By "evidence of rational thinking" I have in mind that animals can learn and having learned appear to apply what they have learned, replicating the actions of their lesson learned to obtain a desired result. But a greater challenge to you is for an account of "problem solving" by animals - and that won't be easy. Perhaps a start would be a quick description of the process. — tim wood
Nature or nurture? Why not both? Instinct - nature - given, but any pet owner can recite occasions when the animal exhibited evidence of rational thinking. My guess is that the both killing and mistreatment of animals makes it a necessity to resist acknowledging their "personhood." — tim wood
In mathematics, a rational function is any function that can be defined by a rational fraction, which is an algebraic fraction such that both the numerator and the denominator are polynomials. The coefficients of the polynomials need not be rational numbers; they may be taken in any field K. In this case, one speaks of a rational function and a rational fraction over K. The values of the variables may be taken in any field L containing K. Then the domain of the function is the set of the values of the variables for which the denominator is not zero, and the codomain is L.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_function
Well, I do not know about 'better' but they are different forms of government and that is because they have a different constitutional system. The constitution has everything to do with the amount of power a president has and also which checks and balances are in place. Not just the constitutional document as such but the whole constitutional order. Now in the German constitutional order the president is mostly a ceremonial figurehead, an elder statesman. Currently it is Walther Steinmaier. He is not the head of government though, the head of government is the chancellor, similar to a prime minister, a title unknown in the US. It is precisely the constitution that creates such differences. Now the German constitution (Basic law) has been written just after the second world war, with the prime imperative being to prevent a power grab by any one person or party. Germany has coalition governments also something unknown in the US. That is because it does not have a 'winner takes all' constitutional system. The funny thing is the German basic law has been inspired by the constitutions of the allied nations, including the US.
See, things are never clear cut. Of course the US has taken over ideas from German education because Germany was arguable the most advanced country in the 19th century, However, the Germans must have learned a thing or two about bureaucracy from the French, bureau being a French word after all.
Currently I think serious flaws in the US constitutional system are appearing, but so are they in Europe. Constitutional systems and institutional designs can add to the resilience of a political system, but they can never make it endure. The US constitution is actually a logical one given the US history and the wish to curb the dominance of the most populous states, but it ends up being a system in which only a few votes from people in a few states really matter. The US system, especially the politicization of the supreme court, leads to a very partisan and competitive democracy. It has its good sides, people are connected to their politicians, but it also has its bad sides, a tendency for polarization.
As for the minimum wage question, I am no economist. I will therefore pass on that question. I think there might be options though, you could for instance bring top tier incomes down through taxation to name one... — Tobias
1 + 27 + 4,534 = I eat apple. — Patterner
Wine and chocolate! TV and popcorn! — Shawn
I might sing some of the old songs though, now and then. — unenlightened
You can always do art projects or read, if those things are fun and you're not consigned to one room. Recently discovered ice tie dye. Though there be so many things to do (or nothing at all) if I was the last person on earth. — Nils Loc
The idea of finding a library sounds good to me. I wonder if I would write though, without the expectation anyone would ever read it. That turns into a kind of philosophical question on the value of art, I think. — Baden
Then again since Big brother is around and about, one must become more paranoid. — Shawn
Did you see the episode where there was a guy that got isolated on an abandoned island, which was suddenly evacuated because of--as it turned out--unfounded fears of a tsunami? And somehow he was the only one who got left behind--can't remember why--but there is loads of food around and no issue of physical survival etc. He's just on his own and expects to be for a long time, the other inhabitants having permanently relocated. — Baden
What I mean is, you seem to equate the promise 'you will never need to vote again' on a par with the promise to raise minimum wages. The first comes down to the abolition of democracy the second may have good or bad economic consequences. They are not on the same level. You seem to present them as a dilemma, but they are not. One is an outright attack on the constitutional order the other a rather mundane policy proposal. The constitution has everything to do with the power of the president as the constitution circumscribe his or her power, that is what constitutions do, among other things. — Tobias
The president of the US has a lot more power institutionally speaking than say, the president of Germany. — Tobias
do you think they are on the same level of constitutionality? — Tobias
For most of the nineteenth century, the presidency was a weak institution. In unusual circumstances, a Jefferson, a Jackson, or a Lincoln might exercise extraordinary power, but most presidents held little influence over the congressional barons or provincial chieftains who actually steered the government. The president’s job was to execute policy, rarely to make it. Policy making was the responsibility of legislators, particularly the leaders of the House and Senate.
Today, the presidency has become the dominant force in national policy formation, not all domestic policy springs from the White House but none is made without the president’s involvement. And when it comes to foreign policy and, particularly security policy, there can be little doubt about presidential primacy. Of course, Congress retains the constitutional power to declare war, but the power has not been exercised in sixty-five years. During this period American military forces have been engaged in numerous conflicts all over the world—at the behest of the president....
while the power to persuade and other leadership abilities wax and wane with successive presidents, the power of the presidency has increased inexorably, perhaps growing more rapidly under the Roosevelts and Reagans and less so under the Fillmores and Carters of American politics but growing nonetheless.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2016/05/17/the-growth-of-presidential-power/
That is not a full explanation but I doubt anyone regular citizen can provide a more detailed explanation and it is citizen ignorance and complacy that gives the President so much power. We are not politically aware and Trump shares a lot with Hitler. If you want to question me, I will attempt to give answers.
What would make you say that? A fascist order is an order in which the state is held in supreme regard. The body politic is mass mobilized for the good of the state and individual rights are abolished in the name of some kind of social unity, it is generally a nationalist and militarist creed. — Tobias
I myself also do like the D'Hondt method which takes into account how much the party in general has won and how much the individual candidates have won. Of course this way has funny result that if in an electoral district there's a hugely popular candidate of one party, let's say Josef Stalin, and the party has also with him totally unknown or hated candidates that get just a few votes, they'll go in assisted by the result of the huge electoral winner. The method (called also the Jefferson method) isn't easy to understand itself (the calculation method) and it makes coalitions useful, but I think it works.
What I don't like are these political systems where ruling parties make it extremely hard for new parties to get seats. And (unfortunately) in the case of the US, the POTUS has this "Superman" image as if one person could make a huge change to the system. True political change starts actually from the communal level. — ssu
The American economy was actually good when Trump was president.
— L'éléphant — L'éléphant
[quot3= Relativist
..until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement).
I agree that many dogs are very smart. It's hard for us, an animal capable of abstracting and reflecting on our experiences, an ability which seems to be reliant on symbolic language, to understand animal intelligence on its own terms, and not to underestimate it. No doubt we have it there somewhere. — Janus
Of course I don't really know you and you should consider the following a matter of speculation on my part. If there is something that resonates with you it might be worthwhile to consider it more, if not I won't be offended if you tell me you can't relate to what I say. That said...
I don't think IQ works the way you think. We all have different constellations of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, with the consequence that learning some things may be harder or easier for us than for others. It seems plausible to me that math just doesn't come as easy for you as it does for some or even most. There is no failure on your part in that. Furthermore, it sound to me like the results of what you have learned are beautiful, and I hope you can be less hard on yourself. — wonderer1
The Language of Mathematics: Making the Invisible Visible
by Keith Devlin
"The great book of nature," said Galileo, "can be read only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics." In The Language of Mathematics, award-winning author Keith Devlin reveals the vital role mathematics plays in our eternal quest to understand who we are and the world we live in. More than just the study of numbers, mathematics provides us with the eyes to recognize and describe the hidden...
The Math Instinct: Why You're a Mathematical Genius (Along with Lobsters, Birds, Cats, and Dogs)
by Keith Devlin
There are two kinds of math: the hard kind and the easy kind. The easy kind, practiced by ants, shrimp, Welsh corgis -- and us -- is innate. What innate calculating skills do we humans have? Leaving aside built-in mathematics, such as the visual system, ordinary people do just fine when faced with mathematical tasks in the course of the day. Yet when they are confronted with the same tasks presented as "math," their accuracy often drops. But if we have innate mathematical ability, why do we have to teach math and why do most of us find it so hard to learn? Are there tricks or strategies that the ordinary person can do to improve mathematical ability? Can we improve our math skills by learning from dogs, cats, and other creatures that "do math"? The answer to each of these questions is a qualified yes. All these examples of animal math suggest that if we want to do better in the formal kind of math, we should see how it arises from natural mathematics. From NPR's "Math Guy" -- The Math Instinct will provide even the most number-phobic among us with confidence in our own mathematical abilities. This description may be from another edition of this product.
Anti-life discussions (personal or otherwise) will be merged below. Please join this discussion rather than starting any new threads on this theme. — Baden
I get that, but how does one differentiate between all the threads of argument dealing with the subject? — schopenhauer1
only you know if there is anyway to close the rifts in your own family. — universeness
But I think animals have a sense of number — Janus
Rational thought or the cognition, the apprehension of pattern, it is grounded in? Animals obviously recognize forms. Should we say they are rational? — Janus
.Rational behavior is used to describe a decision-making process that results in the optimal level of benefit, or alternatively, the maximum amount of utility. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/rational-behavior/#:~:text=What%20is%20Rational%20Behavior%3F,highest%20amount%20of%20personal%20satisfaction
Did you communicate this message with numbers? — Apustimelogist
How about you? Traveled much? — BC
I hope that you cope with the virus and rules. Part of the problem which I see is a lack of compassion for those who become unwell. It can come down to ideas of protecting others with lack of concern for those who are unwell with the virus.
On another level, the breakdown of the virus by those who experience it, like all forms of suffering, may be the apocalyptic breakdown for all kinds of personal transformation. — Jack Cummins
I would say you are explicitly incorrect, or are misusing hte term Fascism which is quite specific, and not just an indicator of violent governmental enforcement. — AmadeusD
Fascists have commonly sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism and relegate it to the state. However, fascism does support private property rights and the existence of a market economy and very wealthy individuals. Thus, fascist ideology included both pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements.
Economics of fascism - Wikipedia
That can be a very good thing. It can be what leads to an epiphany. — wonderer1
Bertrand Russell - The whole problem with the world is...
BrainyQuote
https://www.brainyquote.com › quotes › bertrand_russe...
Bertrand Russell Quotes ... The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
One way to avoid Covid is to shun other people, who are nothing but hell, according to J. P. Sartre. Fuck Sartre.
Kant asked, "What can I know? What ought I to do? What can I hope?"
There are clear positive answers to the first two questions, which we can at least hope is the case. — BC
Kant is certainly among the five most influential philosophers in history. A curious case, this Kant. They say that travel broadens the mind, but Kant never in his whole life traveled more than ten miles from his home city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad).
Kant 200 Years On | Issue 49 - Philosophy Now
When I read your outpost I missed seeing the bit about you having Covid, so hope that you get well soon.
Sometimes, after all the rules and regulations, it as if Covid is ignored almost. It is still around, alongside so many issues which were brought on by the pandemic/lockdown, which have been the trigger for so much psychological and societal breakdown. — Jack Cummins
Interesting idea. Logicians might be able to do this, but math people use words and symbols. I have never heard of a math research paper written in math symbols only. Thinking in mathematical terms is common amongst my colleagues, but even there one talks to oneself with words. — jgill
Sounds like Early Wittgenstein's picture theory of language.
What if we did not use words, but communicated with math?
— Athena
How would that work, basically? — Lionino
If you start with the question, "what is information?" the way to go is to survey existing uses of the word. Another approach would be to do what Shannon and other researchers did, which is to start with a specific problem, something that matters, and then see whether a concept with a family resemblance to "information" fits. But starting with the answer, before you even understand the question, is backwards. — SophistiCat
What is ranked choice voting?
RCV is a process that allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference. Consider a race where four candidates – A, B, C, and D – are running for a single seat such as Governor. In an election utilizing RCV, voters simply rank the candidates 1-4, with the candidate ranked as “1” being the voter’s highest preference for Governor. If a candidate is the first choice of more than half the voters, that candidate wins the election. But if no candidate gets the majority of the vote, the candidate with the least amount of support is eliminated, the second choice support for that eliminated candidate are redistributed, and this process continues until a candidate wins more than half of the vote.
For example, let’s say a voter prefers, in ranked order, candidate B, C, D, and then A. But, no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the first round, and candidate B receives the least first choice support. Candidate B is eliminated, and support for candidate B are distributed to the voter’s second choice, which in this case is candidate C. This process repeats until a candidate has a majority of the vote.
https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIh-zMpvaIiAMVug6tBh0H6DBYEAAYASAAEgJI6PD_BwE — DemocracyU Accountability