longest without food?

On November 09 2018 12:57 Stroggoz wrote: haha im not mad, although i guess that's what a madman would say. silver i don't like talking to you about politics because in general i think you come from an angle where your condescending, looking to trigger responses in people, and i've noticed you belittle people with unintelligent views, like religious people. I prefer talking to people who are interested in doing constructive things. My apologies if that's innacurate. I think i've actually spent around 10+ hours talking to you about this so you can't accuse me of being uncharitable, but i have limits. I'd be happy to run through legit criticisms of chomsky so long as you're interested in being constructive, i've read some of his major works in linguistics, his criticisms of analytic philosophy, and i even learnt his contributions to computer science/mathematics. His political work is respectable imo because it is important and i think the arguments he makes are sound and he always has a lot of empirical data to back them up. Also i respect his work because it is simple and not bogged down with unnecessary jargon. Not sure if I ever said i'm a communist, although i guess i would be since i am sympathetic to anti-state, anti-leninist views of communism like those of kropotkin and rosa luxembourg.

That's accurate. I want to throw ideas off tall buildings and see how they bounce. When I suggest something I am inviting you to play and bounce it around. It doesn't mean I am deeply committed to the idea, I just want to suggest it and see how it plays out - run a mental simulation on it. If the idea can't stand on its own it SHOULD be destroyed: this how science works (the only system of knowledge that has actually gotten within kooee of the truth, and created the abundance that saved more people than anything out in the brutish history of man) : Science takes a hypothesis like "man evolved from an ape-like ancestor" and seeks to DIS-prove it. Dis proof is far more powerful that proof. Nothing in science is ever proven completely. It takes 100s of pieces of evidence to build a theory, but one piece of new evidence could pop up and destroy the whole house of cards. Fossils of chickens in strata of Precambrian rock would do it for theory of evolution. That's how this world is; an academic should rejoice to see his lifework destroyed so that a more accurate model can take its place. Destruction and survival of the fittest ideas.
When you think about pre-scientific revolution answers to the question "what is the earth" can you think of any that are not now worthless apart from their historical-interest value? A disk on a turtle. A giant fish and a waka.
I listened carefully to your previous explanations but I did not agree with them. There is such a thing as just being plain wrong, and, from what I have seen, that is what Chompers is when he gets out of his domain of expertise and onto the soapbox. Therefore I deconstruct his ideas and point out the holes.

Only allowing constructive talk is fine policy for kindergarten and other coddled public institutions, but would you like to constructively build on the theory that the earth is a disk on turtle? lets try to build a GPS satellite network using that theory!

You are a competitive guy, who crushed noobs in starcraft and poker. Yet seemingly scared of a little idea-fight?
It's like a rap battle; The way to lose is to take your position too seriously and get offended by the free speech from your opponent. And in this case losing means clinging to false ideas.
I dunno, I'm just mystified that you don't enjoy a good fight!

I'm strongly in favor of free speech, and i support hate speech as well. I like having ideas thrown around and discussing them, because i like science as well. I just told you i'm interested in critcisms and you havn't given a serious criticism of his work. I believe you are actually the one who is coddled by the internet and not interested in having your views challenged. You'll note that if you come at an angle from that of an immature baby, and don't actually have an argument to begin with, only the most patient scientist would bother to respond to you. This isn't about 'not willing to discuss ideas'. And i'm happy to talk about chomsky's work because i know it well and i'd like to see it disproven.

I agree that there is such a thing as being plain wrong, and you are on many issues i've talked about. For example you made the claim which is empirically wrong in our last skype chat: "Only technology properly incentivesed with capitalism has ever created value in the past. Only technology can save people from a very hard life of mere subsistence." That's very clearly wrong in many ways, as the military spends a huge amount on research and development. You also discount the developments made under feudalism and fascism, and stalinism, and slavery, all governments or modes or production where there were advances that staved off subsistance. feudal societies had less people working in agriculture than ancient egyptions. slave societies produced more 200 years ago than 2000 years ago. I explained it to you 3 or 4 times, there are various economists who researched the topic although you don't really need to research it since it's glaringly obvious to scientists who work in that sector. The idea that only technology can save people is absurd, you need both a sound, fair, and sane political system, and the right technological development certainly helps for the fruits of the world to be enjoyed. Currently many technological developments threatens to bring people back to mere subsistance or worse, as in the case of climate change and nuclear arms proliferation. but again that's with the current political system

Like i said, if you keep making very clearly empirically false claims when i point them out over and over to be false, it actually shows you are the one not open to new ideas.

On November 09 2018 16:28 VanDerMeyde wrote: I had 2x 14 day fast last year.

lol what in the fuck is gong on, why are so many ppl in this forum fasting for ridiculous amounts of time?

what the fck r u doing lol

On November 10 2018 06:36 Stroggoz wrote: I'm strongly in favor of free speech, and i support hate speech as well. I like having ideas thrown around and discussing them, because i like science as well. I just told you i'm interested in critcisms and you havn't given a serious criticism of his work. I believe you are actually the one who is coddled by the internet and not interested in having your views challenged. You'll note that if you come at an angle from that of an immature baby, and don't actually have an argument to begin with, only the most patient scientist would bother to respond to you. This isn't about 'not willing to discuss ideas'. And i'm happy to talk about chomsky's work because i know it well and i'd like to see it disproven. I agree that there is such a thing as being plain wrong, and you are on many issues i've talked about. For example you made the claim which is empirically wrong in our last skype chat: "Only technology properly incentivesed with capitalism has ever created value in the past. Only technology can save people from a very hard life of mere subsistence." That's very clearly wrong in many ways, as the military spends a huge amount on research and development. You also discount the developments made under feudalism and fascism, and stalinism, and slavery, all governments or modes or production where there were advances that staved off subsistance. feudal societies had less people working in agriculture than ancient egyptions. slave societies produced more 200 years ago than 2000 years ago. I explained it to you 3 or 4 times, there are various economists who researched the topic although you don't really need to research it since it's glaringly obvious to scientists who work in that sector. The idea that only technology can save people is absurd, you need both a sound, fair, and sane political system, and the right technological development certainly helps for the fruits of the world to be enjoyed. Currently many technological developments threatens to bring people back to mere subsistance or worse, as in the case of climate change and nuclear arms proliferation. but again that's with the current political system Like i said, if you keep making very clearly empirically false claims when i point them out over and over to be false, it actually shows you are the one not open to new ideas.

Well well, maybe you can handle the banter afterall

"Only technology properly incentivesed with capitalism has ever created value in the past" nice, that's a good example of an idea I threw out, not 100% rigorously thought through, yet it could have potential to build on. I had hoped it would get criticized into the ground. The idea I replace it with will be a stronger iteration on that idea. My ego isn't tied up in supporting a position. I put the idea out there, and then try to knock it down, which you have done. (Often I try to knock it down myself in a stream of consciousness trying in chat) Certainly technology did progress under other forms of government and with other motivations, thats true. However, we are slightly intercommunicating because the definition of words i.e. capitalism is not entirely clear.
The 2nd part however, still seems accurate to me. "Only technology can save people from a very hard life of mere subsistence" (defining technology as any idea that allows us to do more with less) Our distant ancestors lived in static, zero-sum tribal societies where getting something meant taking it from others. Even after 10,000 years of fitful technological advance to primitive agriculture and stone tools, the wheel for carting materials, and fire for bodyheat control and widening exploitable food resources, even so, the ideas the tribes were using could never create enough new value to save the average person from a very harsh life. Then after more fitful advance to windmills, astrolabes, the world suddenly experienced relentless technological progress. from the invention of the steam engine in 1791, to factory production lines, new drugs and tools in healthcare. As a result we have inherited a richer society than any ancestor would have deemed imaginable. Could this same result have come about through political ideology, morality, or the ideas of any branch of the humanities? Could any idea generated from that side of academia done it? Maybe fairly redistributing the resources of a tribe of hunter grathers so they all get 1/3 of a rabbit and a few berries each day. They still might have to die from heir teeth rotting away at 30 however.
Hence, that idea still stands: "Only technology can save people from a very hard life of mere subsistence"

The thing that held back progress was supremely confident yet delusional people: think of the tribal witchdoctor from 3000 years ago. He was confident, and brutally wrong about letting out he demons with lobotomy. His position in the tribe allowed him space to work and invent and trial new ideas, but often preconcived notions and incorrect theories would get in the way of his thinking. Building on the theory that demons causes diseases, we now know would get him nowhere. 99/100 ideas you currently hold dear will be proven wrong in the future. The key thing that drives progress is finding the 1/100 ideas that do work, and you don't know if they will work till you have really bounced them around. So you can't be so closed to repetition of ideas - you are already necessarily mired in repetition of ideas in order to live your day to day life, how to eat healthy, how to debate, all ideas you repeat, so why get mad about it? Even for yourself to grow and be better adapted to the world, new ideas have to be generated, and they have to be bounced around over and over until some sticks. If an idea is wrong, you should have no problem in slapping that idea down over and over, on its merits rather than on social pressure: it gets easier everytime right? because you refine the 'antidote' argument to kill that idea. However, I am not putting forward the same idea; I am adjusting it and adapting it till the slapdown doesn't work anymore. Bouncing around ideas with a smart opponent who thinks very differently from you helps you refine your ideas: It's not a personal attack.

Btw want to make new block-chain tech to incentivise company/country governance to follow ideas that are less wrong and avoid nuclear war? Stressing yourself out making loud arguments hasn't been that effective throughout history, but making new tech has effected real permanent change for the better.

P.S while at this crossroads of your life, how about starting down the path of sciences and technology? - the path with real abundance at the end of it 8)
(I know you are 99% likely to reject any advice, but I am a cheeky monkey who continues to care about you )


https://mega.nz/#F!uG5HWSzQ!0jel15GTfTQazQhgVctUrg

On November 10 2018 09:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2018 16:28 VanDerMeyde wrote: I had 2x 14 day fast last year. lol what in the fuck is gong on, why are so many ppl in this forum fasting for ridiculous amounts of time?

I think because a lot of guys on youtube started talking about it last year. I myself did not know it was a thing...

But for sure the most effective way and it has a lot of other benefits too. I had a lot of weight to lose last year so thats the reason for me.

I lost 3kg from fasting and got down to around 75kg. the rest will come easy.

i read the selfish gene actually, and it was interesting although i already knew the central thesis of the book. I don't really hold any ideas to be dear. You really don't need to lecture me on dogma and science.

You keep stressing the importance of technology but it's a double edged sword. the biggest issues today are political/economic organization and structure, technology is always improving and can be used to hinder the boring aspects of life, but the serious problem today is politics, getting people to go to war or put pressure on the rich, if we want a human civiliazation that lasts.

On November 08 2018 15:45 longple wrote: I only drank water for 15 days once, then I pooped like 2kg of black-shit between day 13-15, apperantly stuff thats been stuck there for years. Felt fine, "hunger" dissapeared after 2-3 days, was just abit lightheaded and sometimes hard falling asleep with bit of headache.

how do you know it was 2kg?

I regularly fast 16-24 hours. The longest I've done was 52 hours.

On November 11 2018 07:39 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On November 08 2018 15:45 longple wrote: I only drank water for 15 days once, then I pooped like 2kg of black-shit between day 13-15, apperantly stuff thats been stuck there for years. Felt fine, "hunger" dissapeared after 2-3 days, was just abit lightheaded and sometimes hard falling asleep with bit of headache. how do you know it was 2kg?

I dont, I just threw out a random noise to represent "it". I can try some other words, I pooped, say twice as much as I normally poop in a day, for 2 days. Ish, maybe.

The surprice of pooping out really dark, hard, smelly stuff after haven not pooped a gram for 10-12 days prior to that might influense the "2kg of black stuff" sort of "wraaaahhh" expression

OH it wasn't all at once

wait why would you be fasting to lose weight, thats quite unsustainable, you ll just gain it back once you start eating again

Not if you started to eat plants instead of fried chicken, potatoes with gravy, and ice cream.

On November 13 2018 15:34 Spitfiree wrote: wait why would you be fasting to lose weight, thats quite unsustainable, you ll just gain it back once you start eating again

Only if you eat the same crap as you did before the fast.

After a fast its excellent to start the new healthy diet regime you always wanted to implement. Its going to taste very good and the old bad habits seems to be totally forgotten.

Kudos to people who can change their diets by going cold turkey instantly and make that last indefinitely

I'm not one of them
Going with slow long term removal of bad things one by one
and substituting them with better ones

e.g. now I don't eat sweets no matter what
And started juicing
It's wayy easier on willpower that I use for poker instead, keep at it during e.g. downswings

And should actually bring a lasting change

On November 11 2018 04:38 Stroggoz wrote: I lost 3kg from fasting and got down to around 75kg. the rest will come easy. i read the selfish gene actually, and it was interesting although i already knew the central thesis of the book. I don't really hold any ideas to be dear. You really don't need to lecture me on dogma and science. You keep stressing the importance of technology but it's a double edged sword. the biggest issues today are political/economic organization and structure, technology is always improving and can be used to hinder the boring aspects of life, but the serious problem today is politics, getting people to go to war or put pressure on the rich, if we want a human civiliazation that lasts.

I like the idea, of thinking extremely long term, and sustainably. If everyone on earth lived the way we New Zealanders / Americans / Europeans already do, it would bring environmental catastrophe, not utopia. China has been straightforwardly copying the west, burning ever more coal, in ever more factories. Now that chinese peasants can enjoy a secure supply of calories, they want more of them to come from pork, instead of just gain. You know that you personally are "the rich" in this context right. 2/3 of the planet lives on less than $2 per day. You are at least 10 times richer than most people on earth. Why not let them stay in your house and eat your food? that would be the fair thing to do. If we successfully pressure the rich to "redistribute" wealth it will lead to ruin, not utopia. Rather it is better to put pressure on the rich to use their wealth to create the new technologies that will be needed in the far future for abundant clean energy, food, and health. Same as it ever was, the value-generating technological innovations that allow the average person today to enjoy more than a berry-picker struggle for survival before dying of urinary tract infection, come from (semi) rich people - the smart, or those who had smart parents, those who are freed from hard labour, which allows them to tinker on curiosities that people locked in the brute struggle for survival couldn't dream of. And that is why you personally don't give away everything you have to walk-the-talk of your own principles: you believe you can create more value for the world by having your current freedom of being rich, and inventing new ideas. There have always been rich people, Crassus in Rome is still the richest man in history(inflation adjusted), somehow the world went on. No amount of envy could stop the real engine of progress, which was free trade and technological innovation.

You're worried that there are now technologies so powerful that they could destroy humanity? But anything that could fully regulate these technologies globally would have to be a new technology itself. Something like how bitcoin manages to do global trustless consensus around money. So really, you want to develop the new technology that will incentivese people away from any mistake that could destroy the earth? It would have to be at least 10 times better than any currently existing political system. Only technology can create the new, unexpected value to radically improve a situation. Talking, moral harping, and zero-sum conflicts will not.

By the way, do you know this guy from the Marlborough region? Inspirational stuff when things seem dark, making something out of nothing (creation of value):

https://www.amazon.com/Resilient-Farmer-Doug-Avery-ebook/dp/B074BP5D9S

I'm doing 20 hour fasts from 16 (which was way easier). Around close to 1pm (window) I do feel light-headed and needing nourishment lol

My dad does 36-72h fasts about once a week, and follows up by loading up on daily nutritional requirements for the rest of the week. I am not sure if its ideal, his health is great for his age, but I would rather see him fast once or twice a month.

In regards to online poker, yeah it's very anti-social, I don't think theirs anyway to overcome that feeling, I started playing live poker twice a week, the hourly is less but it's a better balance. The only problem for me is If I don't play online poker consistently I end up losing some of my edge and I would find it very hard to play online by only putting in 10-20h a week.

the weather is shit too, I want to leave ASAP to the States, why am I even playing live poker in Canada? I will probably drive down to Florida next month and stay somewhere for a month near a good casino and grind harder.

not eating half of the week is definitelly not ideal lol

On November 22 2018 23:11 Baalim wrote: not eating half of the week is definitelly not ideal lol

There is a lot of benfits. But its not for everyone.