could probably make something similar by putting the same formic acid and flour mixture into a cotton candy spinner

For me, a language which is effective at conveying logic is the most I could ask for.

A paraconsistent system where where individuals can have different universes of discourse would have no analytic statements. Instead, I think you are looking for Jaskowski's discursive logic, which formulated in modal logic.

have you read quine's two dogmas? It's pretty relevant. With respect to the bear goo problem, the confusion seems to arise due to expecting an analytic statement. Whether the bear goo is lo cribe depends on facts about the world (how disintegrated the corpse is, for example) i.e. the universe of discourse, as well as linguistic facts (the sense meaning of lo cribe). The question of xorlo seems to come down to the metaphysical position on the distinction.

A final thing i would point out, is that there is a good reason sets aren't the exact formulation of lojban: see russel's paradox. This is a problem which intuitionistic logic "solves", which sees usage in proof assistants like coq and lean. The univalent foundations project is a very cool rabbit hole. Category theory/categorical logic is also a way of formalizing outside of sets.

ha! so they can laugh at my sphincter while i'm unaware? Not likely.

not hugely into it i just had some math friends in college, so i'm also a dumb nerd. the more general your model, the weaker it will be. If we allow contradictory statements, what goal have we even accomplished. I'll read your other post later and reply any thoughts :)

this that

Haha why whenever there's something related to formalization the category theory people show up.

Bicategories are pretty weak so i think the necessary to do a lot of big ass proofs to reconcile taxonomic definitions will quickly become a pain point (see OOP spaghetti). And of course some things must be unprovable due to godel incompleteness. If you don't need to be formal, i guess its nice to have a provable grammar like that, but its not technically any more correct.

Unambiguous grammar is stilll cool.

any chatters live in a place where they can commute by ice skates? if so how does it feel to toe loop dab on the haters

the lojban book looks pretty cool and i respect the attempt even if I don't think the goal of a perfectly unambiguous language is possible. Really unfortunate that the community doesn't make it seem worth the effort to learn

america has a long and storied history of ignoring the advice of their ambassadors. Not that the stupidity is a defence, but it is believable to me that natos were surprised.

Subjects who got six hours of sleep a night for two weeks straight functioned as poorly as those who were forced to stay awake for two days straight.

this is literally not what the study finds. chatgpt generated article. For digit-symbol-substitution, by the end of the study (14 days) they find taht the 6 hour group, when corrected at the rate of learning of the 8 hour group, performed as bad as the ONE night sleep deprived group. Note that this is entangling sleep's effect on learning with its direct effect on cognitive performance. Also. for the serial-addition-substitution, after 14 days it was the 4 hour of sleep group that was as bad as the 1 night deprived group. maybe they only looked at the reflex-response task, where the 6 hour group barly scrapes into the 2-day-deprived group's margin of error.

Here is the article to see for yourself: https://pomf2.lain.la/f/a09sl5sp.pdf. Note that when they say "linear" they mean "not saturating" as opposed to a strictly linear effect.

ALSO ALSO with respect to the subjective sleepiness thing, using the power model and then saying that its due to nonlinearity of the observation variable, but then looking at the subjective sleepiness score which is visually VERY SIMILAR and saying "yep thats linear for the 0hr group and saturating for 4hr,6hr" doesn't pass muster.

reminds me of the sovereign citizen kooks

kids today don't know about the scary suction cup on crts

nice posting. thank you.

bread is a gel! when it gets stale, its because the water evaporates and causes the starch to crystallize! heating the bread melts the crystals, and adding some water helps re-gelling as well.

spamming the president like the intelligence in 2fort

the grounded theory is to avoid restricting yourself to a theory of advertising. The theories of advertising are all just tools, of which we should use the most effective one for a given task. But must also be wary of cynically selling communism as an identity or a brand. communism must be revolutionary, and that will ultimately differentiate it from a commodity to be advertised.

Good agitprop is no-holds-barred. it can inhabit the entire cultural field. limiting yourself to cheap psychological tricks and refusing to use them are both mistakes.

Revolutionary agitprop or revolutionary thought or lines of flight are rare, but it should be seeked, recognized, leveraged. Recall the situationists' revival of the utopian tradition not as an example to follow, but an example of the required jouissance.

the first that comes to mind is chernyshevsky's "what is to be done"

it's just a rational-agent repackaging of emotional association, as you say. Even worse, it is a fundamentally spectaclist perspective.

"The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images."

For certain types of agitprop (e.g. motivating people for an action) i think advertising psychology can be effective, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of theorizing all our agitprop with this lens.

welcome back herobrine

i think they mean infinite induction, which is rejected by ultrafinitists and the like - although i think that's more of a fringe position than the other big philosophy stuff