MetabolicTrash
Member
What makes a result? You combine various factors and you get answers. What do these answers mean? Not always clear, I know.
Sure, the input/output is more complicated than some pre-algebra, but it can be narrowed down to the same thing -- put in more complicated factors and get more complex (and hard to make sense of) answers or results.
You can't exactly put in various factors together and get any "readable" outcome of health because you'd have to take in to account all possible factors that the organism can take in, change, adapt to, or maladapt from and etc. You can look at this mechanistically, holistically, physiologically and even atomically -- the manner changes for each depending on the specific outlook but the "gist" might fall together similarly.
Ray Peat believes we never stop "changing" or adapting -- that there's no predestined set of rules for what we become or what we will be -- things change all of the time. Ray thinks -- in terms of embryology -- that what same factors affected our fetal development and etc. during our earliest times is also what we are still constantly subjected to in ways lifelong. What I am today I may not be tomorrow in some sense -- one I probably have nearly no clue on. Since many would rule out that there are far too many factors to "control for" in determining any input or output in any theoretical fashion of human lifespan, capability, possibility and etc. you cannot then fully encapsulate the human experience in to a binary in to a form of living and dying. Our predicament or "understanding" of life and death follows suit in a mechanistic way because we ourselves seemed to have "adapted" in a way to living and dying in simplicity. No one inherently wants to die -- the organism in fact tends to do everything it can to keep living. It would seem our very standing at this point is anti-decay, but we have confined ourselves possibly to a system that gradually tends to do so. Ray Peat's knowledge and research/findings points out to so-called youth hormones, biochemical interactions, bodily/physiological functions and interpretations/adaptations, but all of this still takes heed to the same "system atop us" you could say. I see one possible problem here is that you want to remain in the same understanding and situation of living and dying, but alter the processes within it to revitalize or "re-energize" or have more control over your health -- which I obviously see as positive and good/better than not being implemented usually.
But think of it this way: How much control can you have in one "system" so to speak if you know that very system and its ultimate direction, or influence from another "system" with greater control? It's like giving a hamster running shoes but still locking it in a room with a cat. The hamster can run longer, faster. etc. but what will the outcome still likely be? Whether you want to view it as multiple "systems" or just one with different aspects, compartments or applications/unfoldings, I think the same core principles you could say do apply when it comes to analyzing and understanding it in "basic language" or obviousness of some sort.
You can "re-design" your physiology; play with hormones in very beneficial ways; take supplements that do you good; eat properly; but what happens when "that day" comes and "erases" all of this? All of your work, findings and actions -- then you die. The "collective" human knowledge functions like a fleeting or passing you could say -- it doesn't last but just has the potential to take its "place." What we learn now the next "generation" can then learn and work from, but you "collect" and "pass on" knowledge with the understanding of you not always being there to continue giving it and/or sharing it.
There can be too many problems or questions and never enough answers. Who knows -- maybe there is no need to look for any solutions in some ways. If every new finding has new questions or "unknowns" it could be said that literally everything or nothing has a fixed meaning or purpose -- or vice-versa. Like we like to believe everything is changeable, you could give some power to maybe the opposite theory (although negative and not in line with growth possibly) that everything is pre-determined too in a pro-bono, opportunistic, universal "unfolding" of situations and outcomes on a grand scale (but still it brings about better pursuits when you approach your environment and situations in the mindset of change and overcoming rather than acceptance or complete indifference it seems for some things). This isn't to say not to anticipate change or new beginnings or etc., but to realize that -- at the same time you think you're taking one step forward -- you can't be sure what's (possibly) moving everything else one step back at the same time.
The "outside the box" approach also applies since we can't create a "problem" to measure outcomes if we cannot even realistically take all factors in to account if every possible factor itself is changing too -- it's like trying to paint a picture with a brush you haven't discovered yet. If everything keeps changing, we must keep changing -- but the approach is the big question. We already do in a sense keep "adapting" but in doing so we continuously might tend to take a step too far back to old problems for new solutions. If new "problems" or "steps" keep appearing we need new "solutions" even if they're nothing like the old ones. Sometimes you find things get so complex and pointless in some ways, why not go back to "basic" solutions too (or simpler approaches)? Not to ignore complexities, but sometimes complexities can be seen as "meaningless" in the sense of how they fail to address problems or find applicable solutions. Physicists do exceedingly complex math simulations, problems and etc. to discover new things in the universe and make breath-taking advancements in fields of science and our understanding of the universe and everything in it. Yet some can argue that we still are stuck in a giant object in space with a seemingly cookie cutter sense of limitations and understanding of ourselves and the world and what it really accounts for ultimately. In other words we keep learning so much, but is all of this doing much of anything for us? I am not anti-science -- just skeptical sometimes of certain approaches. We can keep "expanding" anything we want, but what really is the endgame and result? Physicists could have discovered endless things, but are they granting wishes? The "unlocked secrets" of the universe are not creating dreams directly for everyone; solving all health crises and ending all suffering; and not making life more optimal exactly in the grand scheme of things. We might keep learning more, but ironically we might seem to be achieving less in some ways of practicality, sensibility and other approaches to our being, understanding and incorporations of things in to life, humanity and matter.
Do you employ cross-platform, GPGPU AI for AAA game titles with punch cards? Do you build giant, modernized structures by cracking whips at slaves?
Like we evolve, so must our approaches -- this means even possibly abandoning some old, tried and true understandings maybe. Once you think you have "ground work" on something it may already be too late -- back to the drawing board possibly. You cannot establish all knowledge as a bare construct because so many things are fleeting and variable. At the same time I want to learn it really can be tough to get a "proper approach" to something when that very understanding might not make much sense in some ways.
You get a result like solving a simple math equation -- the thing is the factors are exceedingly complex and the results possibly even more so. The more things seemingly jump in to factor in these systematic, overlooked equations or "problems" the more insane it seems to try and gauge approaches, outcomes, adaptations/changes and possibilities and even promises. I think of some things like the waking/living system's contradictions -- self-aware but self-destructive; irony and seriousness; pursuit and perfection.
This isn't posted to discourage anyone -- I too want everyone to expand, change, and achieve greatness, whatever that means. Maybe we need everyone to work together for "greatness" -- a combined "energy" or sorts. Not that we're doing entirely bad, but there seems to always be room for improvement. I didn't post this to make anyone doubt Peat or their choices or whatnot -- just to open up the discussion of things possibly deeper than some facets of understanding or implementations we approach or etc. Positivity and change are possibly the two greatest things we need most suited or opportunistically disbursed for us all.
Sure, the input/output is more complicated than some pre-algebra, but it can be narrowed down to the same thing -- put in more complicated factors and get more complex (and hard to make sense of) answers or results.
You can't exactly put in various factors together and get any "readable" outcome of health because you'd have to take in to account all possible factors that the organism can take in, change, adapt to, or maladapt from and etc. You can look at this mechanistically, holistically, physiologically and even atomically -- the manner changes for each depending on the specific outlook but the "gist" might fall together similarly.
Ray Peat believes we never stop "changing" or adapting -- that there's no predestined set of rules for what we become or what we will be -- things change all of the time. Ray thinks -- in terms of embryology -- that what same factors affected our fetal development and etc. during our earliest times is also what we are still constantly subjected to in ways lifelong. What I am today I may not be tomorrow in some sense -- one I probably have nearly no clue on. Since many would rule out that there are far too many factors to "control for" in determining any input or output in any theoretical fashion of human lifespan, capability, possibility and etc. you cannot then fully encapsulate the human experience in to a binary in to a form of living and dying. Our predicament or "understanding" of life and death follows suit in a mechanistic way because we ourselves seemed to have "adapted" in a way to living and dying in simplicity. No one inherently wants to die -- the organism in fact tends to do everything it can to keep living. It would seem our very standing at this point is anti-decay, but we have confined ourselves possibly to a system that gradually tends to do so. Ray Peat's knowledge and research/findings points out to so-called youth hormones, biochemical interactions, bodily/physiological functions and interpretations/adaptations, but all of this still takes heed to the same "system atop us" you could say. I see one possible problem here is that you want to remain in the same understanding and situation of living and dying, but alter the processes within it to revitalize or "re-energize" or have more control over your health -- which I obviously see as positive and good/better than not being implemented usually.
But think of it this way: How much control can you have in one "system" so to speak if you know that very system and its ultimate direction, or influence from another "system" with greater control? It's like giving a hamster running shoes but still locking it in a room with a cat. The hamster can run longer, faster. etc. but what will the outcome still likely be? Whether you want to view it as multiple "systems" or just one with different aspects, compartments or applications/unfoldings, I think the same core principles you could say do apply when it comes to analyzing and understanding it in "basic language" or obviousness of some sort.
You can "re-design" your physiology; play with hormones in very beneficial ways; take supplements that do you good; eat properly; but what happens when "that day" comes and "erases" all of this? All of your work, findings and actions -- then you die. The "collective" human knowledge functions like a fleeting or passing you could say -- it doesn't last but just has the potential to take its "place." What we learn now the next "generation" can then learn and work from, but you "collect" and "pass on" knowledge with the understanding of you not always being there to continue giving it and/or sharing it.
There can be too many problems or questions and never enough answers. Who knows -- maybe there is no need to look for any solutions in some ways. If every new finding has new questions or "unknowns" it could be said that literally everything or nothing has a fixed meaning or purpose -- or vice-versa. Like we like to believe everything is changeable, you could give some power to maybe the opposite theory (although negative and not in line with growth possibly) that everything is pre-determined too in a pro-bono, opportunistic, universal "unfolding" of situations and outcomes on a grand scale (but still it brings about better pursuits when you approach your environment and situations in the mindset of change and overcoming rather than acceptance or complete indifference it seems for some things). This isn't to say not to anticipate change or new beginnings or etc., but to realize that -- at the same time you think you're taking one step forward -- you can't be sure what's (possibly) moving everything else one step back at the same time.
The "outside the box" approach also applies since we can't create a "problem" to measure outcomes if we cannot even realistically take all factors in to account if every possible factor itself is changing too -- it's like trying to paint a picture with a brush you haven't discovered yet. If everything keeps changing, we must keep changing -- but the approach is the big question. We already do in a sense keep "adapting" but in doing so we continuously might tend to take a step too far back to old problems for new solutions. If new "problems" or "steps" keep appearing we need new "solutions" even if they're nothing like the old ones. Sometimes you find things get so complex and pointless in some ways, why not go back to "basic" solutions too (or simpler approaches)? Not to ignore complexities, but sometimes complexities can be seen as "meaningless" in the sense of how they fail to address problems or find applicable solutions. Physicists do exceedingly complex math simulations, problems and etc. to discover new things in the universe and make breath-taking advancements in fields of science and our understanding of the universe and everything in it. Yet some can argue that we still are stuck in a giant object in space with a seemingly cookie cutter sense of limitations and understanding of ourselves and the world and what it really accounts for ultimately. In other words we keep learning so much, but is all of this doing much of anything for us? I am not anti-science -- just skeptical sometimes of certain approaches. We can keep "expanding" anything we want, but what really is the endgame and result? Physicists could have discovered endless things, but are they granting wishes? The "unlocked secrets" of the universe are not creating dreams directly for everyone; solving all health crises and ending all suffering; and not making life more optimal exactly in the grand scheme of things. We might keep learning more, but ironically we might seem to be achieving less in some ways of practicality, sensibility and other approaches to our being, understanding and incorporations of things in to life, humanity and matter.
Do you employ cross-platform, GPGPU AI for AAA game titles with punch cards? Do you build giant, modernized structures by cracking whips at slaves?
Like we evolve, so must our approaches -- this means even possibly abandoning some old, tried and true understandings maybe. Once you think you have "ground work" on something it may already be too late -- back to the drawing board possibly. You cannot establish all knowledge as a bare construct because so many things are fleeting and variable. At the same time I want to learn it really can be tough to get a "proper approach" to something when that very understanding might not make much sense in some ways.
You get a result like solving a simple math equation -- the thing is the factors are exceedingly complex and the results possibly even more so. The more things seemingly jump in to factor in these systematic, overlooked equations or "problems" the more insane it seems to try and gauge approaches, outcomes, adaptations/changes and possibilities and even promises. I think of some things like the waking/living system's contradictions -- self-aware but self-destructive; irony and seriousness; pursuit and perfection.
This isn't posted to discourage anyone -- I too want everyone to expand, change, and achieve greatness, whatever that means. Maybe we need everyone to work together for "greatness" -- a combined "energy" or sorts. Not that we're doing entirely bad, but there seems to always be room for improvement. I didn't post this to make anyone doubt Peat or their choices or whatnot -- just to open up the discussion of things possibly deeper than some facets of understanding or implementations we approach or etc. Positivity and change are possibly the two greatest things we need most suited or opportunistically disbursed for us all.
