jts

Members
  • Content count

    2,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jts

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jerry Story
  • Description
    Saint Peter at Heaven's Gate told me to go to Hell. I followed advice and went to Hell. Then I was kicked out of Hell for making too much trouble. So I came back to Earth.
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,699 profile views
  1. "Emotions are tools of cognition."

    At the risk of stating the obvious: When a person's capacity for emotion is surgically removed, the intelligence as revealed by intelligence tests is unimpaired but the ability to make decisions is impaired. Ayn Rand's statement that emotions are not tools of cognition still stands but decision making apparently calls for more than just cognition. The Vulcan ideal, kolinahr, apparently can be achieved by surgery. But it is illogical. Lack of ability to make decisions is bad, not good. The correct ideal instead of kolinahr is integration of intellect and emotion into a harmonious whole, perhaps a synergy, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Spock, son of Sarek, is not the ideal. Vulcans are not the ideal. Ayn Rand was a better philosopher than Surak. If Ayn Rand had replaced Surak , Vulcans would not be so illogical. Intellect without emotion is thought without action, a computer. Emotion without intellect is action without thought, a bull in a china shop. The 2 integrated is the ideal human, capable of both thought and action.
  2. The Epistemology of Intimidation by Hatred

    Then maybe introspection (whatever that is) is a direct experience and therefore does not need to be falsifiable. I wouldn't know because I am not good at introspection.
  3. The Epistemology of Intimidation by Hatred

    Such things as pain, humger, thirst, fatigue are not reliably falsifiable by a reliable witness. Are they therefore invalid? If you were living all by your lonesome on a small island, even the information from sight and, hearing would not be falsifiable by a witness because there would be no witness. Would this information therefore be invalid?
  4. New Slant on Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

    I have a question about a principle in Lasker's book 'Manual of Chess'. Lasker was world chess champion 1894 - 1921 (27 years). He was also a mathematician and a philosopher. He was known as the philosopher who played chess. He was a great admirer of Steinitz, the man he beat for the world title and his book 'Manual of Chess' is largely a tribute to Steinitz. Steinitz created a theory of chess strategy and held the title for 28 years (1866 - 1894) (if we ignore Morphy after he quit). The theory of Steinitz was ridiculed in his time but near the end of his reign career as world champion he was revered as a demigod and the chess world was shocked when Lasker beat him in 1894. Lasker, a professional philosopher, understood Steinitz's theory better than Steinitz did and developed it further. Lasker developed the theory beyond chess, to all forms of struggle -- war, business, life. With Lasker it was not merely a theory of strategy in chess but a theory of struggle and it applied to a thousand and one games that have been or could be invented and to every activity directed toward meaning and purpose and governed by rules. Lasker wrote: "I who vanquished him must see to it that he is avenged." (Steinitz was ridiculed because of his theory.) In 'Manual of Chess' Lasker states the following principle: Superior force wins. (In chess superior force means more material, more mobility, etc) Then he goes into a discussion about where this principle comes from and asks whether this principle comes from experience. He answers in the negative; experience seems to often contradict this principle. He then makes an astonishing statement: We are determined with might and main to interpret experience in the light of this principle no matter how it turns out. He concludes that superior force wins, provided we take into account every kind of force, physical force, intellectual force, moral force. My question is: What the hell kind of ass backwards epistemology is this?
  5. This is Loren Lockman speaking mainly about hydration. 1 hour 22 minutes. My comments are in square brackets. 2:40 He begins by talking about fasting, even tho the talk is supposed to be about hydration. He says processing food takes more energy than anything else we do. [ I wonder how he measures energy to make this claim. T C Fry used to say digestion takes 25% of our energy, no mention of how this is measured. I would expect that the percentage of energy that is used to digest food would depend on the kind of food and the amount of food and the amount of energy one has, and considering these variables the variation would be huge. ] 3:00 He says we tend to lose appetite when we are sick. [ This is called the natural fast, as opposed to the elective fast. It means the body itself calls for a fast. If you are too sick to even look at food, let alone eat it, and your stomach throws the food back in your face, that should be a clear enough hint that your body does not want food. At least one fasting doctor is of the opinion that the natural fast is always correct and the elective fast is always wrong. ] 3:50 He says here that he had 300+ cases of hypertension with a 100% recovery rate. [ Alan Goldhamer published a paper in a scientific journal about fasting and hypertension. The results were far superior to drugs, without the negatives of drugs. These results should not be surprising if during the fast the blood vessels get unclogged. But I have to wonder whether they are measuring blood pressure during the fast or after the fast. If it is during the fast, it is no fair because during the fast the metabolism is reduced and the body goes into a state of physiological rest and so quite naturally the heart slows down and the blood pressure is reduced. ] 4: 20 He says he has a 100% success rate reversing type 2 diabetes. [ It seems that every lifestyle doctor (as opposed to drug doctor) knows how to reverse t2 diabetes. John McDougall's starch based diet reverses t2 diabetes. Joel Fuhrman's nutritarian diet reverses t2 diabetes. Gerson therapy reverses t2 diabetes in just a few days. Fasting reverses t2 diabetes. Even a ridiculous rice and sugar diet (a bad diet) reverses t2 diabetes. It seems that almost everything short of poison reverses t2 diabetes. If all these claims are true, then t2 diabetes is no big hairy deal and is trivial to reverse. But a word of caution. Shelton refused to take cases of t2 diabetes who have been taking insulin for a long time. The reason is the body's ability to make insulin atrophies when it is not used and it can atrophy beyond repair. ] 4: 30 He continues with other examples of the body's ability to heal itself during a fast. The list of diseases is long. [ A word or 2 of caution about fasting to reverse diseases. While everything he says is probably true as is evidenced by success stories, fasting has limits and can be dangerous. Some diseases are caused by deficiencies and to fasting with a nutritional deficiency is as dangerous as all hell. During a fast you rely on nutritional reserves. ] [ Every fasting doctor advises to not fast beyond a certain number of days without supervision. They differ about the number of days. I personally do not follow this advice but following my example is not necessarily a good idea. Fasting can be dangerous EVEN WITH SUPERVISION. It is probably not humanly possible for any one doctor to be qualified to handle all health emergencies that can come up during a fast. At TrueNorth they have a team of doctors, each with a different specialization, all watching their fasting patients like hawks, daily. Not one fatality in 15,000 fasts. If the slightest problem comes up they terminate the fast. There are some fasting horror stories in association with Doug Graham and Loren Lockman. Do they have a team of highly qualified doctors, each with a different specialization? I doubt. Do they recognized the limits of their expertise? I don't know. ] 5:10 He says if you have a health problem, it is not your body's fault. [ This is an exaggeration. Some people have a genetic defect that impairs health. Some people have a genetic weakness that requires them to work harder to achieve and maintain health. And we are programmed to die of old age no matter how healthy we are. ] 6:25 Here he starts talking about detox during a fast. 8:00 Here he talks about the toxicity school of thought and he is about to introduce a different idea, [ He calls Natural Hygiene a philosophy. Shelton called it a science and a branch of biology. One of the dictionary definitions of 'hygiene' is the science of health. Hygeia was the goddess of health. ] 8:40 Here he challenges the idea that the biggest source of poisons is the body itself, metabolic waste. [ Shelton said the body is a poison factory. ] 9:20 Here he says in order to get waste out of the body (both from inside and from outside) the body needs energy and water. He is about to make a big deal about water. Most fasting doctors make a big deal about energy. [ John H. Tilden had the theory that ennervation (deficency of energy, or more precisely nerve energy) leads to toxemia. Loren is adding water to this scheme of things, ] 10:00 Here he starts on his personal theory about hydration, which is the main topic of this lecture. One small but possibly interesting point he mentions is electrical energy. He says food is the fuel but not the energy. [ Tilden and Shelton called it 'nerve energy'. But electrical energy exists in cell walls in general and have to do with how the cell works. It seems we are in large part electrical beings. ] 22:45 Here he mentions odorless bowel movements. [ There is the joke about someone is so arrogant that he thinks his shit doesn't stink. I'm not sure whether he is saying he doesn't need to wipe his ass. ] 26:00 Here he says fasting is about resting. [ OL members who have been reading the stuff I wrote about fasting should know this by now. But here is a professional explaining it. ] 28:00 Here he says the correct way to drink water during a fast is to sip it. [ By coincidence this is what I instinctively do during a fast. Small amounts and frequent. ] Then he goes into the subject of how much water to drink. There is no fixed amount. It depends on the person. [ Alan Goldhamer requires his fasting patients to drink at least 1 quart per day, no upper limit. And he gives them something to measure with. Shelton says drink according to body demand, no more and no less. ] 29:25 Here he talks about why water drinking is important in a fast. [ There is a cult or subculture or whatever it is about dry fasting. They have their reasons but I think it's BS. ] 29:45 But do not drink too much water during a fast. There is such a thing as too much water. You lose electrolytes. It's not so bad during eating because you replace electrolytes but still not good. 32:40 Now he is back on the subject of sipping water. Why is it important to sip water during a fast? 36:20 Here he bashes the regular medical profession. [ You gotta expect this from him. He is what most people call a quack. ] 41:00 Here he states his lack of credentials. [ Most people in OL will enjoy this. ] He explains why and how he became a doctor quack health professional. 44:00 He talks about antibiotics. Antibiotics kill bacteria. But you have ten times more bacteria cells than you have human cells. And you have them because you need them. He explains why we need bacteria. 48:30 The rule of drinking water only when you are thirsty is not good enough. By the time you are thirsty you are already water deficient. [ This is in contradiction to Shelton who said nothing is gained by drinking more than thirst demands. Also it puts in doubt the rule to eat only when hungry. What is thirst? It is hunger for water. ] 49:35 He is starting on a new point here. Drinking water is not enough to get hydrated, no matter how much water you drink. 50:20 You are supposed to get all or nearly all the water you need from food. You are supposed to eat food of high water content. [ It is possible to go without drinking anything for months at a time and presumably forever. Most people don't believe it but it is possible. Most fruits are mostly water. Lettuce is mostly water. This is the water sufficient diet. You can even get too much water this way, without drinking anything. But you need to drink water during a fast. ] 51:20 You gotta get the old stuff out before you can get hydrated. 52:00 A story about a failure from another fasting that didn't get the desired result, probably because of not enough water. [ He didn't say which other fasting place but Loren Lockman and Alan Goldhamer have some differences of opinion about fasting. I don't know if this is a hint or not. ] 52:50 Another bashing of medicine. The old stuff does exist. 54:45 Stories about healing from injuries. 56:50 He walked away from a very lucrative business because he wanted to become a quack help people. 59:50 If your food has roughly less than 80% water, it is taking water from your body. Do not eat dry stuff. 1:01:30 Most of what we call aging is dehydration. 1:04:20 Q and A He claims a good rate of success with cancer. [ One question to ask when success with cancer is claimed is -- was it cancer? Shelton never claimed success with cancer, but he also said most cases that are diagnosed with cancer are not cancer. ] 1:09:50 He is thumbs down on distilled water. [ This is a controversial subject. Shelton was thumbs up on distilled water. TrueNorth uses distilled water. Both sides of the controversy have something to say. ] [ There is a disaster story about a fast with Loren Lockman and one of the complaints was the water was too acid. ] 1:19:50 His experience fasting MDs. All around him people were healing from things that this MD had been trained to believe were impossible to heal from. 1:20:35 The scientific literature on the subject of fasting. Yup. It exists.
  6. One is Not one's own "Standard of Value"

    Here is an actual scenario, a study about conformity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments Which of the 3 lines (A, B, C) is the most similar in length to the line on the left? Do you trust your judgement? Or do you go along with the crowd?
  7. One is Not one's own "Standard of Value"

    But you don't know that they are told to say the sky is green. That is a secret kept from you. All you know is the sky looks blue to you and they say it's green. Why would you want to hear from people who say what they see? Do you not trust your own eyes? If you don't trust your own eyes (in some way, allowing for illusions and hallucinations), then you are in bad shape epistemologically. How can you know anything if you don't start with your senses?
  8. One is Not one's own "Standard of Value"

    You are 1 of 100 people observing the sky. You observe that the sky is blue. The other 99 observe that the sky is green. (because someone told them to say that) Do you trust your eyes? Or do you trust what everybody else says?
  9. The relationship between the American way of life (the way it was) and Objectivism is like the relationship between GNU and Linux. In 1983 Richard Stallman began work on GNU (GNU is not Unix). This was a free software replacement for Unix. It included everything except the kernel. In 1991 Linus Torvalds released the first version of Linux. This was a free replacement for the Unix kernel. In 1993 the 2 came together GNU+Linux and they were a perfect fit and everybody calls it Linux. The American way of life was good but it was lacking a philosophy. Objectivism is that philosophy. The 2 of them together are a perfect fit. Ayn Rand was a Russian by birth, an American by choice, and a better American than most Americans who were born in America.
  10. How to respond to those who slander Objectivism

    An Objectivist government would not be in the business of setting prices. And not in the business of printing money.
  11. Under capitalism, an empty shelf is a shelf that is not making money.
  12. When there is a correlation between A and B and we reject coincidence, we have multiple possibilities. Maybe A causes B. Maybe B causes A. Maybe C causes both A and B. Maybe C causes A, and D causes B, and E causes both C and D. Maybe more than 1 of the above is true. Maybe your mind causes what is happening in your brain.
  13. Fake News

    Not Jews. Muslims. Not only America, the world.
  14. What is the difference between a metaphysical fact and an ordinary fact?