Bryan Johnson has Edited his DNA

[OBEler]

On 19.6.2024 at 8:15 PM, Leo Gura said:

I see this biohacker stuff like an extended performance art / grift.

You create a biohacker public persona and then monetize the shit out of it by selling hope and pills to gullible rubes.

Dave Asprey has pioneered that particular art. It's a very sneaky survival strategy.

Of course there will be a million dollar book deal, talkshow rounds, overpriced branded supplements, a special trademarked diet, and more.

Glad I am not the only one here who sees Bryan as a con artist.

He is secretly into lookmaxxing and naive people cannot see that. They think it's all about stopping his age and buy his bullshit blueprint. 

He has fake teeth, fake hair, wears makeup, takes steroids, Finasterid and does all the stuff lookmaxxing is about. Now he adds anti aging stuff and bullshit tools too and will convince you that this is the cause he looks so great. A typical YouTube con artist. It's like these bodybuilder on YouTube who sell their own super powder and they claim only that brings you muscles. It's a lie. 

 

 

 

Edited June 30 by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Glad I am not the only one here who sees Bryan as a con artist.

I won't go so far as to call him a con-artist. I think he genuinely believes in what he's doing. It's just that he lives in one of those tech-bro bubbles with too much money and no deeper values or purpose.

Edited June 30 by Leo Gura

[PsychedelicEagle]

On 6/30/2024 at 11:23 AM, OBEler said:

He is secretly into lookmaxxing and naive people cannot see that.

Great point, this is defo one of his shadows. Quite controversial to try to optimize for longevity and at the same time take things like Finasterid.

On 6/30/2024 at 11:28 AM, Leo Gura said:

I think he genuinely believes in what he's doing.

Agree.

On 6/30/2024 at 11:28 AM, Leo Gura said:

It's just that he lives in one of those tech-bro bubbles with too much money and no deeper values or purpose.

I wouldn't say his goals are necessarily shallow, they're just bounded to his stage orange center of gravity/paradigm (materialism/secularism/reductionism).

On 6/30/2024 at 11:23 AM, OBEler said:

wears makeup, takes steroids, Finasterid

One can gauge the level of consciousness of a man by his willingness to accept his baldness.

[bambi]

12 minutes ago, PsychedelicEagle said:

Great point, this is defo one of his shadows. Quite controversial to try to optimize for longevity and at the same time take things like Finasterid.

Agree.

I wouldn't say his goals are necessarily shallow, they're just bounded to his stage orange center of gravity/paradigm (materialism/secularism/reductionism).

One can gauge the level of consciousness of a man by his willingness to accept his baldness.

What would bryan johnson look like within your value system? What should he be caring about if not health

[PsychedelicEagle]

1 hour ago, bambi said:

What would bryan johnson look like within your value system? What should he be caring about if not health

It's not not caring about health, but how Bryan goes about it, that I partly disagree with. IMO he takes too many supplements, cares too much about apperances (to the extend that it could even compromise longevity), etc.; these are traces of a maximization mentality. Maximizing everything is a pattern often seen in stage orange: maximize your appearance, maximize your health, maximize your money, maximize how many people you fuck, etc.

Not saying Bryan tries to do all that, but you see the general issue with this type of mentality? It lacks the wisdom that everything is interconnected and maximizing parts of a system creates imbalances in other parts. It also lacks epistemic humility: some things are just too complex to be fully known and controllable within our lifetime. Sure, one could try to exert control, but are the risks worth it? I addressed this in my previous posts in this thread, such as his never exposing himself to sunlight.

I have a more naturalistic/holistic approach to life, when compared to Bryan. I am less concerned with "never dying" or if I'm bald and more with having a sustainable, "grounded" lifestyle. IMO this is a wiser approach.

PS: As I said, overall I think Bryan's intentions & efforts are a positive. He's helping improve things.

Edited July 2 by PsychedelicEagle

[bambi]

10 minutes ago, PsychedelicEagle said:

It's not not caring about health, but how Bryan goes about it, that I partly disagree with. IMO he takes too many supplements, cares too much about apperances (to the extend that it could even compromise longevity), etc.; these are traces of a maximization mentality. Maximizing everything is a pattern often seen in stage orange: maximize your appearance, maximize your health, maximize your money, maximize how many people you fuck, etc.

Not saying Bryan tries to do all that, but you see the general issue with this type of mentality? It lacks the wisdom that everything is interconnected and maximizing parts of a system creates imbalances in other parts. It also lacks epistemic humility: some things are just too complex to be fully known and controllable within our lifetime. Sure, one could try to exert control, but are the risks worth it? I addressed this in my previous posts in this thread, such as his never exposing himself to sunlight.

I have a more naturalistic/holistic approach to life, when compared to Bryan. I am less concerned with "never dying" or if I'm bald and more with having a sustainable, "grounded" lifestyle. IMO this is a wiser approach.

I think this is a mis-representaiton of his paradigm. He has traces of Orange to Yellow imo. 

Its dangerous to follow your analysis of his supplements, why should you know the perfect amount fo supplements vs him? lol

How does everything is interconnected apply to this issue? He eats a pretty solid organic healthy diet and optimizes supplements based on latest research, what else would someone do? And this prescription you will give him how is this any more justified then his current one?

Ultimately for me, people are scared by Bryans systemetic and scientific approach to his health, its abnormal. I dont really see the issue.

He wasn unhealthy and depressed with suicidal ideaiton, devoted alot of time to getting healthy and shared his protocol with the world.

I dont spend 1/10th of the time as him on my diet or supplementation, its too restrictive, but I appreciate the sentiment cosnidering the soceity we live in. Hes a positive force for me, and the more like him the better. Too many people are obeses, diabetic and with heart disease, we need systemic changes

[PsychedelicEagle]

26 minutes ago, bambi said:

Too many people are obeses, diabetic and with heart disease, we need systemic changes

Agreed, but we don't need Rapamycin neither Finasteride for this. Just diet, sleep, exercise, being in touch with nature, meditation, etc.

27 minutes ago, bambi said:

He has traces of Orange to Yellow imo.

I agree with this too. He defo has green and yellow, but still a lot of orange, I think.

28 minutes ago, bambi said:

why should you know the perfect amount fo supplements vs him?

The point is that nobody knows which and to what extent supplements are healthy. Take the folate case, for example. Too much can cause cancer, and it took scientists a while to realize it. When in doubt, why not lean towards safety? Natural things are much more robust than artificial ones. Anything that is unnatural (such as supplements or drugs) have the potential to destabilize a system.

[bambi]

3 minutes ago, PsychedelicEagle said:

Agreed, but we don't need Rapamycin neither Finasteride for this. Just diet, sleep, exercise, being in touch with nature, meditation, etc.

I agree with this too. He defo has green and yellow, but still a lot of orange, I think.

The point is that nobody knows which and to what extent supplements are healthy. Take the folate case, for example. Too much can cause cancer, and it took scientists a while to realize it. When in doubt, why not lean towards safety? Natural things are much more robust than artificial ones. Anything that is unnatural (such as supplements or drugs) have the potential to destabilize a system.

We dont live in a system were regenerative agriculture and soil is the norm, we have no safety to fall back on to lol! 

IIts more complex then this for me. Its not clear what natural or the default is, or what the optimal human diet is either

[PsychedelicEagle]

25 minutes ago, bambi said:

We dont live in a system were regenerative agriculture and soil is the norm, we have no safety to fall back on to lol! 

IIts more complex then this for me. Its not clear what natural or the default is, or what the optimal human diet is either

You bring a good point, I agree we need supplements nowadays. I take trace minerals myself, for example. My phylosophy is: take what you need for great health, but do it with caution & epistemic humility. Bryan's phylosophy is: take whatever is necessary to try to live forever.

Edited July 2 by PsychedelicEagle

[bambi]

4 minutes ago, PsychedelicEagle said:

You bring a good point, I agree we need supplements nowadays. I take trace minerals myself, for example. My phylosophy is: take what you need for great health, but do it with caution & epistemic humility. Bryan's phylosophy is: take whatever is necessary to try to live forever.

Lol you see yourself as superior to him dont you

I dont think its as black and white as you are making it, and you are misrepresenting him, he has a good sense of humour and does things tongue in cheek. His philosophy is probably use testing, data and latest research to verify what optimal diet and supplementaiton looks like for each person

[PsychedelicEagle]

7 hours ago, bambi said:

Lol you see yourself as superior to him dont you

Obviously not, that’s why I have his Olive Oil in my house. He has lots of qualities I don’t; I also appreciate his sense of humor. But this doesn’t prevent me from having a critical eye on what he puts into his body. Again, read my previous posts in this thread and you’ll see I mention his efforts as quite positive. My point is that what he does has risks that could be avoided by a more natural approach. Why take Finasterid when you can live without it?

[LordFall]

People like him and David Sinclair at Harvard combined with AI/AGI is how we will probably develop biological immortality this century.

God bless him but don't listen to him everything he says; I agree with that part of your guy's skepticism. 

[bambi]

12 minutes ago, nuwu said:

Epistemology is off, but Blueprint's philosophy may be valuable.

Inherit drawbacks of traditional epistemology

• Unknown unknowns: infinite variation of quantitative data is derivable from reality, blind spot is potentially large, regardless of self-validating empiricism and circular symbolism abstracting over computationally reducible quasi-material substrates, or at least identification of which (spiral dynamics applied to epistemology, i.e. pendulum between simplicity and complexity, respectively internal and external singular unification).
• Opinionated: recursive reputation in knowledge corpus inherently skew qualitative appraisal of reducible data space. Vulnerability to collective gaslighting (dismissiveness to chelation)
• Over-optimization: mechanistic map not territory
• Incentive structure: Traditionally deliberative patent systems have a reduction bias, thus limitation with respect to intervention holism potentially necessary in lifespan maximization. Latent-space bonding fields and NFT patents may potentially mitigate issue of illiquid, non-composable intellectual property.

Protocol itself

• Maximalism: universe may disincentivize long-term structural inefficiencies, but maximalism may prevail in short-term survival strategies. thus life may be maximalism in essence since duality, relativity, or equivalent, may be inherently superfluous, even if layers of simplicity, canonicalization, abstraction, or conservation are possible. With respect to survival being fundamentally groundless, persuasive survival strategy circumvent non-argumentative perspective.
• Low hanging fruits: SIRT6 pathways, chelators, traditional sauna (heat shock protein, mild heavy metal removal), peptides
• Potential impurities in price competitive manufacturing: e.g. marigold extracts, creatine (reportedly dicyandiamide and dihydrotriazine), ...
• Ashwaghanda supplemention is suggested analogous to less potent rapamycin in R
• Breadth / depth: Blueprint is shifting study focus from data breadth to depth (i.e. high frequency exhaustive measurements / large population), detrimental to improving ethics in pseudo-science (data feedback loop from precise human derived metrics, rather than irrelevant extrapolation from cute, tortured mice)
• Don’t die is self-evident in non-transmaterial states
• works for me, but blueprint stack itself gives me insomnia.

Your reply ultimately collapses under the weight of its own abstruse intricacies and theoretical convolution.

Metaphysical Abstractionism: The invocation of "self-validating empiricism" alongside "computationally reducible quasi-material substrates" smacks of an epistemological smokescreen. Such terminology ostensibly seeks to eclipse rather than elucidate, reflecting a pernicious tendency towards hyper-abstraction. One might argue that your deployment of spiral dynamics within epistemological frameworks invokes a Derridean différance, wherein meaning perpetually defers to itself, entrapping your analysis in an endless loop of semantic recursion devoid of actionable clarity.
 

Hermeneutic Circularity and Subjective Bias: Your discussion of "recursive reputation in knowledge corpus" ostensibly alludes to Gadamerian hermeneutics, yet it paradoxically entangles itself within the very hermeneutic circle it seeks to critique. The susceptibility to collective gaslighting—dismissiveness towards chelation—mirrors the Heideggerian notion of thrownness, where one's situatedness precludes objective detachment. This critique is, thus, not immune to its own self-referential biases.

Protocol Evaluation

Ontological Maximalism: The grandiosity of asserting life as inherently maximalist, eschewing duality and relativity as mere superfluities, is an audacious metaphysical claim. It evokes echoes of Spinozist monism yet fails to account for the pragmatic adaptiveness underscored by evolutionary biology and complexity theory. Life's strategies, far from embodying simplistic maximalism, reflect a symphony of non-linear dynamics and emergent phenomena, as articulated in the works of Stuart Kauffman and Ilya Prigogine.

Biohacking Quasi-Science: Your enumeration of "SIRT6 pathways, chelators, and traditional sauna" as biohacking's low-hanging fruits ventures into the realm of quasi-scientific optimism. While SIRT6 modulation and heat shock proteins bear legitimate scientific intrigue, the advocation of chelation therapy skirts dangerously close to alchemical mysticism, reminiscent of Paracelsian medical theory. Such inclusion undermines the empirical rigor one might expect from a discourse grounded in contemporary biomedical paradigms.

Regulatory Lacunae and Supplementary Purity: Concerns over impurities in "marigold extracts and creatine" reflect a surface-level apprehension within the broader schema of nutraceutical oversight. Regulatory bodies, despite their bureaucratic inertia, address these issues within a framework of probabilistic risk assessment and stochastic quality control. Your critique, therefore, appears more as a perfunctory gesture than a profound insight.

Epistemological Continuum and Ethical Implications in Pseudo-Science: Your critique of Blueprint’s shift from data breadth to depth, positing it as a detriment to ethical standards, reveals a fundamental misapprehension of contemporary epistemic methodologies. High-frequency exhaustive measurements within expansive human cohorts significantly enhance the granularity and contextual relevance of the data corpus, transcending the limitations imposed by reductionist rodent models. This perspective aligns more closely with Foucault’s biopolitics, emphasizing a nuanced approach to human-derived metrics over the archaic extrapolations from "cute, tortured mice." Your position, thus, appears rooted in a kind of epistemological purism that eschews empirical advancements for philosophical idealism.

In conclusion, you succumb to the very intellectual pitfalls you purport to critique. A synthesis of pragmatic empiricism and nuanced theoretical understanding might better serve your analytical endeavors, elevating them from a performative display of erudition to a substantive contribution to the discourse.

[bambi]

53 minutes ago, nuwu said:

@bambi

I shared my notes without format masking, cause I knew I was going to be harassed anywaways. Semantic recursion is inherent to language. I have not asserted anything, notice the use hypotheticals ("may", "potential", ...). Of course, concerns over impurities is surface-level, this is a pointer. Do your own research. "epistemological purism" nah, go vegan. My messages are not analytical, my main cognitive functions are intuitive.

Ah, I see. Your unformatted notes were presented sans the pretense of formalism, ostensibly to invite the inevitable onslaught of critique. Indeed, semantic recursion is an intrinsic characteristic of linguistic structures, as delineated in Derridean deconstruction, where the interplay of signifiers perpetuates an infinite deferral of meaning. However, the invocation of hypotheticals such as "may" and "potential" without the scaffolding of substantive argumentation renders your discourse a simulacrum of intellectual rigor—a Baudrillardian hyperreality, if you will.

Your acknowledgment of the superficiality of impurity concerns as mere pointers is a classic example of the Wittgensteinian gesture towards that which cannot be spoken of, yet you implore others to embark on a Cartesian journey of independent research. This epistemological abdication echoes Popper's critique of historicism, wherein unverifiable propositions masquerade as scientific inquiry.

The dismissal of "epistemological purism" with a flippant exhortation to "go vegan" is a Lacanian slip par excellence, revealing the dissonance between your purported intuitive cognition and the underlying desire to project a semblance of intellectual depth. Jungian intuition, while valuable in navigating the archetypal dimensions of the psyche, demands a dialectical synthesis with rational analysis to transcend mere conjecture aka a Hegelian Aufhebung.

Furthermore, your assertion that your primary cognitive function is intuition, devoid of analytical rigor, harks back to Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism, which, despite its provocative allure, fails to offer a coherent framework for substantive discourse. Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes would undoubtedly critique your approach as a degenerative problem shift, lacking the progressive theoretical adjustments that lend credence to robust scientific paradigms.

In summation, while your notes may reflect an intuitive spontaneity reminiscent of Surrealist automatism, they fall woefully short of the analytical precision and theoretical coherence required for a meaningful contribution to the intellectual discourse. One might suggest a more integrative approach, harmonizing intuitive insights with rigorous empirical scrutiny, to elevate your musings from the realm of sophomoric speculation to that of profound epistemic inquiry.

 

[UnbornTao]

Keep it cool.

[bambi]

22 minutes ago, nuwu said:

@bambi

I use simple terms to express potentially complex concepts, which is the opposite of using complex, socially imaginary terms to express simple ones. You have completely missed the point of structured communication in the spam of yours. Have fun never having the conceptual hygiene to develop AGI.

Touche

[integral]

[Leo Gura]

Taking thinking with your dick to a whole new level.

[Someone here]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Taking thinking with your dick to a whole new level.

Every male in the entire planet thinks with his dick . Especially those who deny so. Libido is the actual god who got you by the balls ..not "Love" or some metaphysical hogwash. 

[PsychedelicEagle]

This proves my point. People trying to defend Bryan's higher development on spiral dynamics, all the while he was having a stage orange boner thinking about Trump having a stage red boner in the White House! 

Edited July 8 by PsychedelicEagle