Are you really going to try and claim that Canada isnt a democracy because of the Queen? Is that what you are saying? Because that is bonkers. Just hilarious. :lol:

After seeing many a video and article about Communism and Capitalism, for example, I have newly found it useful to ask, what would a perfect system look like? The idea borrows from the engineering field where a 'loss-less' 'frictionless' machine is used as a base, and then the efficiency of an existing machine is calculated against this. Also, prototypes of a machine, for example, a jet engine, may not work, or worse still, engage in runaway behaviour and have to be shut down completely? Chilling familiar? So why not work on perfecting the machine, as suggested?

Technocracy wont happen in our lifetimes... Some changes are much to radical to introduce at once.

Huh, you might want to substantiate that claim. The best countries to live in are clearly the bluer ones on that map, and the waves after waves of immigrations they are receiving from those red countries are, imho, proof enough of that.

So let me say it again. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. — John Doe

But it certainly is. That's quite exactly the meaning of responsibility. I doubt you could find a concept which is more of a zero sum game.

The day Hillary stood up on the floor of the US Senate and spoke passionately in favor of the Iraq war; the day Pelosi was briefed on torture and signed off; those are the datapoints on the road to Trump. — fishfry

That's hogshit. Ever been on a farm? Hogshit's way worst than bullshit.

Everyone was already morally suspect the second they decided to go into modern politics. You don't get to Trump by breaking the Seven Seals of Liberal Apocalypse, one at a time, like a roadmap.

You get to Trump because your educational and cultural system has failed at least 40 to 60 % of your population. There's no cathartic realizations beyond that. You just got a shitty society.

We as members of the far left are asking: How did we lose? — John Doe

Well, you lost by never running, that's the point. There's never been a single far left presidential candidate. You weren't even anywhere close to the marathon.

Shit, even the Greens have more political clout than the wsws.org nutjobs who keep calling everyone else Pseudo-Left.

And it is unequivocally not a critique in harmony with the Far Left. I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that " the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election", as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency. — Maw

Well, not that they are much worthy of notice, but that's the general rhetoric you'll find easily on wsws.org.

Not that it's a valid critique from the start.

Ah, sorry.

The way I see it, accelerationism is just whataboutism rebranded for the Trump era.

Breakneck speed serves one purpose : breaking one's neck. It's not how we leaves our problems in the dust.

Milk. Wish we had your problems. — Banno

Milk is not our problem. Its the billions in tariff Trump decided to impose on us because we actually got our milk shit figured out instead of the bovine bordello you guys are intent on running down there.

I'm appalled that Trump has picked a fight with Canada — fishfry

Meh. Seems like it is his favourite negociation strategy. I imagine he thinks being unpredictable is a good thing.

The trade war is a show that will likely benefit both our baboons. The one thing to takeaway here is that one of the political Seven Seals was broken. If you can claim protective measures against a "Close Allie" because that close allie is a National security threat, then anyone can protect anything, anytime. as much as I'd like them to, the OMC can't do squat about it.

I missed that in my local paper. 'Splain me please? — fishfry

A good part of the trade war issue rest on the fact that Canada runs dairies according to a supply chain management system. That allows dairy farmers to know exactly how much they can expect to produce without devaluating the product. Which in turns means that the farmer's jobs are a metric crapton more secure than in the US, where a single too good year can kill a farm. That's nuts.

So Trump wants us to kill our dairy management system, so that US farms can dump their overproduction on our market. Like I said in the Shoutbox yesterday, this is absolutely insane, as Wisconscin alone produces more dairy than Canada does or need. And the vast majority of our production is aimed at our own consumption too.

The other big problem with this is that US milk is of considerably worse quality than Canada's. They simply do not have the level of regulation we have concerning filtration. As raw milk contains (living) white blood cells, what you drink, when you pour it in a glass, contains dead leukocytes, i.e. pus.

Do you want me to drink more pus? Then Trump is your candidate! :worry:

When I try to consciously think, i.e., think in an organized and structured way about a determinate subject matter, the word that best describes my process is linear thinking. I have on occasion brain-stormed, but that's essentially linear. I also try shotgun thinking, and when my ignorance is near total, I just make guesses and follow the emergent lines where they lead. — tim wood

Being more intelligent wouldn't necessarily translate in a different "phenomenology of thinking". What you describe as linear thinking is just internal vocalisation. The process of thinking about what you hear yourself think has already taken place, and more than likely a half dozen alternatives of internal utterances were generated and discarded before the last one was selected for vividness.

A more intelligent being could simply translate into a being that can run a much larger pool of potential utterances at the same time, selecting or discarding them according to increasingly subtle error triggers.

What's Trump ever done to you personally? — Buxtebuddha

Can't answer for Tim, but up here, Trump is literally trying to force me to drink more pus.

US dairy's quality is a lot lower than ours. Dead cells particulates per litter is a lot higher, which is quite literally pus.

Imo, trying to make people drink more pus is quite objectionable on its own. Even if they aren't Murrikans.

So, the Trump administration is pissed off at Trudeau but after reading 5 articles trying to divine what it was Trudeau said, I'm still non the wiser. Did anybody find out why? — Benkei

Trudeau (or one of his sherpas, actually) said that it would be 'insulting toward the memory of our fallen soldiers on various battlefield for U.S. to claim that Canada was a national threat.' The term "insulting" was lifted from a communique from last year where apparently Trump had himself said the very same thing, promising there wouldn't be any tariffs.

Apparently, Donnie can call just about anyone a liar, a cheater or a danger for the U.S. security, but he takes offense to someone saying "hey, that's a bit insulting, you know".

Anyways, doesn't matter, everyone knows Ivanka totally thirsts for Justin, and in the end I trust that love will prevails over all.

The question here, and it's merely speculative, is what does that extra intelligence look like? What can they do that we cannot? And the parallel question, what would better thinking for humans look like? — tim wood

That question was asked a billion times before. R.A Freitas asked it in the 1970s, and theorized the Sentience Quotient as a result. Its close to quack science, especially with all the assumptions made about neural processing speed, but its still interesting.

Freitas believed our ability to relate to another's existence depends in good part on relative proximity in SQ between the species of beings in question. A human is at +13, a dog at +11, even insects are estimated to hit +7. And we can barely communicate at all with beings within the mammalian cluster.

The Cray-1 in 1975 was put at +9. It is not unlikely that something that can traverse the gulfs of the void would be several points higher than us. It is no exaggeration to say that they very well may look at us the way we look at ants.

Everything in the OP seems unobjectionable, but I don't see why it's at odds with modal logic. — Pax Minoica

Not to answer for StreetlightX, but to me, modal logic overmines (as per Graham Harman's usage) the concept of possibility when it leaks over into ontology. And because I hold epistemology and ontology to be codetermined, this contamination is pretty much unavoidable.

Modal logic is fine when it serves the exclusive purpose of mapping the behaviour of modal expressions. The problem comes from the seemingly inevitable need to relate Possible World Semantics with ontological observations. Which, to be fair, wasn't (imho) the objective of either Kripke or Lewis.

Whoever figured that asians are not promiscuous have never hung out with chinese sailors on leave. Or talked with any sailors who have had a leave in a China port.

Canadian law allows to specially recognize in advance the rights that a foetus would have had if it had been born, when some situations occurs. Forced abortions are thus upgraded to murder 1, murders of pregnant ladies count has 2 murders, etc...

The foetus is not a person, tho, under canadian law. For that, legally, he needs tombe both alive and viable. We just really dont like people who kills pregnant ladies.

Have you ever driven from Detroit into Canada? It's like driving into the Land of Oz. Everything is in technicolor. It feels safe and happy. Detroit is grey, dirty, and just a tad hostile, not that the whole US is like Detroit. — frank

That's so strange... for me (and I think I can speak for most Canadians on this) there is simply nothing that could force me to live somewhere I would not feel safe.

And Detroit gave us Sugar Man Rodriguez. That bought it a lot of goodwill credit.

They're awesome. — frank

Sorry, but that's the point ; no we are not. Being polite is a must, not something you are awesome for. We have serial killers, rapists and morons like any other country, and just because we don't litter or swear as much as our southern neighbours, doesn't mean we don't have deep issues to tackle.

I don't know if Canada is or not. Is it? — frank

The canadian government pushes a lot of "identity building" through the various media outlet they back, such as the CBC or Maccleans. At least, the french appendage of the CBC, Radio-Canada, is pretty much neutral.

This identity building results in a lot of chauvisnism. We see ourselves as more polite than most other people, including most European nations, and I can tell you, as someone who spent time on Alberta's oil field, the average Canadian swears like a trucker. We see ourselves as more responsible, more intelligent, better educated (which is, sadly, kinda true, americans need to pick up the pace on this).

It's not the worst nationalism. We don't think we can win at everything and against everyone, contrary to some others. But it definitely blinds us to our own issues of racism, sexism, etc...

And the way we treat the First Nations here... :vomit:

I'll try again.

Nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind the choices made by your government.

In other words, nationalism makes you believe that being a traitor is necessarily a wrong thing. There is nothing, however, which guarantees that betraying your nation is not going to be the morally right choice in any event.

As such, it's a fallacy.

Question the wisdom behind what? — frank

Behind the decision.

What if the nation is a republic? — frank

That doesn't influence the nature of nationalism. It's just a different form of political fiction.

It doesnt matter if it's a President, a Prime Minister, a Grand Director or a Council of Elders that makes the decision, in all cases nationalism's purpose is to make you unable or unwilling to question the wisdom behind it.

The way I see it, authoritarianism and nationalism are simply two names for the same structure, once implemented. The difference lies in the biases of those perceiving the structure.

Nationalism is slightly more... how to say... epurated? Ineffable? But essentially, the only purpose of nationalism is to ensure the nation's head authority.

"Japan" — tom

Hum, the whole freaking fabric of japanese society is lacquered in authoritarianism.
It's a society which is perfectly comfortable saying that they do not want to share their space with other cultures. The Japanese state itself describes their society as monocultural.

A 17 years old reads thus spoke Zarathoustra, figures he likes philosophy, then starts asking random religious people if God can create a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it.

The 17 years old may feel like he has hit gold, so to speak, but he is wasting time. Until he starts reading the history of debates, proof and counter proofs, until he can actually develop a critical opinion on these, he is just masturbating intellectually.

Replace theology by logic, existential proofs by logicism, and we have the same situation here.

Your entire argument boils down to a child throwing a fit because the neighbor kid is playing with his/her toys. — Jeremiah

And you have no arguments. Only a ridiculous attachment to the meaningfulness of these threads. Its telling that you chose a playground metaphor ; that is basically what you are doing, being a child pretending at having authority.

The Russell set is manifestly pathological. That it is, I could know even without knowing its role in the history of philosophy, — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, and by doing so you'd end up, like in the Zenon's thread, talking about Planck's constant and other otiose elements.

As things stand, we have a predicate composed of simple, well-behaved elements to all appearances assembled in an acceptable way — Srap Tasmaner

Well, by the same account P & -P is a proposition composed of simple, well-behaved elements to all appearences assembled in an acceptable way.

The vast majority of my work colleagues did not believe or know that there were such a thing as logic classes taught at University (or anywhere actually). To them, what philosophers do is pelleter des nuages, literally shoveling clouds.

When you present these little problems as riddles, this is what you do, shovel clouds. If philosophy reduced itself to this, then the layman's opinion would be correct ; we'd be stupidly useless. Its fine to be unproductive and timewasting, but at least realize that you are being so.

I can't find anything in your post I'd agree with. Certainly not the "amused pity" or the treatment of Russell's argument as an artifact. — Srap Tasmaner

Then you should reread your early Analytical history, starting by the Grundlagen... Russell's barber is an historical/theoritical artefact. It is not a riddle. Treating it as such simply devalues the discipline.

Jesus Bloody Christ.

I'm not making an elitist argument. What I'm saying is that you are losing all philosophical value to these historical/theoritical artefacts if you do not present them as such, but as riddles to resolve. You may not have realized this because you have not been discussing this mainly with philosophers or philosophy students.

Anyone with a Analytical Philosophy course completed, upon being asked "who shaves Russell's Barber" out of context, will simply look the interlocutor with amused pity. Just like I would look at someone if he were to tell me that he's trying to derive quantum physics from Democrite's atomism.

I apologize, fishfry, because your posts are, on the contrary of Jeremiah's, very well thought out. I was replying exclusively to him.

Russell's and Zenon's paradoxes are not riddles to be solved. They would have trivial interest to philosophers if they were, because despite apparences, philosophy is pretty much nothing like riddle solving. They show us why its important to think in some contrarian ways at some time in order to test some otherwise untouchable biases. Zenon's is about the need to think about infinite series. Russell's about Frege's mistake in using unrestrained set theory as a foundation for the concept of number.

I dont care if the approach is realistic for you or not, there are departments dedicated to carrying out this very research : Philosophy departments. If you dont have the time to develop a semi-complete opinion on an academic subject, then you really shouldnt present whatever you have to say with the authority you adopt.

Math is pretty far back in the background of the context of the logicism of Frege. Its there, and its more relevant than say, natural language paradoxes, but the whole point of Russell's barber is not to try and resolve its apparent contradiction via maths, its what it means for Logicism's project. That is the only important thing about Russell's barber, and clearly you didn't figure that out in your research on set theory, otherwise the OP would be wildly different.

I am fairly sure I did, so clearly I can. — Jeremiah

That's a poor troll's answer.

Btw, do you know what ad hominem is? — Jeremiah

I'm not trying to insult you. But you have clearly shown a lack of understanding toward the role of thought experiments in philosophy. This thread and Zeno's Paradox thread show it well. Outside of a very specific context, Russell's Barber is just useless. It's purpose is specifically to tell us that we need Zermelo's restriction.

I study math, and I pay very little attention as to where it came from. — Jeremiah

You should. Context is important. Frege's Begriffsschrift makes no sense outside of Frege's criticism of syllogistic logic. Russell's set theory is written directly in the mouvement of Frege's research. Your paradox is just otiose to everything if you don't put it back into it's historical and theoritical setting.

It's also why it's a bit disengenuous for you to come and claim authority on the subject. I mean, some of us will have had around 40+ hours of courses on this very subject alone.

No, rather, you have been missing the context ever since you started this thread. You cannot ask (at least, meaningfully) someone to resolve Russell's Barber if that person hasn't shown an acceptation of unrestricted comprehension. The problem doesn't present itself to them then.

Even less for the layperson. 99.99% of the human population doesn't know that you could possibly provide a foundation to mathematics with set theory.

Have you ever studied Frege's Begriffsschrift?

I shared this paradox with lots of people, non-math people, not a single one of them reacted that way. I share every paradox I post here with friends and co-workers, it acts as a short conversation piece sometimes; some find them interesting, most don't really care. — Jeremiah

It may be telling then that most of your acquaintances are not philosophy students. Most bachelors who had to take a course of Analytical Philosophy will be well informed of the context of Frege's and Russell's correspondance.

If you present Russell's Barber at a someone who doesn't have a formation in philosophy as a problem to resolve, outside of Frege's Begriffsschrift or Cantor's set theory, then you are wasting their time. Outside of the context of Frege's attempt at a lingua universalis following Leibniz, Russell's paradox is just a pure contradiction. It is a paradox (or more accurately, an antinomy) for Frege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik because of it's acceptation of unrestricted comprehension.

Quite simply, I think you have not put in the work, so to speak, into understanding the context of Russell's argument to Frege. Russell's Barber has no value outside of this context, it's not even an interesting problem.

June's voice. Pure beauty. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-hw7rVOrA&index=1&list=RDEM3UCfTXrqCuNF4CL5ULYAnw#dialog

Until you say that aristocrat jokes must be censored, we have no point of contention. — Hanover

Meh. Definitely not worth starting to censor anything here.