are “real”, in the sense that they are propagated by measurable physical phenomena. Just because some people can experience an amount of choice in their dreams, does not mean they are interacting with “reality”.

This is only possible because we have bodily systems for producing experiences

Again… Experiences needs to be defined. There are a lot of theories about how we engage with the world around us in both a physical and metaphysical way.

Our brains do in fact create our experiences with no contact to the world outside our bodies, its our sensory organs that give data to the brain to create our perception of experiencing things.

Ehhh… The claim that there’s a clear delineation between the central and peripheral nervous system is generally just a byproduct of how we teach anatomy. The more we understand about cognitive science and anatomy in general, the further we get away from the old understanding of the cns when it was treated almost like a computer that runs a machine.

I think it kinda depends on how you define an experience, but you’re kinda edging into an old debate known as the mind body problem in cognitive science and philosophy.

it’s entirely possible that she just strolled into some dude’s house when he wasn’t expecting it. And if that’s the case, he was the one who was assaulted.

That’s an idiotic take considering he ordered a service where someone has to meet with you… Especially considering that all of these services tell you exactly when and where the person is. Meaning he initiated a contact.

point is simply that we can’t know what happened, because none of us were there. So to simply open by stating that she was assaulted is inherently biased.

We’re not in adjudicating a court case, we’re just interpreting someone’s accounts. If we are assuming that they are being honest, then what they described was a sexual assault.

Besides that, I wasn’t commenting we there the story was accurate . I was commenting on the misconception the person had that sexual assault was to be physical in nature.

Again… Why are we falling over ourselves to defend this guy?

But if he genuinely wasn’t expecting someone to let themselves into his house, (because honestly, why would anyone think that’s okay to do?) then he’s actually the victim here.

Again, pretty difficult to argue that case considering that he ordered a service where a person has to come to your house and have a face to face interaction. Do you often get undressed with your front door open?

Still a monumentally stupid move on the driver’s part, (because seriously, why would you ever enter someone’s home while making a delivery?)

Again we are blaming the victim here.

When I delivered pizza, I would absolutely never enter a home. That’s like rule #1. Really good way to get robbed. Or see something you don’t want to.

I also delivered pizza and knew this rule… Partly because fellow drivers and my workplace told me about it. These drivers don’t have coworkers nor bosses that tell them what is and what isn’t safe. A lot of them are young and have never worked with the general public, or have previously been very sheltered.

And seeing a naked man in his home is not the same as being sexually assaulted. It’s gross and probably illegal if he set it all up for sexual gratification, but unless there’s more to this story, there was no assault.

Yes, it is… Like most people, you are confusing assault with battery. Sexual assault is any nonconsensual sexual contact(meeting/encounter). Sexual battery or aggravated sexual assault is sexual assault with the use or threat of force.

I’m not sure what she wanted door dash to do about it? If you report something like that they obviously won’t respond immediately, it would get flagged and sent to a legal team.

Some of the apps require you to get a code from the buyer to get paid for the delivery.

I don’t really know why we are blaming the victim here?

Lol, my dude thinks we’re going to have millions of people in space before California finishes their high speed rail project, the project that was started 10 years ago…

You give a guy billions of dollars because he figured out how to put Barnes and Noble out of business and he suddenly thinks he’s a genius at everything.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not denying that there’s a real reality. I’m saying we don’t have direct access to it.

No, you’re just not being consistent with your own claim. You’ve gone as far as to say that the existence of the sun is a subjective matter. Now you’re predicating your claim with “direct access”.

Kant, Husserl, even modern physics all recognize that we only ever experience the world filtered through perception and cognition.

Right, but none of them argue that the biases in perception means we cannot come to a consensus in objectivity.

There’s the thing itself, and then there’s what our brains can make sense of.

And how do you know that the thing itself exist? Couldn’t it just be a hallucination…?

Observation and measurement are still mediated by human perception, interpretation, and context. Science works because we build systems to reduce bias, not because we somehow step outside of subjectivity.

Again, you are falsely defining truth or reality to be a state devoid of any subjectivity. Just because there is subjectivity in perception and observation does not mean we cannot come to a consensus of what an objective truth or reality is.

the left often doesn’t. They treat “truth” as something fixed and self-evident, when in practice it’s always being shaped, reframed, and fought over

Again… Maybe they just believe that “truths” (human construct) like human rights should be self evident and not up for debate.

That’s not the same as saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying that truth has to be communicated and maintained, not just assumed.

That is not consistent with your previous claims, you are moving the goal post.

The moral and ethical part is a separate issue. You can still have values, compassion, and principles while acknowledging that your version of truth is a construct.

You can, but there’s no inherent reason to if it isn’t consistent with your “version of truth”.

Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.

Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.

“Suffering matters” is a self evident claim reliant on metaphysical certainty…

left can’t learn from how they weaponize language and perception

Who says they don’t? The left is a pretty big spectrum, most of which is largely absent in North America. I think the problem you’re having is confusing leftist with liberals, as liberals only want to preserve the status quo, and are thus less likely to engage in more manipulative tactics.

It’s to stop being naïve about how people actually process information and form beliefs. Reality might be objective, but politics runs on perception.

Again, I think liberals in this country are walking a tight rope of dispelling the fascist regime without dispelling the suprestructure that allows it to be successful in the first place. It’s hard to call out fascist without also disparaging the capitalistic system that the liberals are trying to preserve.

I’m saying that there are two types of truths. One is what is reality but that we are forced to view it through our sense and mind and consciousness which can never actually grasp the real reality.

This requires some cognitive dissonance to overcome its logical inconsistency.

You cannot claim there to be a “true” reality while also claiming that our perceptive biases are so strong that we cannot accurately experience/describe it.

That filter is what makes it a subjective truth.

This is an unsubstantiated claim that is easily disputed by the concept of empirical content.

This is to my point that the right understand this and succeeded in a lot of areas the left don’t because of this.

Lol, you don’t need to adopt a relative perspective of reality to understand the concept of manipulation and lying.

The left are very rigid and seen to fall on their own truth. I see it in arguments and online. They don’t mold things or play around with events the same way the right does.

I think you have a problem with moral/ethical constructs moreso than a mind/body problem.

think they don’t because of their relationship to what they see as true or not.

I would argue that the perspective of a shared moral or ethical constructual “truth” is what separates the left and the right.

If we deny the idea of a moral or ethical truth what is the point of a leftist government anyways? If we’re all experiencing a personally subjective reality, what is the point of an empathetical society?

I think your individualist perspective is a lot more common on the right than the left.

The way the right have reframed arguments about trans, racism, Jeffery Epstein, immigration, government needs to be better understood by the right. Not just called out but instead adapted.

The method is incompatible with the end goals. The right can lie and create mistrust because chaos and instability is their goal. This is not the same as the left, who are trying to create stability and equity through organization.

how do you know that other observer is not a p zombie or part of the hallucination.

Because p zombies are a poorly constructed philosophical concept, not a tangible reality.

The idea of something physically identical to humans but lacks consciousness is circular reasoning as the engagement of the physical body and the environment is what creates consciousness.

The same applies to hallucinations. Hallucinations require previous knowledge and interaction with emperical content. So even if you hallucinate the sun, that implies the existence of an actual sun you are hallucinating about.

Truths it isn’t something we can deal with. We can only deal with our truths which is subjective, not objective

That’s a self defeating argument. Stating that all truths are subjective implies that the statement itself is subjective.

do not think any elected official would go around telling any member of their constituency that they diddles their kids

How do you think the elected officials found out? Do you think that the kids or the coach told these officials and no one else?

The four officials — the former principal of Ninnekah High School, a former superintendent, a former athletics director and a former secretary — were dismissed from the lawsuit as part of the settlement.

^Word of Akins’ relationship with Jane Doe No. 2 began to spread in the school district. Multiple adults and former students told authorities district staff were aware of the rumors but brushed it off, according to law enforcement reports.

I currently live in OK, Ninnekah is a tiny shithole in the middle of nowhere with like 700 people in it. If more than a couple of adults knew about it, the whole town knew about it.