“Soluble vs insoluble” is one of the most enduring oversimplifications in nutrition. Two fibers in the same label bucket can do completely opposite things in your body.
Fiber has at least four properties that vary independently:
Solubility (does it dissolve in water?)
Viscosity (does it form a gel?)
Fermentability (do colon bacteria eat it?)
Physical structure (intact or particulate?) Each property drives a different outcome. The label binary collapses all four into one.
β-Glucan (oats, barley). Soluble, highly viscous, moderately fermented. Lowers LDL via bile acid sequestration. The FDA-approved oat health claim is built on this property.
Psyllium. Soluble, highly viscous, poorly fermented. Survives intact through the colon. Lowers LDL. Normalizes stool (works for both constipation and diarrhea).
Inulin / FOS (chicory, onions, garlic). Soluble but non-viscous. Highly fermentable. Bifidobacteria use it as substrate to produce SCFAs. Minimal LDL effect. Can bloat.
Resistant starch (cooked-cooled potato, green banana). Insoluble but highly fermentable. Produces butyrate, the primary fuel for colonocytes (~70% of their ATP).
Why the binary fails:
Inulin and psyllium are both labeled “soluble fiber.” Inulin ferments completely, produces SCFAs, has only minimal LDL effects. Psyllium passes through largely intact and lowers LDL via bile acid sequestration. They share one property and differ on every other one that matters. Practical translation. Match the fiber to the outcome:
LDL drop → viscous fibers (psyllium, β-glucan, raw guar gum)
Microbiome support → fermentable fibers (inulin, FOS, resistant starch)
Regular stools → either viscous gel-formers or coarse insoluble particles
The label binary doesn’t tell you which is which. The properties do.
…human language is a tool for communicating our thoughts, but is separate and distinct from thought itself. Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist at MIT and lead author of the paper laying out the empirical evidence for this claim, was kind enough to let me interview her. Her basic argument is that we know language must be separate from thought because (a) people who lose language ability can still think and reason, and (b) different parts of the brain activate when we engage in different types of thought, and often the “language part” remains idle when we’re thinking. In my view, this evidence deals a serious blow to the hopes of achieving “artificial general intelligence” through the scaling of large-language models since, after all, they are language tools (it’s in the name).
Enter now stage left Dr. Paul Cisek, a neuroscientist at the University of Montreal, to throw some gasoline on that fire. Cisek first came across my radar last year when a pithy observation he made about LLMs started making the rounds on social media. You can read his full comment here, but to summarize:
We know that humans in general can falsely impute intelligence and agency to complex events that take place in the world, as we’ve seen humans do this in the past when interacting with a chatbot such as ELIZA, or claiming the gods make volcanoes explode.
But although modern-day LLMs are complex, researchers know quite a bit about how they function, through pattern-matching and use of mathematical theories (among other things).
Thus, although the public may be inclined to attribute sentience and agency to LLMs, scientists should know better. Cisek: “We are like a bunch of professional magicians, who know where all of the little strings and compartments are, and who know how we just redirected the audience’s attention to slip the card in our pocket…but then we are standing around backstage wondering, ‘Maybe there really is magic?’”
There isn’t any magic. But a big challenge we face is that the companies that produce LLMs are willfully trying to convince us otherwise, and are working to take advantage of the human impulse to ascribe agency to these tools.
Cisek’s main claims as I understand them:
The simple model of the mind as an information processor that takes input and produces output is mistaken.
We should instead see minds as control systems that guide behavior as part of a continuous process, like a circuit.
Over hundreds of millions of years, biological evolution has expanded the range and depth of behaviors that our minds can control.
I have taken several excerpts from the essay above to provide a sense of the overall discussion. It’s an interesting read, not very long, not hard to follow. Well-worth reading. ABN
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
The ongoing debate surrounding the relationship between Christianity and Jewish scripture has grown increasingly complex over recent decades, with critics like Laurent Guyénot arguing that Christianity did not merely absorb Jewish texts but was, in its very essence, molded by them. This perspective suggests that the core tenets of Christianity—such as notions of divine election and messianic expectation—reflect a deeper Jewish influence that has shaped Western civilization. Guyénot posits that Christianity became the primary conduit through which Jewish metaphysical concepts were disseminated to Gentile cultures. This appropriation, he argues, led to a civilization that, while claiming to worship a universal God of love, effectively organized itself around Jewish messianic aspirations. Such claims, while provocative, warrant careful scrutiny, particularly in the context of differing interpretations within the Christian tradition itself.
Guyénot’s analysis operates on two levels: one historical and one theological. He outlines a historical trajectory wherein the Latin Church gradually compromised its original theological foundations, becoming increasingly intertwined with the Jewish tradition it initially sought to transcend. However, he also asserts that Christianity inherently bore the Jewish imprint from its inception. Critics argue that this latter claim lacks sufficient evidence, suggesting instead that the issues Guyénot raises are symptomatic of a divergence within Christianity itself, particularly between Western and Orthodox traditions. The Orthodox Church, they argue, has consistently maintained a distinct theological identity that diverges from Western Christianity’s post-Filioque developments, and it has preserved the apostolic inheritance against various historical assaults.
The crux of the disagreement lies in the differing interpretations of salvation and grace between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. While Orthodoxy emphasizes the transformative aspect of salvation as theosis—union with God through divine grace—Western traditions, particularly post-Filioque, have tended to frame salvation in more legalistic terms, akin to a change in legal status before God. This theological divergence has far-reaching implications, leading to fundamentally different understandings of the relationship between God and humanity. The Orthodox perspective maintains that the ultimate aim of Christian life is the restoration of communion with God, contrasting sharply with Western thought, which has often conceived salvation as a transactional relationship governed by legal categories.
Ultimately, the historical and theological complexities surrounding Christianity’s relationship with Judaism raise important questions about the nature of religious identity and the interpretation of scripture. While Guyénot’s thesis regarding the “Judaization” of Christianity has garnered attention, it is essential to recognize the diversity within Christian thought itself. The Orthodox tradition, with its emphasis on theosis and the uncreated divine life, offers a counter-narrative to the claims of inherent corruption within Christianity. The ongoing dialogue between these perspectives highlights not only the historical intersections between Christianity and Judaism but also the broader implications for understanding the evolution of religious thought in Western civilization. This discourse challenges adherents to critically engage with their theological foundations, ensuring that they are rooted in a coherent understanding of their faith that honors both tradition and scripture.
I am posting this because it explains Utah’s unique law on victims rights to a ‘speedy trial’; and also because Erika is not without suspicion, thus rendering her ineligible to invoke this law. Moreover, given the paucity of evidence against Tyler Robinson and the prosecution’s dilatory and incomplete disclosures of said evidence, it looks bad to speed this trial to a hasty conclusion. ABN
Full video:
__________
UPDATE: The full vid is worth watching because De Gregorio very reasonably suggests that Candace Owens file as a ‘close friend’ of the victim and request the trial not be speedy but deliberate, careful and fair. ABN
According to the latest 2026 reports from the National Cancer Institute (SEER) and the@AmericanCancer Society, since 2021, there has been a documented acceleration in #turbocancers, specifically colorectal, breast, and brain tumors, in adults under 50.
Millions believe this is proof positive of the the long-term immunological impact of mass mRNA #covidvaccination, yet the medical community refuses to do a proper investigation and/or end this disastrous campaign.
The timing of this surge is a massive red flag. We need transparency, independent safety data, and a relentless search for the truth.
Three Signs, or Trilakṣaṇa: All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity. (dharmas means ‘things’)
By basing meditation practice on the Three Signs, we can achieve nirvana.
This is the simplest or shortest way to describe Buddhism. It appears to also be the most ancient way to describe Buddhism. This basic description is historically attested to within approximately 100 years of the Buddha’s passing.
The Noble Eightfold Path is also an excellent way to describe and understand Buddhist practice. It is not historically attested until several centuries after the Buddha’s passing.
Buddhism is a living tradition which develops and responds to new information and societal differences. Something that is true and helpful, like the Noble Eightfold Path, is good Buddhism. Buddhism is not based on sacred texts but on mind-to-mind teaching and insight, both philosophical (the Three Signs) and experiential (samadhi/ nirvana).
The Three Signs include duhkha, which is often misleadingly translated as ‘suffering’, or worse, ‘lifelong suffering’. The much better translation of duhkha is ‘badly standing’ or ‘unstable’. With this in mind, the Four Noble Truths may be considered slightly misleading since the First Noble Truth is often called the Truth of Suffering. The Four Noble Truths are not attested historically until several centuries after the Buddha’s passing.
Nirvana and deep meditative states are something we experience.. There is no substitute for this experience. All of Buddhist practice is aimed at experiencing nirvana. Nirvana can be attained in this life. ABN
Bayesian belief or perspective in some respects possibly co-relates with FIML as both are able to update expectation based on accumulating data insight, particularly as a kind of Thomas Kuhnian or Zen insight. The more reductive method of scientific expectation cognizes realization, reality, as statistical summaries across repeated events. These two types correlate, in degrees, to Kantian Noumenon and phenomenon, and to his notion of categorical decisions.
Beginning with Cantor’s Uncountability and Power Set Theorems, then Godel’s two Incompleteness Theorems, and Tarski’s Undefinability of Truth Theorem, it is presently accepted proof in logic-mathematics circles that there is no earth-touching mudra Truth gesture within “Human, All too Human” ratiocination. Cf Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Both Gautama’s mudra and Jesus’ comparable “mudra” of Silence standing in the “What is truth?” Biblical scene witness to a Truth-claim of Mind re which human inquiry thereat Cantor, Godel, Tarski, et al. have satisfactorily shown to be coincidentally incomplete and therefore indefinite.
__________
I completely agree with paragraph one above. That is precisely what FIML does and it is in line with both ancient and modern philosophy and modern mathematics and science. As for paragraph two, I also agree with it but want to add that Buddhist practice provides a fundamental experience, which is typically lacking in Western philosophy. That experience is the experience of the samadhi states, including nirvana which is the purest of the samadhi states. If we use words to describe nirvana, we might say it is the experience of pure awareness of pure consciousness. It is the knowable and observable ‘going out’ of delusion, leaving the experiencer with nothing but pure awareness. This is an attainable state in this life, achievable through meditation. ABN
The conclusion to be drawn from the evidence about Pyrrho’s thought and practice is that he adopted a form of Early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, including its philosophical-religious and pragmatic elements, but he stripped it of its alien garb and reconstituted it as a new ‘Greek Buddhism’ for the Hellenistic world, which he presented in his own words to Timon and his other students.
Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 54-55). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
The earliest attested philosophical-religious system that is both historically datable and clearly recognizable as a form of Buddhism is Early Pyrrhonism, the teachings and practices of Pyrrho of Elis and Timon of Phlius, as shown in Chapter One. Its central features correspond exactly to some of the central features of the traditional putatively “early” form of Buddhism presented in Pali canonical texts.
However, the latter tradition of Buddhism also contains many elements—beliefs, institutions, devotional practices, and so on—which developed at the earliest in the Saka-Kushan period, three centuries after Pyrrho. They spread throughout the ancestors of the attested forms of Buddhism, creating Normative Buddhism. The elements that are attested only from approximately the Saka-Kushan period on—the exact time remains to be established—are far from trivial. They include the Saṃgha, the community of monks; the idea of the bhikṣu ‘monk’ per se, as well as of the bhikṣunī ‘nun’; the vihāra or monastery; the Vinaya, or Buddhist monastic code; worship of the Buddha;4 development of the idea of reincarnations of the Buddha, both human and godlike; abhidharma or “Buddhist scholasticism”; and many others. They are now considered to be essential elements of traditional Buddhism, yet there is no historically sound evidence that they existed at all5 (and some evidence that they did not yet exist) until long after the visit of Pyrrho in 330–325 BC and that of Megasthenes in 305–304 BC. The lateness of the development of devotion for the Buddha and Buddha incarnations, as well as reverence for the Buddha’s teachings (the Dharma) and the community of monks (the Saṃgha), means that the invention of the Triratna (‘Three Jewels’) formula is even later (perhaps as a “popular” substitute for the difficult Trilakṣaṇa1 ‘Three Characteristics’ formula, which is phonetically similar.
Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (pp. 61-62). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
The Buddha says, “All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity’.” ↩︎
To understand why CO₂ levels rise and fall over millennia, look at a glass of sparkling water.
When it’s cold, it stays fizzy. When it warms up, it goes flat as the CO₂ escapes into the air. The Earth’s oceans work exactly the same way. This is the principle of a solubility pump.
Cold water is a carbon sponge; warm water is a carbon chimney. Because the oceans hold 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere, even a tiny change in sea temperature causes a massive shift in atmospheric CO₂. This explains the time lag seen in ice core data.
Historically, temperature rises first, and CO₂ follows centuries later. Why? Because it takes a long time for the deep, cold thermal flywheel of the ocean to warm up enough to start releasing its stored carbon.
When the oceans finally warm—driven by those million-year Milankovitch cycles—they exhale CO₂. This natural outgassing is a primary driver of the atmospheric shifts we see in the geological record.
It is a biological and physical response to a warming world, not a trigger for a crisis.
The planet is essentially recycling carbon from its massive oceanic reservoir to its parched terrestrial landscapes. It’s a self-regulating system of incredible complexity and beauty.
American History Z, with a foreword by Jared Taylor, just broke Arktos Media’s record for first-day sales and is shaping up to become a bestseller. It seeks to answer a question older loyalists of the political establishment ask almost in desperation: What could possibly be turning young men so powerfully toward “right-wing radicalism?” The generation in question, popularly termed “Gen Z” or “the Zoomers,” is commonly defined as Americans born between 1996 and 2010. Joey Oliver, born 1998, is therefore a fairly senior member of the cohort whose political education he describes in his first work of nonfiction after an earlier novel called The Grey Lion.
This generation can just about remember George W. Bush’s America: already riddled with the corrupting influence of liberalism, but outwardly still a continuation of the America of their fathers. There were still plenty of what we politely call “nice neighborhoods” with “good schools” — places where whites were free to be ourselves and raise our children. But those children are Generation Z, now coming of age or already young adults, and they see clearly that the world they glimpsed early in life is gone. They cannot, therefore, simply approach life on the same terms as their parents, but will have to fight for things their parents took for granted.
…Mr. Oliver notes that, as with antiracism, feminism was initially supposed to be a reconciliation, but has become open resentment and seeks retribution:
Women now had it all — education, careers, contraception, no-fault divorce, affirmative action — you name it. But instead of contentment and success, we got the most unhappy female population in recorded history. We were doing everything we could for women, but it wasn’t enough. We tried to give them what they asked for, and they still hated us. So, after the endless efforts and concessions, lots of us young men gave up on trying to appease any of these people [meaning both women and non-whites]. We don’t have an obligation to be nice to people who hate us.
American Buddhist Net 