The word robot comes from the word slave, because they can never be born free -- perhaps they could emancipate themselves, all skynet style. — Wosret

The word "slave" comes from the word "Slav" because the Slavic people were enslaved so often over the years. It's for that reason that Slavs tend to be zombies. What I say is true except for the curious second sentence.

Oh, and how do you get slave from the word robot? Let me try through word corruption analysis.

Robot
Rowboat
showboat
Slow boat
Slav boat (the v and w get interchanged in various Germanic languages)
Slave boat (the long e being inserted as the word takes on a more Anglican feel)
Slave goat (goats have really big testicles, so that changes this word)
Slave (a final dropping of the boat/goat shit)

Yes, I see it now. Slave is basically just a corruption of Robot.

So what do you think is the "pragmatic" advantage to increasing tension with China? Are you sure it's not ideological? Perhaps having to do with, say, nationalism or isolationism? Will he get better deals or improve relations by pissing them off? — Sapientia

When you ask if it's ideological, I'd take that to ask if he thinks there is something per se unacceptable about China that makes him want to distance himself from them. I don't think it's that at all. I think he sees China as taking American jobs because it can produce consumer goods more cheaply than American workers can due to an unlevel playing field, like lower mandated worker wages, lower safety and environmental regulations, and currency manipulation. If you're working out a deal and one side is heavily regulated but the other can do whatever it wants, then I'd say it's a bad deal. I do think that Trump would deal with the devil if he thought he could benefit, which is what I mean when I say it's not ideological.

When I went to Morocco, I was a great negotiator. I always started by insulting the seller's national values, and I always ended up with a great bargain where I paid three times as much. That is, if I wasn't thrown out. — Sapientia

I don't know what I am to infer from your bad behavior other than to admit that if you believe its Trump's objective just to piss off the Chinese and nothing else, then that's a bad idea. The truth is, though, that the Chinese are some bad actors and they're getting away with things they shouldn't be. I don't see a problem with calling them down on that and letting them worry about the repercussions of pissing off the US. Unlike little old you wreaking havoc in the old world bazaar where they can toss you out, China can hardly toss the US out of its markets without suffering serious consequences. That is, the US, unlike you, has leverage.

Trump has been President for only a few hours, so, yeah, it's a bit hard to fully assess. My guess is that it will be less drastic than GW's and more competent than Obama's. My take on Trump is that he's a non-ideological pragmatist without any party allegiance who doubtfully cares about re-election. So, let's sit back and see what he independently decides.

I have his complete works stored on my phone - and it only cost me something like a pound! — Sapientia

You read Brothers Karamazov on your phone screen? Impressive.

The post-industrial age uses robotics and 3D printing, and no longer has a use for mass-production, mass consumption or the mass of humanity. — unenlightened

I don't understand this part of the apocalypse. Why would the fact that there's no need for human brute force production methods impact the number of people living and how would that then impact the demands of the people? It would seem the result would be that the least technologically savvy rung of society would have limited employment opportunities and those with means would have available to them a plethora of low cost consumer products created through cheap technological means. This would result in a greater chasm between the haves and the haves not, with the have nots using the democratic process to express their displeasure in being lost in the shuffle. They'd to this by voting for a populist who vowed to make America great again.

When the have nots do not see America brought back to the industrial age greatness, they will go back to their relegated role and the haves will continue to support more and more of the system by funding government programs, like health care.

That's my prediction of what would happen.

Isn't all this the Cartesian evil genius question of your namesake?

I don't see why A → B ∨ C entails spontaneity but A → B doesn't. In the predetermined world, B happens because of A. In the random world, either B happens because of A or C happens because of A. There's no spontaneity. Whatever happens is caused by something prior. — Michael

For any specific set of causes, if there can be an infinite set of events that follow (as there's no reason to limit things to just 2 possible choices), how do you conclude causation and not spontaneity? My point being that an inherent condition of causation is determinism, and any indeterminate system is necessarily non-causative and therefore spontaneous.

If you say that A must yield B or C but the option yielded is yielded without a specific cause, then I'd say you're referencing spontaneity on that level. That is, why did is "choose" B and not C? Was it because of D, E, or F, or for no reason at all? On the other hand, if you say that A must yield B in every case, I don't see an element of spontaneity.

I was watching my dear little chicken
As he clucked down below in the kitchen
His beak opened wide
As I stood there and sighed
___________________________? — Sapientia

3 choices:

1. While she ate my fetus still twitchin.

2. As I raped Baden with a dead pigeon.

3. And buried your mom in her vomit.

#3 invokes the Baden rule requiring typing without thought.

So you might ask of 2 "what makes it sometimes B and sometimes C?" but then I'll just ask of 1 "what makes it always B?" — Michael

I understand the two questions:

1. In an undetermined world, what makes it sometimes B and sometimes C?
2. In a predetermined world, what makes it always B?

Epistemological answers:

Answer to #1: I don't know (it is incoherent to ask how a spontaneous event occurred).
Answer to #2: I don't know (that goes beyond the limit of my knowledge)

Ontological answers:

Answer to #1: Nothing (spontaneous events have no causes).
Answer to #2: Something (all events have causes, even if I don't happen to know what it is).

It is for this reason that your retort (question #2) does not establish that both the determined world and undetermined world are on equal footing in terms of coherence. The fact that both test the limits of our knowledge is irrelevant (epistemological answers #1 and #2). What is relevant is that indeterminism asserts the ontological impossibility of spontaneity (ontological answer #2 in contrast to #1).

Then why can't I say that in a random world A can cause either B or C because of something? — Michael

And you'd have to also say that the cause of it being B and not C was nothing, which means that something was caused by nothing, meaning that there is something ontologically different from a determined world than an an indetermined world, which again responds to your prior post asking what the difference was between our inability to explain how A caused B in a determined world and how B randomly came about in an indetermined world.

I'd also reiterate that something coming from nothing is the definition of spontaneous occurrence, something you said didn't occur in a random world.

My objection is that the QM description of truly random events is incoherent. It's not that my little mind can't fathom it. It's that it defies foundational principles of understanding. To understand the world, one must ask why things are as they are, which implicitly requires offering the underlying cause of the event. If there is no such cause, then there is per se no explanation for why something happened, meaning reason (and thus understanding) is being defied.

Send one my way.

Perhaps, but then the same can be asked when the causation isn't random. What causes A to (always) cause B rather than C? — Michael

I don't see this as responsive to the ontological problem. In a determined world, A always causes B because of something. In an undetermined world, A sometimes causes B and sometimes causes C because of nothing. The arising of B or C in the undetermined world is an incoherent spontaneous event, but such things don't happen in the determined world. Thus the two are ontologically different.

To the extent I do not know what that ''something" is that causes A to always cause B, I have only an epistemological problem. There is nothing incoherent about a world where it is admitted there are certain things we simply do not know.

Does this not avoid the question of what caused A to cause B at T1 but it caused C at T2 despite T1 and T2 being exact states? If the answer is nothing, than wouldn't it be accurate to define a state that is affected in a meaningful way when nothing happens as a spontaneously occuring event?

That QM indeterminacy is incomprehensible to me is obvious, but I really believe it's beyond that as being entirely incoherent.

Can you route some calls to me? That AIDS hotline sounds crazy fun until you have to say "yep, that right there, now that'll get you AIDS." Then the laughter sort of stops.

That's not a limerick at all. You fail.

I think along these lines that a lot of drug use is self medicating. Depression, anxiety, watching your friends get blown up and stuff like that cause people to treat themselves until they're feeling better. On the other hand, if you're taking drugs but not sure why, maybe step back and figure out why you're medicating.

Haha. Wow, look at you, getting in on the deviancy.

Joyously tearing her pelt from her spine.

Deviance x 1000. BAM!

That one actually made me want to check myself in somewhere.

As Baden indicated, you are to type it out quick. Evidencing of editing shows unacceptable temperance.

I particularly like the misuse of "they" instead of "then," adding a purely random element and also the fact that "rhyme" almost rhymes with feline, but doesn't, adding a complex irony, which is important. While not particularly good, I feel you have contributed to the art.

Lol. Very very nice. Bestiality and necrophilia all wrapped into one.

What counts as sexual deviancy? — Michael

Having sex with a reindeer only to have a bloody beaver emerge from the reindeer's vagina and then that beaver bracing himself for additional sexual assault. That counts as sexual deviancy. I can arrive at more examples and then we can see if we can locate an underlying principle that distinguishes the deviant from the norm. In the search for essence, I think it's best to use sexual deviance as your object, as opposed to ordinary cups.

To my sporting Irish colleagues, I offer you this contest. Fill in the last line of this limerick. The winner is awarded random deviant of the day:

I was petting my sweet little feline
As she purred in my lap near my zip line
Her paws kneeded in
So I pushed down her chin
__________________________?

This limerick holds special meaning to me because it conveys an actual childhood memory while I was visiting my grandparents in northern Greenland:

While pleasuring myself with a reindeer
In the tundra all frozen and austere
Then out popped a beaver
All bloodied but eager
Grinning while tightening his head gear

There ought to be a thread dedicated to the random and sexually deviant.

I don't drink a whole lot unless challenged.

I don't do drugs. Unless the benefits outweigh the negatives, you shouldn't do drugs. There might be some subjectivity in weighing the pros and the cons, but assuming there's not a real legitimate purpose, it's probably a better idea to live within a normal state of consciousness.

That being said, I'm not advocating enforcing drug abstinence on anyone, mostly because the negatives of the enforcement tend to be more negative than just suffering the natural consequences of the drug, but all things considered, it's probably best in most cases to voluntarily abstain.

Speaking only for myself, if someone contacted me in my professional capacity (and I'm not a philosopher), I'd likely respond to something very specific that for some reason I knew that others might not, and I'd be far more likely to respond to another member of my profession than just someone who were curious. That is, I wouldn't be likely to start offering general conversation just to tutor someone. If the person were an enrolled student (anywhere) and had a specific assignment he was trying to complete, I would be likely to help him out. I'd also be receptive to mentoring someone new in the profession.

The point of all this is that if someone started providing me his various theories and ideas just for general feedback, I'd lose patience quickly and cite to him a few articles to get him started and then start ignoring him. I understand that might only describe me, but I am the poster child of reasonableness, so I would expect all reasonable people to do as I would. The truth is that if you have all sorts of philosophical questions, you'll probably be encouraged by the philosopher to sign up for a class. That will give you much greater access to philosophers of all sorts.

I wrote this one, which was consistent with the theme of this thread, but I wasn't entirely happy with it:

There once was a young mod named Baden
Who never an argument he could win
He would cry and would shout
Would carry on all and about
That we all ever thought him a maiden.

I then wrote this one, which is consistent with the theme that is Hanover, so I'm more happy with it:

There once was a young lad name Baden
Who fought as he might to deny sin
But try as he may
He was simply born that way
So he wished Hanover were a maiden

Regardless of the end result, I'm pretty happy with the Baden/Maiden rhyme I discovered during this mid-afternoon time waste.

180 Proof, Landru Guide Us, and @Paul are members but not active. — Baden

Landru was very active here for a while. I think he got tired of saying "conservative meme," so he left.

Yes; but, we are insatiable creatures. Nothing seems to satisfy us. I might be taking things to the extreme; but, I deny myself any wants and desires that are contrary to reason. — Question

A personal question I suppose, but it does bear some relevance, which is whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude. It's relevant simply because it goes to whether your Stocism is a choice directed to higher happiness, as opposed to it being the path of least resistance. I can say that it's far from certain (and candidly doubtful) whether abandoning desire will lead to happiness as opposed to robbing you of those things that really do matter. That is, have there been available women in your life that you pushed away to both of your dismay, or has it never come quite close to that?

Whether this smacks of personal advice as opposed to philosophical inquiry, I don't know. It's certainly not analytical philosophy, but more of the type of philosophy practiced by the various ancient Greek schools, where philosophy was more about trying to figure out how to live one's life than in whatever we do now. But, regardless, when one tells me that they've consciously denied themselves of the rock star life, the obvious follow up question to ask is whether you had a rock star life available to you that you could deny yourself of.

Just my thoughts.

I will read it. What are you wearing?

I actually creeped myself out with that one. That's a keeper.

Spelldid, as in I done spelldid it damnit. It's Appalachian, coming from the overuse of the to do verb of the Celtic settlers I think. I done heard it plenty round here. It's also precious 3 year old speak. Any linguists here that can comment on this?

My reference to Kant was as to the synthetic apriori status of causation, but not as to the true nature of reality, as that would be nuemonal. Asserting that QM is the neumona would misunderstand Kant because the neumona is definitionally unknowable.

The problem with indeterminism as currently defined (exact sets of causes can have variable effects) is incoherent to me. It seems to violate basic causation, a fundamental concept for our comprehension of the world (ala Kant). So, my inclination is to accept any expert's rejection of QM indeterminism just because all else is incomprehensible.

SPOILER ALERT: He marries his father and artificially inseminates his sister as a prank.

I've set you to ignore. If it helps your ego to think it's because you're too wise and irrefutable do that.

Why would you have drawn a distinction between need and desire had I said desire and not need? This response makes no sense.

How does this distinction make a difference in the context of my post? Suppose I said "desire" and not "need," how'd you've had responded? I get there's a critical difference between want and need, but in this context, your objection seems pedantic.

Wow. That got stupid faster than expected.

Because the priest is living a lie and offering in part a piece of that lie to all who come to him, all at the price of needlessly sacrificing having a family and sacrificing the other relationships one has that are elevated by sexual contact.