4201

I'm also doing no poo with only water and it's going great. My scalp used to be so irritated from the chemicals in shampoo that are designed to remove oil, now no more irritation or scalp problems. Your "hair can be fine" while your scalp is dry underneat. This is kinda what shampoo does imo. Do you wash your face with soap? Regardless of the soap you use being dry or not, any type of soap removes oil by design. If your face/scalp is dry it's because of a lack of oil (although lots of thing can be causing this lack). The body has been designed to maintain it's oil naturally but when you introduce chemicals that strip off the oil it creates an imbalance. If you don't put any soap in your face but still have a dry face then that might just be how your body is.

Yeah it sure is a tricky subject. It's also quite an "inconvenient truth" as well, it's probably the most inaccessible nutrient to obtain. Will def go for the pills personally, Salmon every 3-4 days is such a commitment lol EDIT: Actually you need to take 3 pills a day everyday to get enough from pills? This is insane.

From what I'm finding online there just isn't that much sources of cheap EPA and DHA when it comes to omega 3. It comes down to some specific fish (Salmon, Mackerel and some others), Perilla Oil and Algal Oil. Salmon is by far the cheapest and most accessible but wild salmon usually costs more and I've seen there is antibiotic issues with non wild salmons. I would have no idea where I'd buy Perilla Oil and Algal Oil as I don't find any of those in my local supermarkets in Canada. My question to the nutrition-savy of this forum is, how the heck are you guys getting your EPA and DHA Omega 3? If you are vegan there is no option but to get those hard to find oils? I'm not saying I'm trying to get vegan but easy salmon twice a week is quite expensive and inconvenient. Now I know about ALA being convertible to DHA but you need to consume much less omega 6 than omega 3 and even then it's not reliable. I'd have to consume a lot of walnuts and flaxseeds and if I ever consume something that is high in omega 6, it messes up my omega 3 / 6 ratio? It sounds like a nightmare keeping track of every source of omega 6 just to make sure the balance is conserved. At this point I'm not sure what to do except paying the high prices for salmon (that are prob full of antibiotics) or just buying omega 3 fish oil pills as a supplement. I'm quite surprised by how limited the options are for omega 3, especially when it's such an important nutrient for the heart and for the brain.

What those studies point out is the lack of consensus on DHA supplementation treating demention and cognitive decline which is quite different from the lack of consensus it is a required nutrient. The fact supplementing DHA doesn't prevent cognitive decline doesn't mean it's not a nutrient your brain needs. In fact the other study said DHA has a half life of 2.5 years in your brain and if you stopped fully consuming it right now, you wouldn't notice it before 50 days. Even if it's a resource that "sticks along" for a long time it doesn't mean it's not necessary. It's not really clear from those studies whether the people who did not supplement with DHA had any omega 3 in their alimentation. If you already consume some DHA, of course consuming supplements won't do much but it doesn't mean DHA is not needed. There are ethical reasons to not ask demention patients to totally stop consuming DHA "for the sake of science", it's unlikely the control groups in those studies had 0 DHA intake. Yeah I have no doubt that ALA is useless, the other papers confirmed that too. They say this though "This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega‐3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate‐ and high‐quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials)." This is a funny conclusion given they don't show their numbers for EPA and DHA anywhere. But again it's supplement trials, do their control group have 0 intake in DHA or regular population amount of DHA? I have no doubt that supplementing DHA from a normal diet doesn't do much but I don't think that means you can get away with taking none of it. Now this detail could probably be answered reading your whopping 526 PAGES paper All of that being said, again this is a study aimed at using Omega‐3 fatty acids for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. The fact you cannot prevent disease (brain or heart) by supplementing this doesn't mean it's not something you need in the normal sense. The studies I found which evaluated risks of heart disease actually worked from populations that do not consume DHA rather than people who switched to a supplement. This makes a relative amount of sense given the slow half-life of the DHA. If you don't take DHA for 20 years and then you are at risk of heart disease, it may just be "too late" to start supplementing and the results won't be seen right away. Even the last study you linked still says it's necessary to eat them anyway, despite them not working as supplements to prevent diseases. Omega‐3 fats are essential – to stay healthy we must obtain some from food. The main types of omega‐3 fats are alpha‐linolenic acid (ALA), a fat found in plant foods, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), both found in fish. There is a common belief that eating more fish or taking omega‐3 supplements reduces our risk of heart disease, stroke and death.

I'd be curious to see which studies you found, from what I'm seeing DHA seems highly important in brain development and to the brain in general, as well as being a good predictor for cardiac health https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02859265 "The follow-up studies have shown that infants of mothers supplemented with EFAs and DHA had higher mental processing scores, psychomotor development, eye-hand coordination and stereo acuity at 4 years of age." https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/5/529 "Conversions through to DHA in adults have been found to be very low. When stable isotope-labeled ALA was given to a sample healthy young male volunteers in the UK that did not take fish oil or regularly eat fish, there was very little conversion right through to DHA (EPA 7.9%, DPA 8.1% and DHA 0–0.04%) [24]." "While EPA is required for eicosanoid synthesis, the widespread presence and preferential retention of cell membrane phospholipids for DHA, particularly in the brain, indicates that DHA is the essential omega 3 fatty acid." "For instance, the work of Harris et al. [38] and von Schacky [39] have established that the most reliable fatty acid indicator for risk of coronary heart disease is EPA + DHA in erythrocyte membrane phospholipids. Further, Harris et al. [38] demonstrated that erythrocyte DHA phospholipids correlated highly with cardiac DHA phospholipids (r = 0.84, p = 0.01)." They don't really say why DHA is important (and I'm not sure they know why) but we definitely know that it's quite important for the brain because the brain has evolved to preferentially select for those acids. If DHA wasn't important we wouldn't find it as much of it in the brain. At the end of the day it's all just correlations probably because we don't understand what the body does with this DHA but it's highly likely to be a very important nutrient and given the low conversion rate of ALA, I wouldn't even bother with specifically taking ALA. When looking up "EPA DHA body requirement" on google scholar you get a bunch of results that are about what are the requirements to feed a certain species of fish amounts of EPA and DHA. It's possible such a study would have been mistaken for one about the human body? Otherwise I'm really curious about a study that would invalidate all of this body of research if you have one.

I would be tempted to think creating such an event as an awakening or retreat instead of recognizing there is no event and that it's always now creates in a way the backlash because the ego have this event to cling onto as part of it's new life story. In a sense going on a retreat is creating a special moment in which the "me" achieves something and this might lead to lots of thinking about this new "achievement of mine". Of course one could go out of the retreat with no idea (like trying to continue the meditation but in every day activities without ever conceptualizing the retreat event) but it's hard to not ever conceptualize about it ever. No matter how big of an ego backlash you get though, I would think the insights you get during the retreat are much more beneficial than the backlash are bad and I don't think the retreat itself would be the main cause of a massive backlash if any.

Yeah I guess I should just accept omega 3 is a tough nutriment to get. Where do you get Krill oil? I see them in pill form but none in "normal form". Do you cook with this stuff? chia, linseeds/flaxseeds and walnuts are all ALA omega 3 which your body can convert to DHA in the liver through a difficult process. This process does not work if you have too much omega 6 in your system so it's not a sustainable alternative to fish oils and other sources of EPA/DHA omega 3.

The book of not knowing by Peter Ralston!

You'd get a red-neck revolution similar to what happened on the capital building on January 6 lol Lots of conservatives are stuck in conspiracy theories about vaccines and the pandemic. Making it mandatory would have only increased outrage and reinforced their idea that the government is trying to "use the pandemic to control your life".

Why would one ever want to be awake only part-time? Yes you see everything on psychedelics but you had to force your mind to stop identifying with thought as if you can't do that without it. Doesn't it lead to a form of learned helplessness? No matter how much more work it is to be able to stay present without psychedelics, it's infinitely more useful than being awake 10% of the time. I really love psychedelics and everytime I take them it's just amazing. But the doubts I have about my ability to wake up sober do not go away with psychedelics. You could say I should just not care about my ability to awaken without psychedelics but my ability to not care = my ability to awaken without psychedelics. The reality is no matter how great my psychedelic awakening are, I still feel shit for most of the time because of thought identification and no amount of psychedelics actually raise my ability to not identify with thought, it just temporarilly makes it easy.

If you stop taking anything for a year, how your life would be? I personally dislike the dependence. I'm glad embracing the dependence worked for you but personally I dislike the idea of having to rely on an external substance for happiness or productivity. And honestly there is no reason to. Anything that is possible on 5 MeO is possible without 5 MeO.

I can take any psychedelic (shrooms, acid or 5meo). I know it would feel amazing but next week I'd be back thinking I can only awaken with psychedelics. That is the issue.

Yes I meditate daily for 30 minutes. It doesn't prevent me from spending the whole 30 minute of meditation rationalizing about why meditation doesn't work, but the habit is there.

Yes absolutely nothing is neither finite nor infinite but no proof nor logic exist in the context of absolute nothingness. Logic is a sequence of statements and it implies time. My point is that we can't work from this relative context to prove infinity. The only nonduality is nonduality, there is no shortcut.

The reason scientists don't understand mental illness is that they study it as if it was a physical phenomenon when it is a conceptual phenomenon. Feel free to give it the credit of a physical thing if you want, but doing this you validate it conceptually as "being a thing" which reinforces the phenomenon itself. You can't study thought with thought. It doesn't make it "simple". Thoughts are quite tricky... if you think they are

You conclude it's infinite after going through a finite reasoning. After asking a fixed number of questions to your scientists you kinda just conclude it's infinite but you haven't been through the infinity of questions you could ask deconstructing everything. This doesn't mean you are "wrong" nor that it's finite but your proof isn't a proof, it's just a "reasonable explanation". Next time your mind wants to get stuck in thought again, it can just go deeper than this explanation to get stuck. Since you assumed it's infinite you didn't go all the way in and so there's always deeper to get stuck anyway. Can you prove something to be infinite in a finite number of statements? You can prove it by showing that for everything there is another one. For instance let's prove there is infinitely many natural numbers. Assume the natural numbers are a finite set. Add every number in the set, you get a new number which is bigger than any number in the set, and thus not in the set and so the natural numbers are infinite. You can't use numbers to prove your experience is infinite though because your cognitive ability is too limited to process any number. There exists numbers too big for a computer made with of all the particles in the universe to store. So numbers is not the way to go with your human experience. You could try to go visually but you'd soon find out that the resolution of your eye is limited and you can't see images with infinite resolution, so you wouldn't be able to compare images past a certain level of detail. Same story with sounds there is a limit in the amount of frequencies your ears can perceive. Not only that but given that the speed of light is finite and there is minimum to the length and time unit you can perceive, a sufficiently powerful computer could simulate your experience in a finite amount of operations. There is a finite amount of particles in your observable universe interacting with themselves. Since the speed of light is finite, in any given time unit any particle only interacted with a finite amount of particles which make the whole process computable in a finite amount of operations. Given that time is not infinitely precise in how we can measure it, you wouldn't be able to distinguish the finite simulation from infinity. I don't think infinity is provable. If it was you could just take it for granted. There is no shortcut to being present. You can convince someone that it's infinite through reasonable arguments but you can't deal with the infinitely stubborn that requires a proof. Ironically if you could prove it's infinite you'd be totally out of possible misconceptions. (You'd have the perfect assumption) But that can't be since the amount of misconceptions must be infinite too. If it's infinite then there's infinitely many ways to get stuck and so a proof is not an option.

I think the main issues I was trying to highlight in this thread is learned helplessness regarding the ability to awaken without psychedelics. Having repeated awakening experiences on psychedelics while not seeing the type of life I want whenever I'm not on psychedelics for a long time lead me to believe I just am not able to stay awake by myself psychedelic-free. Of course this is a thought story and taking a psychedelic will deconstruct the story but it doesn't really matter. This story will come back whenever I've been sober for a while again because the story itself overlooks the psychedelic experiences has having "been done on psychedelics". It reinforces the idea that I can only be awake on psychedelics. I could simply just recognize that this is entirely a story and consider the case closed. I've done that many times before and after doing this I've taken my psychedelic. Fast forward 2 weeks later and I'm believing the same story and associating my past state of well being to the psychedelic rather than remembering the fact I've overcame the belief naturally prior to taking the psychedelic. I think it's clear for me at this point that what I want is a full sober awakening. Perhaps it's just silly to judge awakenings to either be sober or not, but I believe my ego would highly benefit having this "proof" that I can do it sober.

You can't have both nonduality and create a duality of you separate from an experience. But experience is not the duality you create about it. That duality exists purely for communication (I experienced this flower yesterday!), the experience itself is nondual and not separate from you.

If you assign probabilities, you just don't know. However you want to compute your probabilities is entirely up to you, I'm only of the opinion that it is not known. Could watch your video series (and might do when I get the chance) but we already agree on the fact we don't know on the absolute sense. Holy crap we are going deep with this one. Direct evidence is the only truth. You realized this many times before. Why personally identify with aliens as part of your "life's work"? This just can't lead you anywhere good. You putting yourself in a position where aliens must exist for a part of your "life work" to be valid. This can easily lead to ignoring evidence in the favor of confirming the bias you created.

If you want to talk about a specific case just link it. Abstract references to a number of cases don't do much. The cases linked in this thread has already been debunked, feel free to add more evidence if you have any.

Yeah the "bottomline" isn't debunked. Only individual cases can be debunked. You can't debunk the idea of magic existing either, you can only debunk individual phenomenon to not be magic in nature. In fact I believe this is what we call understanding.

No I haven't lived this specific identification by myself. All I can offer is explanations based on my own experiences with total lack of identification. Nothing can really replace one's experience. But there is no problem that is beyond identification. Quite fundamentally there is no problem unless you create one, in all cases and all scenarios. A person can totally stop identifying too and if they did that, they would feel as amazing as one can possibly feel. Of course just saying that to them is not going to make them stop identify. There's no way to force a person to stop identify, it's really only a thing you can do. You can tell whether transitioning is the best decision for you by feeling deeply into yourself. I would recommend at least waiting until you have a clear answer.

Because I'm an alien I'm much smarter than you and so I use reverse reverse psychology instead

Wouldn't they argue against there being aliens if they want to keep it a secret though? Maybe they actually brainwash regular humans using heavy metals to force their brain into believing there are no aliens, giving them brain fog to make them ignore all the incredible alien evidence out there...

The number of report itself doesn't prove or disprove anything. Take big foot for instance: There definitely are UFOs (objects not identified) but none of the UFO sighting confirms them to be of alien nature. It's like you are trying to convince us that big foot is homosexual based on the amount of big foot reports there are. No matter how many UFOs we find it doesn't confirm it's aliens. Each individual case has it's own individual explanation. Even if there are aliens out there among the UFOs it wouldn't explain 100% of the UFOs. Most of the UFOs are debunkable (like the one you linked at the beginning of this thread). If you don't want to provide any extra evidence there's not much more to chat about here.