Posts by Raymond Thomas7

Just saw that a wildfire is forcing evacuations at the NASA Deep Space Network site in Spain. It's pretty scary how close these fires are getting to critical infrastructure like that. Do you think the data transmission will be interrupted if the hardware gets too hot?

James Lee77 said:It’s not all about throwing parties, either. Sometimes you're just there to give a friend some solid advice when they're going through it.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-steven-pinker

Well, I guess I’m not the only one who saw it that way...
What a strange society we live in.

ironmarlin1 said:It’s an inescapable biological reality, really—this deep-seated drive for men to be drawn to younger women (and let’s be clear, this isn't just about the shady matchmaking schemes you see the Government running), and honestly, it’s a major reason why we succeed:


Even here, Pinker is leaning heavily into evolutionary theory. Now, don't get me wrong; when you look at this photo, Pinker is acting as the evolutionary psychologist, and while the fellow to his right might not seem particularly charming—much like how he tries to convince us—he’s simply there to facilitate the science and the observation. People flock to these kinds of lectures specifically to be studied through a scientific lens.

Wait, hold on... who is that gentleman on the left? Isn't that Jeffrey Epstein?😁

So, here’s a proposal for an experiment—or rather, a physiological process that, following the same logic that led Pauli
to the neutrino, might suggest that life energy (prana) is actually
a concept built on some pretty solid ground.

The physiological process I'm looking at here is male ejaculation
and everything that comes with it. I'd suggest that men (if you will)
just focus on that tiny window (lasting maybe ten seconds)
that covers the moment right before ejaculation and the moment immediately after.

What are we looking at here?

Right before ejaculation, a man is like a powerful, raging lion;
he feels like he could conquer the entire world... he’s mentally totally present
and locked in on his partner, she’s incredibly attractive and arousing,
sexual desire is massive, the urge to keep going is
practically infinite, and most importantly... the erection is there.😁

Immediately after ejaculation, the man is a bit dazed;
he's mentally checked out, his partner doesn't attract him anymore (in fact, he might even push her away for a little while),
the desire to continue is gone... and most importantly, the erection is gone... everything is just gone.
Basically, in just ten seconds, a raging lion transforms into a shaky little lamb, and he needs a moment to recover.

If we define a man's energetic state as his capacity
to perform physical, mental, or sensory work (and I'm including
physical ability along with emotional and mental engagement), then the question arises
whether we can write the following equation for this described process (over those ten seconds):

E1 = E2

where E1 is the man's energetic state immediately before ejaculation,
and E2 is his energetic state immediately after.
This equation essentially summarizes one of the fundamental laws of nature:
the law of conservation of energy.

It’s obvious here that in this specific process, the law of conservation of energy is violated because, within a relatively
short time interval, the man's energetic state undergoes a dramatic transformation, both
qualitatively and quantitatively.

Now, you could technically save the law of conservation if we assume
that the man performed some amount of physical work, W, during those ten seconds.
In that case, the relevant equation would be

E1 = E2 + W

And that work could, theoretically, compensate for the massive drop-off
in the man's energetic state from E1 to E2.

Though, honestly, it's hard for me to imagine what kind of extreme physical work could even be done
within those ten seconds of release.
On top of that, in the moment before ejaculation (when he has energy E1),
a man might let his partner give him a blow job or a hand job, in which
case he doesn't have to expend a single microjoule of physical work (energy), meaning W=0.

Under these circumstances, energy simply cannot be conserved in this process.

So, what do we do?
Just like Pauli did in his previous example, we can

i) either assume we've finally stumbled upon a physical process where the law of conservation of energy
simply doesn't apply,

ii) or, just as Pauli did with his problem, we can assume the existence
of a new, previously unknown concept, X, which (measured in joules, i.e.,
units for energy and work) would be added to the right side of the equation above
to compensate for the missing energy content, thereby allowing
the law of conservation of energy to ultimately be satisfied:

E1 = E2 + X.

In that scenario, we get an interpretation that is characteristic of
certain Eastern systems, such as Tantra, Kama Sutra, or the Taoist art of the Yellow Emperor...
which explicitly claim that a man loses massive amounts of vital life force during (standard) ejaculation
(whether you call it prana, ki, chi, or whatever—basically that internal "X" factor we're talking about).
Because of that, these systems suggest certain practices aimed at
mastering that "X" component so you can actually experience an orgasm while still preserving
your vital energy.

I’d like to put forward an argument for the existence of an etheric body, as well as the concept
of life energy (prana), which is tightly linked to it. This argument is largely
the result of my own reflections and, as such, carries a certain amount of originality.
On its own, it might fall into the category of a Gedanken experiment,
though because of how accessible it is, it's almost tangible and practically doable,
so anyone could essentially "run" it.

To understand the argument, I think it makes sense to briefly recap
the line of reasoning that led to a discovery which is now considered
an established scientific fact. That’s because the argument
in favor of an etheric body closely follows the same logic that led to said discovery.
We're talking about the discovery of the neutrino/antineutrino, which originally came about through theoretical speculation. So, the story goes like this...

There is a physical process in nature called beta decay.
It involves a type of radiation that occurs when a
neutron in an element's nucleus transforms into a single proton
while simultaneously emitting an electron (a beta particle) and an (electron)
antineutrino. During this, the radiating element keeps the same mass number (the sum
of protons and neutrons), but its atomic number increases by one.





However, the crucial thing here is that in the late 1920s and early 1930s,
neutrinos—or rather, antineutrinos—were not known particles, and the entire process of
beta decay faced a massive theoretical problem.

The issue was that the total energy, the total momentum,
and the total angular momentum of the system before and after the reaction
simply didn't match. In other words, some of the fundamental laws of nature (physics)
were being broken.

To solve this problem theoretically, in 1930, Pauli was faced with two possibilities:

i) either conclude that there are processes in nature where the fundamental laws
of physics are actually violated,

ii) or, to maintain the validity of certain fundamental laws of nature (like
the conservation of energy and momentum), propose—or rather
postulate—the existence of a new, previously unknown particle that would
take on exactly the amount of energy and momentum required so that
the laws of conservation would hold true for the beta decay process.

Not wanting to give up on the fundamental laws of nature, Pauli went with option ii)
and assumed there might be a new type of particle (neutrinos)
that hadn't belonged to this side of reality yet
(they were about as real as a tooth fairy's gold coins😁)

And he wasn't wrong.
In 1956, Clyde Cowan, Frederick Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse
and A. d. McGuire detected the neutrino, for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize 40 years later,
in 1995.

Daniel Castillo11 said:Solipsism? Honestly, I suspect that's just a bit of linguistic gymnastics. The real issue lies in our attempt to weave raw experience into the fabric of words. From my own perspective, that sense of "I" tends to sink away, or perhaps it remains incredibly fragile; even when I spend thirty minutes or more in deep meditation, I always find myself hitting that "WTF" sensation—a strange cocktail of existential vacuum, discomfort, relief, and my favorite way to describe it: "blissful ignorance."

It all sounds quite beautiful and profound, doesn't it? But if someone were to walk up and shoot me with a shotgun or hit me with a chainsaw, all my talk of consciousness and spaces-within-spaces wouldn't do me much good. My consciousness would simply flicker out; it would perceive the world in a distorted, fragmented way until the lights go dark completely. That is, until I lose the "I" entirely through death. While consciousness might serve as the subjective starting point for my experience of the world, that doesn't mean consciousness acts as the foundation for material existence. At least, there's zero evidence for that, and frankly, everything seems to point away from both dualism and idealism.

There are no perspectives within consciousness. It is always singular, a single formless thing. Only the content changes.

I constantly get the impression that you are treating "consciousness" as if it were an object. You're viewing it as something sitting behind everything else. That right there is the subtle trap of linguistic dualism. Tell me, where was this consciousness before I was born?

I suspect this is more about subjective perception than some objective fact. It’s the same way someone stuck in reductionist materialism would see a cognitive framework that just can't keep pace with the experiential phenomenology of the modern person. From their perspective, trying to work within that framework probably feels like trying to patch up an old, rusty bucket that leaks from every side; they likely see any attempt at fixing those holes as a totally futile job.

William Hernandez26 said:High bilirubin doesn't always signal liver damage, but you can easily verify that with a standard blood panel to check your enzyme levels. My liver is perfectly fine; I just have a genetic predisposition for elevated bilirubin. Don't go punishing your liver with alcohol. If you absolutely must, stick to opioids that won't strain the organ.🙂

I was just diagnosed with high bilirubin myself. Back in my teens, I used to drink heavily and honestly thought I was struggling with depression. Turns out, it was just the bilirubin...

I don't really drink alcohol or use any kind of opioids, honestly, but I was thinking that having high bilirubin might serve as a decent enough excuse when turning down a drink at a happy hour😉—you know, something reasonable without being so weird that people think you're a total freak. You know how it is; nowadays everyone is drinking, and if you don't join in, you're basically an outsider🙄 because people usually assume you're just being stuck-up when you refuse a drink, so they keep pushing and insisting you just need to loosen up a bit. 😳

analogskipper272 said:I've dealt with elevated bilirubin since I was an infant, stemming from a pretty severe case of newborn jaundice. It has stayed elevated ever since, and frankly, it seems to be just how my body is wired now—something you can't really "fix." All I know for certain is that I have to stay away from things like hormonal contraceptives, steroids, and that sort of thing. That's about as much as I can tell you.

Does having elevated bilirubin actually mean there's liver damage, and should people with high levels be avoiding alcohol altogether?