Whenever I see someone talk about materialism in such a manner first thing that comes to my mind is that a person is lacking a few IQ's or is ignorant or both. Of course that everything is matter or energy but I think your "dope" disabled you to be open and honest when it comes to understanding of things. We are not living under the glass bell. That's first.You learned that part from Peat because he can mentally contemplate that as a "material" evidence that it's like that. Oh Yes it's identical process but it just the the thing that we have no clue(and will never have) how to measure various SYNERGYSTIC influences/impacts from our environment and whole cosmos(synergy between nutrition, lifestyle, all environment,sun, stars, planets etc). So in "theory" yes everything is material but it's just the thing that synergystic circumstances and personal limitations from circumstances will never allow us to fragmentize all synergystic processes/impacts and interactions into single reactions and molecules. And when you can't do that you must call it "spiritual" or Devine (imposible to understand and comperhend) and that also is just one proof that ancients(traditions ) were much closer to Truth about Cosmos(Devine law or God) than today's Science(and Peat theory).Ray Peat A Thomas Kuhn Reader?
Most Scientists 'can't Replicate Studies By Their Peers'
My being a staunch materialist has little to do with Ray Peat. Your ideas about honesty are _quaint_ and _positively charming_. I'm not sure how much I trust someone who can't spell "divine," tho. Spiritualism is a sort of cutesy toy for laypeople who don't want to face the stark reality, which is material. So, you know, I can see why you don't, because you seem to think people are obligated to be "honest," whatever that means, which means that you have an investment in a supernatural thing, to wit, an obligation. Obligations are obviously neurological/biochemical structures; an obligation to be honest exists nowhere but in your nerves. And you seem _very convinced_ that this sort of structure is necessary, even tho it isn't. Materialism is not about "reactions" or "molecules," it does not even demand that there is some Grand Theory of Everything that we can use to predict everything. But materialism is certainly a check against hocus pocus, that is, incorporeal, or immaterial things, which are, to give you a list: obligations (be honest!), rights, wrongs, uses, inheritances, trusts, genera, species, good/evil spirits, souls, etc. But these things, of course, are material and tangible, because everything is: as I said, they exist in the nerves. Lewin covers this in his early text on pharmacology, in the section on mescaline, tho I think he goes a bit hog-wild, by saying there is a controversy as to whether these nerve-entities 'exist' in any sense, and that he decides they do. Of course, he then goes on to talk about Christianity, Ezekiel, iirc.
I came to this Peat fellow because I was reading about omega6 fats in general, and he seems to have a suggestion about them---I certainly know that until I went out of my way to get more than I was getting, I didn't have any chronic pain, and since I have had chronic pain! So, you know, that is my N=1 story! Being a materialist means that I am _fairly certain_ that there is some material cause for my pain, it is not that I have angered the Cosmos through my horrible dishonesty, etc. etc. Not that I am sure how being a materialist is dishonest; also, all of the people I know with high IQs are pretty good at lying, but, you know, YMMV. Obstinate obligation tends to be for those who are mediocre at best, in my experience.
Also, on the topic of the thread, people who won't be dishonest tend to be perceived as unsociable; if you're in a group setting, people do not want other people to be honest, they want them to be copacetic. People who are unfailingly honest tend to be thought of as rude, and while maybe it is not high quality, replicable research, I think it's most people's experience: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all, which is at least halfway to being dishonest.
As for ancient traditions, they were _really great_ because they acknowledges that it is 100% acceptable to own other people like cattle, amirite?