Metamath has done quite a bit or primary research into this. Theorems often have a slightly non-standard, but more general form.

One can ask things like, "what is the equivalent of functional programming?" Or, "is there global state?" It's a perspective on reverse mathematics.

Recently, I remembered a short SF story that I read back in high school and tracked it down, "Why I Left Harry's All-Night Hamburgers".

I find new wave SF to be really playful and enjoyable to read, not to mention that the experimentation with funky themes and formatting adds a lot of novelty. The above Japanese title is a nice collection of late era stories in this genre.

That can, also, undoubtedly be a powerful tool in overcoming cultural brainwashing of sorts, but I think the knife cuts both ways. The "authentic self" term makes it sound ontologically real and suggests that there is merit in searching for "finding oneself" when no ther motivating need exists. That road leads to pathological definition writing, IMHO.

TIL my brain is an Olympic gymnast.

The incentive structures are clearly there. I think the case of intentional manufacture is definitely weaker, requiring the conjunction of more weakly-supported events.

That said, I think the former might be more common these days, so arguably the rules might just differ between written an spoken English in some dialects.

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_and_Jot

[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicod's_axiom

[0]:https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB07948947

Please show us actual evidence from 1900 or earlier that human flight will be practical or even possible.

Birds are neither real evidence nor real at all[1].

[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_Aren't_Real

In 1900, there was no evidence of the kind you seek that lighter-than-air flight was possible. Good thing some people were foolish enough to ignore you then. Why you would cordon yourself off from the kind of reasoning that predicts legitimately new things, rather than just scaled up versions of the present?

Not to put too fine a point on it, every example you give is based in concrete evidence, some try to think through the implications farther than others, resulting in larger or smaller error bars around the conclusions.

Let me back up though. Maybe in the collaborative human effort here, we are better off having very concrete thinkers, like you seem to be, along with abstract thinkers like the "divorced-from-reality" Rationalists. Personally, I wish we had a stronger culture of collaboration and assuming good-faith and competence in our peers. In my experience, blanket dismissals are very rarely grounded in reality and mostly grounded in fears.

I have seen private correspondence between one mathematician working on Navier-Stokes and OpenAI that makes it sound like OpenAI deliberately scooped this Navier-Stokes result. The alleged correspondence also contained veiled threats if said mathematician went public.

In particular, the BLS in the US reports 6 different measures of unemployment, U-1 through U-6, each measuring something slightly different. LISEP adds another to the bunch; this is their operationalization:

> LISEP’s definition of “True” employment or unemployment accepts the U-3 rate for comparison purposes, but modifies it by adopting two important stipulations. The first stipulation deals with the workweek. To be employed for the purposes of LISEP’s true employment concept, an individual must either have a full-time job (35+ hours per week) or have a part-time job but no desire to be full-time (e.g., students). The second stipulation is that an individual must earn at least $20,000 annually. This annual wage is adjusted for inflation, calculated in January 2020 dollars.

The white paper gives their rationale for the $20,000 cutoff. The "true" name here is marketing, which might honestly be the right play here. My gut says that we already have better statistics than TRU but they smell dry and academic. I would be interested to hear more about their political strategy and philosophy.

FWIW, the institute looks to be chaired by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Ludwig.

An unknowable name isn't a very good name, IMHO.

Wait. Is this true? f(x) = x^2 is convex but f(x+d) = f(x) + O(x). Are you saying that human risk assessment is estimated to be exponential?

The interesting observation is this: when we judge something to have subjective experience, we are invoking moral intuitions. There is no objective measure we can perform (yet?), and it's not even clear whether such a measure makes sense. You may disagree, but this is still a central debate in serious discussion on "hard" consciousness.

I would say that your entire argument just begs the question by implicitly assuming consciousness to have real, independent existence. Does elan vital (the substance that provides the motive force of life) have mass? You're saying that this is a theorem; the article questions the entire premise.

> The cogito argument is about thinking, not qualia.

Bizzare. "If it rains, the car will get wet." Is this a statement, as you say, about rain? Descarte tries to prove the existence of his God and states an axiom. The atecedent "I think" seems to be about thinking, whatever that may mean, and "I am" makes an existential claim based on subjective experience... or something. Who knows why Descarte believed cogito ergo sum to be solid starting ground.

IMHO, your rebuttal here reads as little more than a complaint that something disagrees with your personal assumptions about the world.

You clearly got me riled up just as much as you did against OP, so thanks for the elan vital!