That's a hell of a diet

[213374U]

For reference: an actual "biological transformation"

[Busomjack]

Why in the Hell are the scientists baffled? The guy is obviously LYING!

[mkreku]

3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food. That's what they teach you in the military.

[Tigranes]

Why in the Hell are the scientists baffled? The guy is obviously LYING!

 

Because if you're a real scientist, you can't write in your report "LIAR LIAR" and call it a day?

[Oblarg]

Why in the Hell are the scientists baffled? The guy is obviously LYING!

 

Because if you're a real scientist, you can't write in your report "LIAR LIAR" and call it a day?

 

Something as obviously false as this isn't worth the trouble of testing.

 

If I said I could fly and **** gold, is it worth a scientific study to prove I can't?

[I want teh kotor 3]

This makes no sense. He's lying through his teeth. That's not possible.

[Rostere]

If we ignore the biological complications and look at it from a physicist's point of view, he could maintain energy balance simbly by absorbing heat from his environment, for example.

Unless he's some sort of biological heat pump (now that would be something worth studying), I don't think so. It would have to be one hell of a "biological transformation" for him to go from being Krebs cycle-powered to photovoltaic, involving changes as insignificant as growing electric motors and/or electrochemical reactors. Plus, he doesn't look green to me, so that kinda rules out photosynthesis.

 

I wrote all of that from divine inspiration, I have never opened a science book in my life. True story.

 

I did not include in my post as an option that he had become photovoltaic, and even if that was the case he would not have to be green. Chlorophyll is but one of many photosensitizers, it just happens to be that chlorophyll reflects photons with the wavelength that contain the least amount of energy. (Please note that "green" photons are not individually of low energy, but since the solar spectrum on earth contains so few green photons the net energy potentially gained from these is marginally small)

 

But please note that I don't think it's true that he could survive significant portions of his life without food. I just made a remark that theoretically, a system does not need "chemical energy" to maintain energy balance. Although speculating about whether a human could have changed biologically to no longer rely on chemical energy intake or not is far out, as far as we know alien or engineered lifeforms may feed wholly or partially on energy gained in any form.

[Tigranes]

Something as obviously false as this isn't worth the trouble of testing.

 

If I said I could fly and **** gold, is it worth a scientific study to prove I can't?

 

For scientists to visit him and run tests, there has to have been enough about his claims that made them think there is something going on worth investigating. Not necessarily 70 years without food/water, but some form of unique biological change / phenomenon / horror.

 

I find it lacking in intelligence, logic and common sense to dismiss any scientific findings from investigations into this man, just because his original claims might be farfetched. They are two different things. If these scientists report that they have found empirical evidence of some startling biological changes, then that's great, hopefully it will be useful knowledge.

 

It's a lot more worthwhile to actually apply the principles of science - sitting here going 'lol science tells me this is bull' is, ironically, making a joke of those principles.

[Orogun01]

Why in the Hell are the scientists baffled? The guy is obviously LYING!

 

Because if you're a real scientist, you can't write in your report "LIAR LIAR" and call it a day?

 

Something as obviously false as this isn't worth the trouble of testing.

 

If I said I could fly and **** gold, is it worth a scientific study to prove I can't?

If scientist thought like that I would say that they are biased towards the subject and therefore should not study it. You can't determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is false just because you think it's a lie. Because you know what: the world isn't flat and the center of the universe.

[Oblarg]

Why in the Hell are the scientists baffled? The guy is obviously LYING!

 

Because if you're a real scientist, you can't write in your report "LIAR LIAR" and call it a day?

 

Something as obviously false as this isn't worth the trouble of testing.

 

If I said I could fly and **** gold, is it worth a scientific study to prove I can't?

If scientist thought like that I would say that they are biased towards the subject and therefore should not study it. You can't determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is false just because you think it's a lie. Because you know what: the world isn't flat and the center of the universe.

 

If every claim ever were tested, we'd learn almost nothing because our scientists would be bogged down testing dead ends.

[Walsingham]

Orogun is correct: accepted theory is just what we haven't disproved YET.

 

This assertion makes some people very giddy. Anti-science faithists say "Aha you are no better than us." And fundamentalist science fanbois say "Rubbish, we are all about proof. Proof is what we do experiments FOR". Both are wrong. The ruthless application of the principle of disproving rather than proving is why so many theories we have haven't been disproved in decades. And frankly I'm amazed how anyone who has done even high school science can actually believe experiments prove anything at all. They can show a phenomenon and in bulk they allow us to infer that the phenomenon occurs over and above another. But strictly speaking they only tell us what DID happen not what WILL happen, which is what a theory is for.

 

So, to return to the point, should we test every theory? The answer is that philosophically yes, we should. However, this tells you a lot why I generally want to punch philosophers. We have limited resources. Under which conditions almost all decision making is a question of optimality. Is it optimal to test every theory? No, clearly not.

 

On the other hand, if we only tested theories we thought were very strong we'd never learn anything new. Most people believe theories need to be weak enough to provoke doubt, but strong enough to represent a worthwhile gamble. However, as Orogun points out this precludes testing really fundamental theories which are taken as true, such as the position of the Earth in relation to other planets. Testing those sorts of theories underpins the biggest leaps forward in human development. For this reason I believe a dichotomous approach is unhelpful.

 

I believe testing should be a balancing act between three factors:

 

- How many resources we have as a ratio to the the resources required for the test

- How many times the theory has been tested previously (keeping in mind novel techniques are positive)

- How important the theory is to our stores of resources

 

In this way you'd set up a positive feedback loop between science and the resources available to science, driving science forward.

[Orogun01]

Walsh, I don't disagree with your comment but I see it from a more humanist perspective. There are scientists who through nurture or choice have a passion for a certain area of science and a unique perspective. That's their drive and motive for research, not the utilitarian sense. E.G. Einstein whilst as a kid dreamed to ride in the back of a beam of light, a dream that through his life lead him to the theory of relativity. Or like Newton, sometimes discovery is just the right person at the right place and time.

However this testing is not so unfounded as it seems, there have been other instances of testing "superhumans";if you will, that have given interesting results.

 

Wim Hof was tested by submerging his body in a tub of ice with temp. bellow 20, all the while his core temperature actually saw a rise. The final conclusion was that through meditation and control of his physiology he had an uncanny resistance to cold. Could be a similar case here, a man that has trained his body to survive from minimal amounts of energy.

[Walsingham]

You mke a good point that some scientists are going to research whatever they like. However, in the modern era for research to be executed with insurance, and taken seriously by anyone it has to take place in a recognised institution. Therefore unfortunately it becomes a social question. Or were you saying that we should support nutcase boffins? I'd say that still keeps to my suggest metric. You support the mad ones provided they are into something big enough and relevant enough to science. Guaging the plauisibility of turning custard into an impossible baked on substance on pans using superlasers wouldn't count. Nor would destroying Paris.

 

*ahem*

 

The point here being that this chap is maintaining he has been able to run his entire body using no energy besides ambient energy sources. He's also saying that he's been able to either prevent himself perspiring or losing water or taking it in somehow.

[213374U]

I just remembered that case a few years ago which also had "scientists baffled". It involved a Lebanese girl crying diamonds or some other stupid ****. She also claimed to be receiving divine messages. She stopped shortly after becoming famous. I wonder if we'll see this guy parking at McD's in a few months, too?

 

 

But please note that I don't think it's true that he could survive significant portions of his life without food. I just made a remark that theoretically, a system does not need "chemical energy" to maintain energy balance. Although speculating about whether a human could have changed biologically to no longer rely on chemical energy intake or not is far out, as far as we know alien or engineered lifeforms may feed wholly or partially on energy gained in any form.

No, but he needs to rely on chemical energy (photosynthesis or Krebs) OR electrical energy (photovoltaic). Those are the only possibilities available to him by just standing in the sun.

 

Or maybe he just doesn't believe in the laws of thermodynamics.

[Pidesco]

As far as I'm concerned, this guy should be treated as any other claim of inventing a perpetual motion machine.

[Walsingham]

Sorry. Didn't finish my post explicitly.

 

His claim is that he has found a way to defy the known laws regarding energy use and human biology. Not to mention avoiding becoming dried up by water vapour escaping in his breath.

 

Using my metric:

 

1) Testing this requires little besides restricting/controlling his access to food and water. The rotating glass door at a hotel should do.* Just block him in for a week. Three researchers to maintain constant observation, plus CCTV backup. Offset the costs by selling the footage for TV rights... a couple of grand. So very cheap. TOP MARKS

2) The general principle of starving/thirsting to death has been tested before. But the question here is whether someone possessed of unusual spiritual focus can defy those principles. I doubt this has been clinically tested. TOP MARKS

3) If correct then the implications for human existence are immense. It would revolutionise all forms of huamn exploration, and open the gateway to baseline research into the behaviour of energy and simple molecules such as water. TOP MARKS

 

In short I say we lock the old fellah in a fishtank and sit back with some popcorn.

 

 

 

 

*A specially constructed box may be superior as most hotels do not regard decomposing mystics to be an attraction to guests

[Orogun01]

Sorry. Didn't finish my post explicitly.

 

His claim is that he has found a way to defy the known laws regarding energy use and human biology. Not to mention avoiding becoming dried up by water vapour escaping in his breath.

 

Using my metric:

 

1) Testing this requires little besides restricting/controlling his access to food and water. The rotating glass door at a hotel should do.* Just block him in for a week. Three researchers to maintain constant observation, plus CCTV backup. Offset the costs by selling the footage for TV rights... a couple of grand. So very cheap. TOP MARKS

2) The general principle of starving/thirsting to death has been tested before. But the question here is whether someone possessed of unusual spiritual focus can defy those principles. I doubt this has been clinically tested. TOP MARKS

3) If correct then the implications for human existence are immense. It would revolutionise all forms of huamn exploration, and open the gateway to baseline research into the behaviour of energy and simple molecules such as water. TOP MARKS

 

In short I say we lock the old fellah in a fishtank and sit back with some popcorn.

 

 

 

 

*A specially constructed box may be superior as most hotels do not regard decomposing mystics to be an attraction to guests

Wait, you are going to put him in front of a motel? And miss the chance to put the box in front of David Blaine's hows with a big sign that reads: This is how is done, you phony!

 

Personally I don't think that he is violating the laws of biology and physic, merely circumventing them by taking his energy input from another source. My biggest concern is that there is only one test subject to get any definite (applicable) results. Plus, even with conclusive evidence there is bound to be a lot of skepticism among the scientific community.

Not that it would be a bad thing since there could be bias on part of the Indian scientist that are conducting the test.

[Tigranes]

How else are the scientists testing him, anyway, if not by observing him and denying him food/water? :/

[Orogun01]

How else are the scientists testing him, anyway, if not by observing him and denying him food/water? :/

I don't know for sure but I think that there isn't a control group.

[Rosbjerg]

How else are the scientists testing him, anyway, if not by observing him and denying him food/water? :/

 

Ultra scans and MRI scans of his stomach and intestines I would think. The ultra sc. will be interesting because then he can't hide if he has been eating any solid food. Then you could do bloodsamples etc to see what sugar is in his body.

[Walsingham]

I like any plan which involves taunting David Blaine - gitwizard.

 

Spotting food still in him wouldn't necessarily invalidate his claim to have not eaten. It would just mean he hasn't had a **** in the same period of time. Which, thinking that he lives in the orient is in many ways more astonishing. Every time I go orientwards I wind up like an inverted firework. And not in a good way.

[Walsingham]

Apparently someone decided to do (more or less) what I suggested. 4 days without food or water, apparently. Although the poor old fellah does look slightly banjoed.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/...thout-food.html

[Gorgon]

Well, that just proves he is within normal range. I saw this thing on discovery about two kids who were shipwrecked for 6 days without water, and lived, although barely. So I take it my earlier assertion was the correct one. Lock him in a room for 14 days though, and he's coming out dead.

[Orogun01]

Ascetics, anorexia as a religion.

[Walsingham]

Anorexia already is a religion, with vanity as the God, and the bloody fashion industry as the priesthood.