I wasn't so much disagreeing with the implied statement as I was criticizing your expression. You didn't add anything to the discussion I didn't read better in other comments. Point in case the focus is on the ratio of brainsize at birth and later, in relation to body size I might add.
no shittin, a full sized human can't bear a full sized human. I think that's the same for all animals, though and doesn't explain the difference, unless you implied dolphins carry their unborn for way longer. which they don't. (I'll have to check)
that's relative. the further your frame of reference expands, the older the image of earth observable at the border of the frame of reference is, so a few billion light years out, even earth would look boring. And even if that still implied 'mostly-void', I will take it compared to 'pretty much devoid'.
You answered to a strawman argument, supporting it even. But its a loosing game for you, because you submit to a dogmatized interpretation that is easy to refute saying nothing would be as black and white as implied by the argument. Parent pretty much implied media presented someone as a strawman, you concord that someone was exemplary for the reduction of an idea, seemingly with the intent to discuss it further, while the parent pretty much suggested to be tired of the discussion.
And you weasel out of the discussion when you suddenly shift to put human nature as a whole into question, just to then shift the goal post to an indefinite plurality of 'humans'.
This is all hyperbole. From the egoistic perspective, live is just a figment of imagination, there is no other, just ego. This might sound like a matter of semantics, but it reminds me of this: Virtue is mainly a question of how to treat oneself.
In my humble opinion, Nihilism is the philosophical base for everything else. "fall back on" would be suitable. Point in case, the empty set is the initial element of set theory, as zero is the first element of the natural numbers, the identity element of addition. Without it, there is no equallity, no half order (and thus no order?). Horror Vacuui is very real though (fear of emptiness), the zero set is isomorphic to the one-structure, the terminal structure of structural homomorphism (if I remember correctly) as in the null element of multiplication.
> epsilon set N, s.t. N is the minimal set s.t. an element zero exists in N and there exists a function succ in the set N -> N,
this is recursive, which is just how a function like succ works (with a bit more work, anyway) but the definition rather concernes a polymorph function.
You do work in a particular encoding when you mention yero, at least. and succ^x is also an encoding (where x is zero or succ^y, where y is zero or ...).
> the Foundations of Mathematics should give a precise definition of what a mathematical statement is and what a mathematical proof is.
I don't see a difference between precise definition and mathematical statement in this context, so your question would be paradox. Is it wrong to ask though? I think higher logic is supposed to deal with these types of paradoxes. Your question, if taken rhetorical, is a statement about mathematical statements, a metapher.
The in/-completeness theorems show that higher order logics like that are either inconsistent or incomplete. So a theory like you are asking for, is ab ever growing set of proofs that can't fit in a single book. Taken with a sense of philosophy in mind, a book can only be an introduction to think further.
I was glad to read at least the intro to Univalent foundations mentioned in a previous comment. Russels paradox defies a set of all sets in first order logic. FOL is otherwise said to be complete, by the way, a fact often overlooked when talking about the related liars paradox. I was pleasently surprised to read that they just avoid the paradox by embedding theory into theory (Universes, tbh). To me that means we can't draw elemens from an arch-set, but have to build facts from the ground up.
You sound like a lawyer and I don't mean that as a compliment. But alright, if this isn't a flaw, then breaking it wasn't an achievement, certainly quantum computation wouldn't be an achievement - or rather foreseeing and avoiding the consequences isn't, which is easier because of different time scales, but still.
What if - I like this inversion of expression - what if it really is a war on drugs, not against? After all, amphetamin was popularized under the Nazis, e.g. The CIA supplied cocain to vietnamese contras. Soldiers are fully dependent on supplies so who knows what's mixed into the food as preservatives. But it's unlikely the hard liner conservatives are just fooling everyone, rather it could be an ironic slogan indeed to reinforce the idea of sheer will. But still the only thing more important to conservatives is the economy and the cold war was an economic war (in hindsight?). Point in case, the CIA experimented with LSD. The population is seen as human capital and perhapsits everyones own responsibility to abstain. Quite naturally, controled selection is able to increase fitness overall, e.g. in terms of fitness and apprehension. (edit: So there is incentive for control and thus also to fight against uncontroled supply.)
It's called dope, after all - if you don't know what I mean I invite you to learn what doping in semiconductor fabrication means.
I'm highly paranoid, probably, but you know what they say, being delusional doesn't imply noone were pursuing ulterior motives. And actually I would find that kind of covered honesty hidden in plain sight quite sympathetic in terms of plausible deniability. I mean it's only fair because ashamed drug users try the same, being too ashamed to admit, but too proud to lie - and too sophisticated until not.
> besides making them feel guilty and pathetic when they relapse
I don't see how a bit of time to reflect and cope in a careful environment is strictly a bad thing. You reinforce a stereotype that is not helpful to those to whom it really applies, because it implies a inevitability, which hopefully, is not actual.
because of renewed formular? I'm no pharmacist nor chemist, but my impression with drugs is that the popular names and actual composition are two different things. All they need is approval and if it helps relieve or avoid addiction I'm sure a minor change in, I don't know, isomery or adding a tiny functional extra tail to a big molecule doesn't preclude approval.