Nilsi

Kaytranada has been on fire lately. Banger after banger - can't wait to hear them on some big ass club sound system.

This is only an anecdote. I never advocated for a carnivore diet based on any sound evidence.

Im only saying this to you, because its a good illustration of the fundamental problem with scientific consensus. Of course you cant be free of biases. And since you are actually open enough to admit that, I have no problem with it.

Dont play stupid. What I wrote was very straight forward. Unless you have a <100 IQ, you understand what I said. You present your advice on nutritition, as if it were true - but youre really just presenting your biases. This is like me presenting say Marxism, as if it were true, without the disclaimer that its only one out of a vast number of political theories. And when someone comes and questions your paradigm, you get defensive and quote some scientific papers from people with the same biases as you.

The problems start, when you swipe all these tradeoffs under the rug and present your advice, as if it's somehow objectively true. You are transmitting your biases to everyone following your advice - and you have not the slightest bit of remorse about it. In fact, you boast about how scientific you are. The only reason this can fly, is because virtually no nutritionist is properly educated in epistemology to spot this malpractice. And of course, there is no incentive for you to be more epistemically rigorous, as that will just turn off your clients; and of course, everyone else is as sloppy as you, so why even bother?

That's assuming that we even remotely operate on the same level of intelligence. What does it mean for a human to cooperate with bees? Do we just leave them alone? What happens when we bump into them? Do we help them build beehives? Do we give them their space and chase them away everywhere else? Do we make them work for us? Do we make sure there are a certain number of bees alive to prevent them from going extinct? From what I intuit, AI will be orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans are compared to bees. It's impossible to reason about these kind of things in advance, it's just too alien.

I literally cant watch this video. The level of degeneracy is too much. How disrespectful and intellectually shallow do you have to be to play a fucking computer game while discussing philosophy? And then the sloppiness with which he talks - and of course the fucking blue hair?! How can you watch this garbage?

Why are you so obsessed with this video? Lyotard's term for the totalizing narratives or metadiscourses of modernity which have provided ideologies with a legitimating philosophy of history. For example, the grand narratives of the Enlightenment, democracy, and Marxism. Hayden White (b.1928), an American historian, suggests that there are four Western master narratives: Greek fatalism, Christian redemptionism, bourgeois progressivism, and Marxist utopianism. Lyotard argues that such authoritarian universalizing narratives are no longer viable in postmodernity, which heralds the emergence of ‘little narratives’ (or micronarratives, petits récits): localized representations of restricted domains, none of which has a claim to universal truth status. Critics suggest that this could be seen as just another grand narrative, and some have seen it as Eurocentric. This is what the term means. Why would I listen to some random on YouTube explain the world to me? In any case, why choose such a loaded term, if you are supposedly referring to something completely different?

What work do you do?

Thats horseshit. You know very well what your needs are, but since you are too lazy and complacent to go after them, you escape into the realm of jargon and complexity. I once did the same thing, which is why your little song and dance isnt fooling me.

I dont need a "grand narrative generator," when I can just go out and meet my needs. Do you make as much money as you want to? Fuck the kind of girl you would like to? Get the respect from your peers you know you deserve? Be acknowledged for your creative contributions?... Doesnt take a genius to figure out how to meet those needs. But, by all means, keep shuffling jargon around in your Platonic dreamworld.

Exactly. You are lost in fantasyland, while I'm out here actually meeting my needs. And then you have the audacity to preach to me about your grand narrative, which supposedly will meet all of humanities needs. Ridiculous!

That's precisely what I was saying. Now that's gibberish. You're using the term "grand narrative" in a very idiosyncratic way.

As washed up as he is nowadays - peak Drake was in a league of his own.

You presented a thesis on why we need a "grand narrative" to meet human needs. I presented a thesis on why there are infinite possible narratives to meet those needs.

Thats a complex question. Many human needs (e.g. recognition, belonging, self-actualization...) can be met in a plethora of ways. The only thing Im opposing is offering one way to meet these needs to the detriment of alternatives.

Nice!

Again, I never suggested such a thing. There are certain rules that apply to all members of a category (e.g. humans need water to survive). The problems start when you push this too far, as Mr. Carl wants to do, and try to formalize all of culture into a universal set of rules (aka religion). Im an avid follower of discoveries in neuroscience and biology and Im extremely strict and scientific with my health. I do have to choose what metric I want to improve as far as nutrition, exercise, supplementation etc. goes. Optimizing for testosterone and energy is often directly antagonistic to optimizing for longevity, for example. Im not suggesting that eating junk food is as good as eating a raw whole food vegan diet - what I am suggesting is that there are alternatives to the vegan diet, that are just as "scientifically rigorous," but get marginalized when too big a consensus builds around one particular local maximum and group think starts running wild.

I never suggested that I don't have a hierarchy of values. All I'm saying is, that there isn't some universal Jacobs Ladder. I'm all for Ken Wilber's integral theory, because it works quite well - that doesn't make it true though -- and it certainly doesn't mean, we should accommodate our whole reality to fit this particular framework.

Tate attracts people that lean towards psychopathy - as do you.

The bioshphere (or Gaia, if you want) is an autonomous superorganism and is simultaneously acting through individual organisms. There will be incorporeal AGI, but you will be jacked into it and partake in it. Its no different from how God works, really.

Hes a unique character, who pursued his dreams to the end. As far as Im concerned, Hitler was a net positive to society.

What if the highest Love doesnt care about your feelings?

Probably photoshopped as hell, but this is such a beautiful picture.

Musk is already doing it with Neuralink. I think they start human trials this year. Not that hard to imagine going from that to connecting it to AGI. What do you think this is all leading up to? Ask any silicon valley tech nut and they will tell you that thats what they are ultimately working towards.