cupcakecommons

Not sure it has to make sense. It just has to convince people long enough for people who are driving for war to get their war. Hardly any of it seems to make any sense at all.

Which people?

Seems like a great idea. What can people in the US do to facilitate this you think?

What's the best thing that can be done to reduce the risk of conflict?

In the sentence you wrote "they are not legitimately questioning the science" who decides what is legitimate questioning? You?

"I think the big thing here is not ketosis"

It is ketosis though, the benefits have proposed mechanisms of action that are directly downstream of the entirely separate ketone-based metabolic pathway.

Fast into a ketogenic diet. It greatly reduces cravings and allows you to reset to healthier foods.

They're probably close to being able to do pretty advanced real-time visualization using wifi. Several articles describing the techniques have been posted numerous times on hn. This could be the first step necessary to having basically a wallhack from counter-strike.

...until your platform becomes important enough for it to matter to people more powerful than you

Flat Earthers are legitimately questioning the science because no one has (or should have) the authority to arbitrate what is too stupid to question. Everything has tradeoffs and free speech has a lot of somewhat obvious downsides.

the power-centralizing incentives certainly seem to point this way

I'm not eager to dismiss all material against the interests of Russia. I'm highly incentivized to see the Western sphere in a positive light. It's simply difficult to do so given the facts of the conflict at my disposal. What material are you referring to here? I'm motivated to change my opinion on this because the intelligent and sensitive people around me all seem to think the West is doing the right thing and at the very least I want to fit in while maintaining basic integrity.

These people were/are credible pro-western. They weren't propagandized by Russian agents to take the stances they took. They were generally opposed to escalating proxy conflict with Russia after the cold war and also generally opposed to expanding NATO eastward. They made credible warnings about pursuing hawkish policy decades before tensions along Russia's border reached their current level.

It seems naive to imply the US has a less effective propaganda apparatus than Russia within its own direct sphere of influence. The idea that a country with 1/10th the GDP of the US outcompetes the US in propaganda delivery on its own pay-to-play media platforms doesn't make a lot of sense to me personally. Seeing any kind of anti-war dissent as influenced by pro-Russian agents seems like low-effort thinking. Being weary of an escalating proxy war with a high-manufacturing capacity, energy-rich superpower that historically has sacrificed large percentages of its population in total war is not inherently a pro-Russian stance; it's a common-sense stance that values life.

Like actually why the fuck would I be pro-Russia? What's in it for me? Seeming edgy or something? Do you assume I'm unable to read the room? I'm a liberal computer nerd from a highly liberal locale. It's obviously so much easier to just agree that the US is bringing democracy or freedom or greater security to eastern Europe. Why would I bother unless it was actually deeply disturbing to me the more I earnestly dig into it? Have I been brainwashed by Russian agents through the internet or something? I am willing to accept this I just don't think that's actually the case upon close inspection.

George Kennan (Diplomat, "Architect of the Cold War Containment Policy") - Criticized NATO expansion as a severe mistake in a 1998 interview with the New York Times .

Henry Kissinger (Former U.S. Secretary of State) - Expressed concerns about NATO expansion increasing tensions with Russia over several years, particularly noted in discussions and forums during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

William Perry (Former U.S. Secretary of Defense) - Voiced apprehensions about the strategy and pace of NATO expansion, particularly in the late 1990s during his tenure and in reflections thereafter.

Sam Nunn (Former U.S. Senator, Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative) - Warned of strategic miscalculations and heightened conflict risks due to expansion, prominently during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Jack Matlock (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union) - Criticized NATO expansion for potentially setting the stage for conflict with Russia, in articles and public lectures, particularly during the 1990s.

I haven't, and I'm familiar with this page. I am honestly worried about the US foreign policy. I'm not JAQing off. I want some credible source material from a community I trust. I'm sure other people reading this do too.

I'm earnestly and honestly asking. Is there some good source material you can point me to that explains how this is in US citizens' interest? All I can find is hyperbolic nonsense that seems markedly similar to the kind of information that was available during the invasion of Iraq. I really would rather feel good about US/Western foreign policy.

I get that your comment is a hyperbolic jab at Trump supporters but why is a pro-Russian candidate actually bad - besides the tiresome comparisons of Putin to Hitler and similar claims? It seems like NATO didn't disband or let Russia join after it asked to multiple times because we have a military industrial complex that requires perpetual war to sustain itself. Why risk nuclear war over vague political goals like "containment" and "spreading democracy" when engaging Russia in this way will mean Russia is fighting for its survival. Honestly asking because I don't understand.

That's fair. Being blackout drunk is more than just memory impairment though - significant parts of the brain unrelated to memory also have impaired function during drunkenness. I would also suggest that there is a level of impairment where the impaired person lacks a sense of self while still being animated and seemingly conscious. This is what makes me think a blackout drunk person seems like a p-zombie (albeit temporarily).

When my friend found himself walking around in a new place after a complete discontinuity in experience. Was this discontinuity entirely driven by the impairment of lasting memory formation? Seems possible to me. Problem is, I've never experienced this myself - only heard his story from a close friend (repeatedly) and similar stories from others. The stories could be unreliable - but they suggest that the self was offline and came back while the body was still performing complex externally awake actions. Seems p-zombie-like to me.

I think the self can be disrupted by significant alterations in memory storage among other things. I think memory is one of many key ingredients in having a self. When your memory is adequately disrupted your self is disrupted. Without a self subjective experience is radically different than with a self. It's radically different in that it's often described by the self (who stops being blackout drunk at some point) as being a discontinuity similar to sleep. The interesting thing here is that people who are blackout drunk continue to do things that a clinically-conscious person does (eat, talk, stumble around). Your experience is really interesting too - you seemed to still have an intact self, just not extended memory beyond 30 seconds. I think maybe we are talking about different things or my view is wrong.

I would consider people that are blackout drunk to be p-zombies given this definition. The part of the blackout person other people interact with, their self, simply isn't there - but they are still animated (mostly) like other people with selves. If you are truly blackout drunk I don't think you experience the moment in a traditional sense (a moment from the perspective of a self). There might be an experience there, but it's radically different from what is normally considered subjective experience. The person can have consciousness clinically (as in they show external signs of consciousness) - but their self is not there and their subjective sense is in discontinuity.

it's almost like any important new technology presents a constellation of tradeoffs

There are flow states that seem like this. It can be pleasant and it can also be unnerving. Something about memory and the sense of self fall away and it leaves you with a discontinuity despite some part of you obviously carrying on the show while the self was away.

ah I see what I wrote. "not even on some deep non-conscious level" yeah that was sloppy nm.

I'm not fully grasping the experiment your proposing here

Is someone under twilight anesthesia or in a deep k-hole approaching the state of being a p-zombie? I would think so. Maybe I misunderstand the definition of p-zombie?

I think the self can come and go. I don't think a blacked out person is always unconscious, but they do seem to lack a subjective self while sometimes still being clinically awake and engaging in complex behavior. When the subjective self comes back online later, it makes understanding the self easier for them by creating contrast.

What about what I said implied anything about various other systems like stress hormones not being lastingly be affected by trauma?

I don't think most surgical patients are concerned with the kind of trauma their cells or gut microbiome sustain during surgery. In fact, if these systems recollected zero trauma it's doubtful the surgical outcome would be positive. When most people discuss suffering they are usually discussing the suffering of their selves. The self requires coordinated effort from the brain. When surgery occurs, it could be well argued you would want to use the least anesthesia necessary to avoid the kind of suffering the patient wants to avoid.

What are you actually on about? Why be purposefully insulting?