Have people noticed just how international this has become? — ssu

Yeah. I mean, some of the most key players seem to have been exonerated in some sense, but there are all these weird names popping up like some you've noted. Obviously, being in the files doesn't, in and of itself, mean there was untoward or criminal behaviour but good god. It almost makes you a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

Could you explain what you were getting at? It's pretty obscure, and in Law "might" is not relevant. Actually being good at investigation and research is key.

Jews are not to be slaves because of their special relationship with God, and in the New Testament, Christians are supposed to be good slaves because that honors God. — Athena

Those are two different situations.

Slaves from Africa did not have tribes to help them escape slavery. — Athena

Well, they did. They just weren't able to help because largely those slaves were taken by conquest. Similarly with Islam.

of the word of God that made slavery okay and opposed human rights for which the US stands. — Athena

The word of God was also the motivator for ending slavery (generally. Not in all cases). Interesting, huh?

Maybe all truth is subjective, because it does not exist outside of a subject (the human mind). — Questioner

Oh, sure. The Moon is cheese in my mind.

Trying to repurpose words for one's own benefit is a pretty common tactic among the manipulative. — Philosophim

Yep.
Given that I have family, a boss (two actually) and employees under me - give me a thought experiment? I can't see where you want this to go. I work in law. We do not have "our truths".

Fair enough if this is where you land. It seems clear, based on this response, that you're not adequately taking into account what Chalmers is saying there. It is a physicalist account which leaves no gaps. If its unsatisfying to you, make the arguments.

Otherwise, I agree.

I am saying a physical base that contains nothing of the phenomenal kind - so, no consciousness - cannot intelligibly generate anything that has it. — Clarendon

Yep, didn't miss this. I think you're either missing that it's been dealt with, or you are not being honest about reading Chalmers.

If consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, your question is superfluous. If you do not grasp this, you will continue to ask that question and you will never get an answer in Chalmer's terms.

If you wanted my position, you could ask for it.

I suggest as soon as you come up against an objection you move back into "well, so what.. I believe what I believe" — AmadeusD

He said it feels... — Questioner

has absolutely nothing to do with truth. — AmadeusD

That is how he feels. There is no reason whatsoever to start calling people's feelings truth. If my feelings contradict yours, we cannot have two truths. It is incoherent.

Hey man, as always, you're free to think and feel as you wish.

You continually assume no one but you (or those who agree with you) have the correct information. Suffice to say, that is not how I would approach anything. All good :)

That does not articulate the problem I am raising. He is saying what I said he says - that consciousness is expalnatorily superflous. — Clarendon

No. That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that all our work is ahead of us.

I don't quite think this is going to go anywhere. Take care.

You showed me evidence of why it's not a genocide. I can't do a lot. When all of your posts are nothing but venom, who can?

He never explicitly states it, after all. — Clarendon

I just gave you a direct quote where he does.

He'd have us believe that the 'hard' problem of consciousness is one to do with its apparent explanatory superfluity - we don't hve to posit conscious states to explain why our bodies do what they do. — Clarendon

This misunderstands Chalmers to a degree I have to ask - have you read any?

Uh no, just let them live, or just ignore them. — Questioner

Definitely, for some people, this is what they need to be told (although, we obviously don't see hte issue hte same way generally - so, I'll give a response below with this carved off)

Well, that would be fine if there weren't numerous situations we are asked to participate in "their truth" to the point of laws changing to accommodate it, in a way which is dishonest along any axis you care to take (in NZ, for instance, your sex changes on your birth certificate once through the court process).

Certainly do not make arbitrary rules that they are no longer allowed to serve in the US military. — Questioner

It's not arbitrary by any stretch. But I too wouldn't have done that. I did say you could ignore the trans issue - clearly not one we're getting clarity within.

I have no hesitancy in saying they are truths. — Questioner

Clearly. But they are not. They are things you think. Probably, wishfully. And that's fine. But they're simply not truths of any kind, other than it's true you think those things. If it turns out your mother hates you, what are you doing to do? Be wrong?

I suggest as soon as you come up against an objection you move back into "well, so what.. I believe what I believe". And that's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with truth.

And if someone begins their litany by saying "I am a transgender..."

That is their truth. And it has absolutely nothing to do with you. — Questioner

Then why did they tell me.... This is incoherent. Like the concept of "my truth".

The problem with this is that it is difficult to determine what is going on in videos — Punshhh

It's not. I think this is a way to avoid looking at the videos and go off a fairly vague, unactionable take on what's going on. Again, we're discussing exactly this right now - not the facts themselves. Presume those videos exist, and it seems odd that you would immediately try to move away from it instead of facing it, to me. Some good faith would go a long way on both sides.

I follow accounts on X where such videos are posted continuously day and night. Backed up by armies of followers with a political disposition to the right. Insisting all sorts of things. Usually twisting truths and spreading disinformation, hate and prejudice. Also a lot of these people are making a living posting content which their followers want to see. Giving them an incentive to continue and grow their base. So I don’t see any point going down the route of viewing this material and coming to views or opinions about real places and communities. — Punshhh

I am very sorry to say - this is an explanation of your biases, and refusals. It is not a justification for such. You don't like the source, even though you're following them, so you wont view the material or come to views about it. That is strange, but it illustrates exactly why each side refuses the reality they are most likely living in.

and I’m not seeing it — Punshhh

Ok, that's fair as a step one**. If I were able to provide say thirty videos in different boroughs which were fairly obviously what they purported to be (let's be real - video tends to be what it is presented as because it is video, no description), I think you'd rationally need to change your view on the matter. But it seems you're not willing rather than not able. Can you maybe say something about that directly? Am i just getting that wrong from you?

when something that fits the bill becomes known by the above crowd — Punshhh

In general, I can see and understand and accept this concern. But ... **You said posted day and night. I have a feeling you're maybe shying from the implications of that because, fair enough, the people posting them are either bigots or at least super stupid.
But If they're being posted day and night on these Twitter feeds, one assumes there are a lot of them and it is not some vanishingly small sliver of that population. I'm not even suggesting it isn't - I'm suggesting this is exactly the unhelpful approach causing the division and "misinformation" claims we constantly here - no one has the same information, let alone "mis" information (which has been shown to be a political term anyway, so take it with salt). Why not just accept the claim, investigate, take the evidence that comes and sort through it? This is roughly what I did over about 10 years to come to such an, i assume, middling place, based on the responses I get.

Now when I look to the left of the political spectrum, the groups are far fewer in number and are usually bickering on about how Jeremy Corbyn was smeared by the establishment. Or fighting amongst themselves. — Punshhh

I think this may be a bit sanguine. I agree, they fight among themselves a lot and I agree named groups are probably less prevalent, although I have to assume there would be plenty the 'other side' would put under this somewhat undesirable label which you wouldn't - and vice verse. But I think its slightly self-serving to conclude this when you're not actively following up claims from the otherside. If there is some kind of a bias or cover up or whatever, you'll need to look deeper.

Can you define an unhinged leftist and describe the sort of behaviour you’re describing. Or provide a link (I don’t want it on DM, it needs to be here, this is what the thread is about). — Punshhh

Well, no, it doesn't need to be here. Umpteen links from Instagram is not something I am prepared to slot into a thread on TRP and I have upwards of 50 links to these videos. I am happy to DM and contextualize the clips (e.g "There's a dickhead talking after 20 seconds in this one, ignore - just watch the clip itself")

I would describe anyone unhinged as someone who reacts emotionally, without rational reflection and in this specific area, I required a double-down before I'll use that label. The types of behaviours include:

Property damage;
Attacking random people based on how they look;
Fascistic neighbourhood check points;
Attacking law enforcement;
Refusing normal lawful commands (as opposed to super-situation specific ones which could be deemed inappropriate)
Attacking anyone who looks like law enforcement;
Defending violence/encouraging violence;
Blocking traffic;
Blocking/damaging businesses;
Traffic violations of other kinds;
Defending intrusions on privacy;
Disowning family or friends;
Doxxing;
Invading other's constitutionally respected spaces in order to non-peacefully protest;
Making claims like Nazi, rapist, pedophile, thief, murderer etc.. etc.. without any reasonable basis for doing so.

I would say the vast, vast majority of situations in which these unfold (in the climate of political/social unrest lets say) are monopolized by the left and are far, far, far more pernicious than what I certainly see, and propose to accept I don't see, on the right. They are more pernicious because there's an ecosystem in place to stop you knowing about it. That's not a conspiracy, it's just how algorithms work. Although, throwing in what seems to be unwillingness will make that worse.

I’m not seeing a two sides situation here. Are you assuming I’m on the left side? Or that there is a left right thing going on in the community? — Punshhh

I assume you are bent to the left. Everything you do and say says this to me. There's nothing moderate or right wing about anything I've seen you say. If that's wrong, sure.

This is clearly a left-right paradigm issue as best I can tell. The ecosystems which insulate us are essentially along party lines.

Very good post.

For he means by this just that he thinks consciousness is not reducible to any other arrangement of states. But that's true of size and shape — Clarendon

I think perhaps confusing types of property like size and shape with consciousness might be causing some issues here...

This is why Chalmers would rather we see the 'hard' problem as consisting of the pseudo problems I mentioned in the OP and not foreground the real problem - for the real problem is one that defeats him. — Clarendon

I think you're perhaps just finding a target to knock down with this. It seems that he's fairly squarely given you an answer (albeit, not a solution - but to expect this in order to charge someone with failing is rich particularly among philosophers). In 1995 he was squarely across this issue:

"Even when we have explained the performance of every cognitive and behavioral function in the vicinity of experience, the question of why there is experience at all remains unanswered.”

and then further on, he's given other comments:

"The emergence of consciousness from the physical is not like the emergence of liquidity from molecules. It is not conceptually entailed by the physical facts."

He is rejecting strong emergence by complexity alone here. So far, so good.

His solution is that consciousness is a fundamental property of the building blocks. It's wholly unsupported, but has complete explanatory power. If things are conscious, then they are. We are not drawn to further questions until we're given some reason to suggest otherwise... In the case of the strong materialist, there are already questions on the table. For someone like Chalmers, or even Jaegwon Kim, those questions arise but can be answered in novel ways. That's all that's going on, is that Chalmers hit a dead-end and was/is looking for cracks in the pavement. I think, anyway.

I note three ad hominems and only one response that tries to address what I've said.

Cool.

genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such: — Mikie

I suggest you read things carefully and thoroughly before lauching into such ad hominems. I also suggest, strongly, you do not attempt to comment on nuanced legal situations.

Their subjective truth is only about themselves. — Questioner

Then, with all due respect, why does anyone else have to care, acknowledge or acquiesce to it? I suggest it is because

those who object to anyone living by their own truth do so because they want those people to live by the objector’s own subjective truth — Questioner

is what's going on - this is simply a vicious cycle.

The objectors just want to stop the cycle and appeal to something other than your subjective claims about yourself and reality to get on with interpersonal issues. You can ignore hte trans issue and apply to anything.

If "my truth" is that I have 20/20 vision, then that is a truth for me and me alone. You do not get to tell me I am wrong.

But I am wrong. Because there is no such thing as "my truth". There are your opinions and feelings.

Just to counter the one-sided propaganda: the protesters’ did indeed have a defense, including that the security used excessive force and that video footage went “missing.” Actually perfectly defensible, to anyone who has the slightest clue about law.

The selective outrage is telling. Notice that it’s not directed at genocide, — Mikie

So, legally, we have the facts: there is video evidence of their breaking and entering (already committing a crime), assaulting officers prior to anything remotely close to 'excessive' force being used multiple times including causing grievous bodily harm with a weapon. This, also in the commission of a terror offense definitionally although that's clearly bunk.
They did not use a self-defense defense in the main - only one individual did it doesn't look like that was hte successful argument. They questioned intent. It would be good to see the jury question trail, it seems to me it was not appreciated that the charge does not require intent... They broke and entered wielding weapons of offense (legal terms here).
You'll also note they were not acquitted of several other offenses. This one only had to do with aggravated burglary. Questioning gaps in evidence is not amenable to an acquittal, but a mistrial. Or it should be have a pre-trial issue.

The logic you're using would mean all that is incredibly excessively self defense in the commission of a crime. So, as a legal professional, these facts make the defence of "self defence" unavailable other than as "excessive" self defense which cannot lead to an acquittal anyway. A female officer had had back broken by being struck with a sledgehammer on the ground. I don't quite think you're in position to talk about 'selective outrage'.

The retrial is going to be interesting.

genocide — Mikie

Gaza pop increased from 1.4mil to 2.3 mil from 2009-2023. The difference between immediately prior to October 7 and now is about 200,000, maybe a nudge more. You are not a serious person if you call this a genocide without laughing at Israel for failing.

no expense has been spared in policing, prosecuting and imprisoning them without trial

We're actually currently discussing the trial. Could you clarify how this is relevant, directly rather than being in the same vein? I presume this must refer to something else.

Actually perfectly defensible, to anyone who has the slightest clue about law. — Mikie

I guess I would just say that as a legal professional I understand these things quite well. Perhaps others do not...

More importantly: The recent trend which matters to those of us who are alive.

My project was to find a genuine hard problem and distinguish it from pseudo problems. — Clarendon

I think you did, but I also think "pseudo" problem is probably wrong. We can't really explain consciousness, or describe its instantiation.

Note: Chalmers believes in the strong emergence of consciousness. So he doesn't seem to recognize the problem I am raising. — Clarendon

I am under the impression he has dealt to this exact issue? I don't recall what his response is at present though. I've not read his last couple.

I understand IR to be saying that DR is wrong. — Ludwig V

I can't quite understand what hte prior line has (directly) to do with this question, but to answer it: Yeah. It is not tenable in the face of the empirical facts, and the word 'direct'. It is inapt, and those objects aren't constituent of experience. So, it's wrong to say "DR" is right in any sense. The 'vulgar' ways of talking are heuristic/pragmatic/easier to parse but that doesn't make them right. They can just be wrong, but helpful.

the vulgar stance takes account of things that the theoretical stance neglects - that we are not simply observers in the world but agents in it and part of it. I'm not sure how, exactly, that plays into the argument, but I am sure it should be important to philosophy. — Ludwig V

I quite disagree. In what way does "I see an apple" incorporate any version of our role in the generation of our experience? I agree it's important, and to me, plays directly into reading the empirical story as-it-is and finding no issues with it, on IR lines.

being there makes a difference, in a sort of "what it is like to be a bat" way. — Ludwig V

This can be true but I'm unsure it touches the fundamental issue in question: If this is the case, the actual function viz a viz light-eye-experience doesn't change but there is definitely something to be said for first-person phenomenal quality with no delay in the stream of consciousness. I'll have to think some more on that though; thank you!

why are we so bothered about it? — Ludwig V

It makes no difference to our experience. It makes a difference in this conversation. What I was saying there is simply that it doesn't make me uncomfortable that I am not literally seeing the sun when I 'look' at it.

I don't understand what it would mean to say that first-person experience is constituted by anything, never mind objects in the world and the reification of mental images seems to me to be a mistake. — Ludwig V

Then what would experience be of? If the objects you witness aren't part of your experience, and yet there are also no images in your mind that could be part of your experiences, where are you getting them? Here, image can simply mean "the image" of hte apple when you cast your eyes to it; it need not be mediated. I just want some story that doens't require an apple to be in your experience.

For me, the scientific story is a partial analysis of how perception (DR) works. So what do you think we can appeal to? — Ludwig V

I don't even understand how that could be the case. To me, it's a full analysis of what actually happens when we cast our eyes about us. I refuse, on grounds of consistency/incoherence, to call it Direct. There's nothing further needed imo. It's just slightly uncomfortable for those of us who require that the apple is in our eye.

It seems to me undeniable (and it's almost in explicit terms) from this Banno post, that "Direct Realism" is just a wussy position to take in the face of reality. Sure, it may not 'mean much' in the grander scale of our lives, but its theoretically the exact same "Ahh, I don't like that, but I can't argue with it so I'll call it something else".

You believe you can’t see the real world. Bizarre. — NOS4A2

I repeat the quote you've quoted I guess. Your repetition doesn't seem so bizarre now. I don't think you've actually understood the question, so I'll just leave it here.

hey want to tack on restrictions to how ICE can use body camera footage, according to a letter sent to Republican leadership on Wednesday night.

Not seeing the issue??

Are you ever going to make claims you can back up? This one would be actionable if you had any public personality.

This isn't happening and, as elsewhere, I challenge all the alarmists to come back in 24 months time.

Frankly, entertainment. — praxis

So, trolling. So be it. I did suggest similar things time and time again. This is unbecoming.

That's a fact. — praxis

You are forgetting the entirety of hte exchange and reverting back to default mode where you were proved factually wrong, lied about something you said you didn't say and then plum ignored both instances while continuing to press on his use of abomination in a specific context in which he was not giving his personal view. This is quite simple: You are not being serious anymore.

It is apparently extremely significant when conversing with me though. — praxis

You kept talking about it. This is twilight zone stuff buddy. You're lying about what can be plainly read in the thread you're in.

taking mature conversations seriously and usually find immature conversations trivial. — praxis

You may think this, but your behaviour throughout this thread has been to avoid admitting where you were wrong, poisoning wells, making sweeping claims about other people's minds, refusing to look at long-form examples of hte person you're lambasting and - it seems - actively trolling.

You don't come across like you're a very serious person, and it's not all that surprising. It would have just been easier for you to say you found this entertaining a long time ago, rather than being blatantly dishonest for pages.

I see Mikie found his way back into following me around, and it's not surprising. Both yourself and Questioner seem to have his same pattern of posting.

1. *decree, apologies. Danto.
2. Yeah, that's fine. You could add by human hands, rather than machine, but I'm unsure this would do a lot to my definition. I think an iconic highway sign is a painting if it was done by human hands, rather than input as a concept and farted out by a machine.

That sounds like the OP says - a stopped on rational discourse and a retreat from a potentially fruitful discussion. To me.

It seems wrong to use 'truth' for what has been outlined there. "my opinion" did just fine prior to 2016. It is misleading to usurp the word 'truth' into that complex.

Stereotyping is acting on statistical analysis in a situation where a case-by-case analysis is warranted. Its profiling taken to a point of essentially bigotry (soft, and low-level, but still).

They are helpful for categorizing people and things, but they are not helpful for interacting with them. Profiling does a bit better.

War is unavoidable and theories that want it removed from human existence are full of ignorance, historical whitewashing and claims that undermine both the archaeological record and our animal nature.

War is awful. It is tragic. It is disgusting. It is essentially the worst of humanity.

Both of those things seem true. However, having a military-industrial complex of the kind seen in the USA specifically is not the above. It is hawking. Even pre-emptive strikes are justifiable. But having a system of military obsession which detriments things like education, housing, domestic law enforcement (I think here of things like white-collar investigations, uncovering large-scale fraud etc.. that take millions rather htan on-the-ground policing - although, that needs a massive injection for training too) and local governance is short-signed, unjustifiable and likely counter to the goals set for it.

That said, we're not moving toward world war three. Keep the brain in the head folks.

Further reading/listening: Jeff McMahon.

You have no argument; there is no justification for your position; and it comes from a limited view which seeks to limit itself further by pretending something mediate his contact with the world immediately outside himself. — NOS4A2

You don't even know what you're saying, let alone what the dispute is. You think your intuitions are arguments and deal with complex empirical issues that humans are not disposed to solve. Craziness.

I suggest you skip to the final, bolded line and really put your adult pants on and think hard on that question.

*sigh* mate, you're asking me to re-state things stated several times, as they've come up. That is not any of fair, reasonable or good faith. One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. I proved you wrong. Yo ignored it. There are more, and if you've reviewed the thread, then you know what im talking about.

you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks? — praxis

I didn't call it trivial - your response to it, hanging your entire thesis on it after being proven wrong in multiple other avenues and your absolute refusal to admit hte reality of it became central to my attempt to have you respond honestly about someone you didn't know, and refuse completely to engage with in anything close to good faith.

It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. You don't seem able. I have tried to close this off on civil comments several times, and you are incapable. I am happy to respond to you as long as you are saying things that can be coherently replied to, but I will suggest, again, that this has run its course. You sincerely believe what you believe, despite this thread. You probably think the same.

Explain to me the worth of continuing?

LOL fair enough.

I agree with Banno, except that straw man (IRists explicitly reject that we know the truth about the world, and instead respect that we know nothing of it besides its triggering tendency to our percepts), and concluding that what he says supports DR.

I also agree with Hanover, and have again, made it explicitly clear that it isn't metaphysics unless you want semantic commitment to override physics. That would be a metaphysical commitment, conceptually.

I agree with Michael about most of what he's said.

That is why it is not a definitional issue. It is one of wilfully ignoring the question in service of either comfort, or really shining Austin's shoes (its the latter - and i am Joking).

I think you may well enjoy Anthropocentric Purposivism conceptually. It's basically an attempt to account for the premise (i.e the unreasonable alignment of reason and reality (although, I personally see nothing interesting in this)) and arguing for essentially an intelligent universe, while rejecting standard theistic logic.

If anything, his ideas may work better in sustaining those who are experiencing a wounded ego or loss of pride. — Jack Cummins

That seems very much the case! I thikn his type of teaching is more of a stepping stone to being well-adjusted. It's just that bad adjustment of the ego is extremely hard overcome and tends to require a change in world-view rather than self-image.

But, of course, those with a strong sense of ego may be the aggressors who wound others' fragile egos. — Jack Cummins

That also seems quite true. Badly adjusted egos can result in narcissistic self-victimizing (think the depressive who refuses to enact solutions, so as to continue the drama of their identity) or as you say, that lashing out at weaker egos. Sensitive indeed - I think there's too much contradiction in looking outside (i.e to idols, books, 'systems' etc..) to solve an intensely internal problem (self actualization) for things like Tolle's teachings to be either main-stream or long-term.

BTW, this problem was one of the reason why I ultimately ceased to try to become a Buddhist. — boundless

Fwiw to the thread, the reason I stopped is because asking simple questions of Buddhists generally results in incoherent platitudes, despite Buddhists being some of the sweetest, lightest people I have ever met (besides generally well-adjusted children). It was extremely unattractive in practice.

Their view? Confused lol.

No, I'm joking. I've outlined it, to no objection several times in the thread: That real-world objects are constituents of first-person phenomenal experience as such.

There's no definitional problems here until you start thinking that meaning is defined by use in situations where use and meaning are either various, or have come apart. Recent responses to Hanover and Ludwig V elucidate. "the Apple" and how it functions is not in question. But the other guys seem to want that to be the question. It's a tough go..

It really, truly is not a war of definitions. One side wants it to be that when it's not, and has been explicitly, clearly spelled out in other terms.

That some of us refuse to come to the table about words doesn't reduce the level of disagreement to words.

Oh my fucking God, you guys are parrotting the Russian nonsense now?

It's going to be exquisite coming back in another two years.

The point about the "direct realist" being a straw man — Banno

you are not seeing some mental phantasm of the tennis. — Banno

Lol. Okay bud.

*Generally speaking, 'mental' conditions are spiritual conditions. — EnPassant

We live in entirely different worlds. I suggest yours is a bit unfortunate. Take care mate.