Carl-Richard

I just see it as coming from a strategic standpoint of "you look frail and old -> negatively impact project", and when you first are on that train, why not do it well? I haven't made much out of that, but maybe my gaydar is off again. I think "Don't Die" is a wack ass name for a philosophy that is essentially ancient eudaimonia dressed in transhumanist Ray Kurzweilism. My "like" for Bryan is mostly me arguing back against people's kneejerk reaction to spending more-than-usual time on your health and why it's not as irrationally obsessive as they portray it to be.

I mean obviously, he doesn't get the android meme for no reason. But my gaydar didn't go off. Maybe I need a different one.

Ok 😆

It's exactly when your mind takes a break from the usual slop of self-absorbed worries and cultural indoctrination that creative thoughts have the space to arise. So no, on the contrary. Of course during the meditation you might shift your focus away from creative thoughts that may arise, but in the moments after the meditation and just in general, your creativity will be elevated. Generally switching your activities up, especially just taking a break and for example going for a walk and letting your mind wander in between work, brings creativity. Your frames are broken and your mind is opened to a new set of possibilities. When you're doing a task and focusing on something, you construct a limited a number of frames that you find relevant to work with, but they're limited. When you switch focus, you break frame, and new perspectives, new thoughts may arise.

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: 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.

There are like a million reasons and rationalizations why a person would continue despite losing weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

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

Yes. You gain the most training effect from the first few sets. The more volume you add, the more your intensity drops and you see diminishing returns. Your muscles take time to recover, especially your upper body (your legs recover faster, because that's what we're evolutionarily adapted for; running). So when you train the same muscle group every day, especially if you focus all your energy on just a few muscle groups and one movement (pullups), you will be perpetually sore (unless you don't actually push yourself, which is unlikely when you only do 3 sets and you do pullups which is an intense exercise. And you're 18, so pushing yourself is easier than not). When I was 16 or so, I got rhabdomyolysis from working out 7 days a week, but that was around 15-18 sets per workout (but not for the same muscle group or the same movement of course).

I cba. @TruthFreedom Only your logical mind can conclude something exists and something doesn't exist. So you're already using your logical mind, so yes, why not give that other idea credence? I think you would find it's more logical, or rather more reasonable (given various reasonable epistemic assumptions; empirical adequacy, explanatory power, logical consistency, coherence, conceptual parsimony).

Add at least two-three rest days. Your body does not recover in a day.

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).

Damn it 😢 What kinda vibe is that?

What is your exercise regimen?

It's dangerous in about the same way wingsuit gliding is dangerous. If your equipment holds, your skills are on point and the weather is in your favor, you can do it and survive. But don't act like it's not dangerous. Like honestly, is this hard to understand? Buddy, people have literally died attempting it. You have to distinguish between dangerous and necessarily harmful. Doing a dangerous activity doesn't mean you will necessarily end up being harmed.

Her body mass was probably also around half of yours?

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.

Are you overtraining? What's your exercise regimen? I noticed I had to cut back on some training last year because the volume and intensity was simply too much combined with all the other work I was doing (I noticed it by not waking up rested).

"Basic biology" is based on current scientific evidence. Scientific evidence might change in the future. And that's again a problem breatharianism has, because gathering (rigorous) scientific evidence is quite difficult. Tracking a person for multiple years, in a way that completely rules out any doubt about interfering factors, is really only something you could maybe figure out in theory, but doing it in practice is essentially economically, practically and even ethically insoluable, certainly by any mainstream scientific standards. Or actually, if you could surgically insert a monitor that can detect when exogenous water or food passes the esophagus, that could maybe work. But that would also require of course substantial funding for technological development and validation trials, granted you even get it past an ethics commitee based on the existing lack of convincing evidence from non-invasive studies (which brings you back to the original problem again).

There are no "scientific laws", but fasting/breatharianism is a dangerous activity, like spiritual practices are generally. Everything you said confirmed my points. The study you referenced also seems to have the very methodological issues I pointed out [AI-link].

And this is partly why I think integrating science or theory is often not antithetical but in fact complementary to what would be the spiritual project (be it teaching or seeking), because you're already using your theoretical mind for those pursuits. "Energy" is a concept, it has certain connotations. Philosophical and scientific theories just extend such concepts into a more grand picture of connections and conceptual detail, which sometimes can get top-heavy and cause overgeneralization and inaccuracies, but it's also powerful. And the alternative is of course using low detail concepts and tenuous connections that are inaccurate in their own way. At the end of the day, you have to distinguish between the relative and the Absolute, so the choice is really between a conceptually rich and logically rigorous relative or a conceptually poor and logically tenuous one. Also, with the more purely experientially informed and accidentally assembled and idiosyncratic conceptual frameworks is the tendency for bias. Seeking out a vast range of frameworks, and deep frameworks that have long tradition assembled collaboratively with many people, challenges such bias. And when there is convergence between different frameworks, that gives additional veracity. I could definitely speak from "feeling" as you do in for example the veganism/fruitarianism thread(s) and talk about how I often felt more light and energized after some vegetarian meals back when I experimented with them and that people like Sadhguru gave me conceptual frameworks that agreed with them (sattvic, pranic foods, digestive times, length of the digestive tract, karmic load, etc.), but then there are of course other perspectives out there (and conflicting experiences, like when I felt very low energy at the gym after eating chickpeas instead of chicken). And like with Sadhguru and some of my experiences, the relationship is two-way; it's not necessarily only the experience that makes you convinced, it's the experience + the concepts, and sometimes it's not easy to know which carries the most load or which "came first". You've maybe not incidentally read a lot about fruitarianism (etc.), done a lot of research, sought out sources of convergence. So the "experiential" label might only go so far.

I'm aware of this too. It's something I developed. It's academic brainrot. But I like my academic brainrot 🥲. Going from theory to conclusion is satisfying, and I believe I have collected a nice chunk that goes parallel to my experiential insights. It's just I like to express them in that realm (the theoretical), and I also think it serves a purpose. Take somebody like Bernardo Kastrup and contrast him with Rupert Spira. They are friends, they talk to each other, but they come from completely opposite ends and yet have arrived at essentially the same conclusions. I've tried to do the same convergence inside myself; I was explicitly a fan of first Spira then Bernardo for a couple of years each. Because I had a problem I was trying to solve: saving my scientific/philosophical worldview from being devoured by my spiritual worldview. I wanted to make them consistent. So when I made them basically consistent, I started operating from the scientific view more, explaining things in the spiritual domain from that view, because I can. And that can seem lofty and ungrounded, but know that it comes from a place of integrating the two perspectives, getting them to talk to each other, not just knowing one of them. I did not start from the top. And of course this scientific bias extends to all topics, not just pure "spiritual" topics.

I also make fun of that term. Spreading consciousness in the upper eschelons of power is mighty effective, if that is what he does.

Nah, too earthly. Comparing eagles and earthworms. Emerald has a word for it: loftiness vs groundedness.

Who

I have my own theories but I don't bother commenting limitations too much. There are multiple ends of a Zen stick.