Again, then what is it? — Leontiskos

At least not a theorem. Or what you yourself say:

If you actually read Turing's paper it's pretty clear that he thinks machines can think, and that his test is sufficient to show such a thing, despite all the sophistical evasions he produces. — Leontiskos

Which isn't a theorem. To me, it's more like an argument, an opinion. I think this quote from Turing's paper shows this:

It was suggested tentatively that the question, "Can machines think?" should be replaced by "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" - The original question, "Can machines think?" I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. I believe further that no useful purpose is served by concealing these beliefs.

-See COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE

To my mind, this seems to be an opinion. The philosophical / logical problems of this has been famously studied for example with John Searle's Chinese room. And anyway, you still are talking about machines that simply follow orders.

I live in Canada and recently watched the Prime Minister pledge allegiance to the King of England and his heirs during his inauguration. Lawyers and judges bow or curtsy towards a picture of King Charles when they enter and leave a courtroom. Russia could only dream of such fealty. — NOS4A2

The English have indeed been the most successful empire builders starting from the incredible wisdom of creating the identity of being "British" to their multicultural isles. They've been so successful in this, that some English now question just what being English means anymore, compared to being British. Yet this is the prime example of how identities for different people can really be built from scratch. The English were successful in this, the Russian's weren't (or the EU, for that matter). The Russians came closest to this with the identity of being Soviet.

Furthermore, the English (now called the British) have been very successful in creating a British Commonwealth. Canadians are the best example. Yet when the English have used force, the result is relationship that the UK has with Ireland. Even if Russia desperately tried to mimic this with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), they utterly failed. The worst part came with Putin and his Russian reconquista. All that soft power that Russia had, for example over Ukraine, is now past history.

I am a US taxpayer. I have to file my income tax with the IRS every single year. — NOS4A2

Ah yes, unlike other countries, you have to pay taxes for the US even when living outside. My bad. But you do pay taxes to Canada and use the services of Canada, right?

Indeed, clipping the wings of European war-mongering might have benefited the entire world. — NOS4A2

After the millions of Europeans killed in WW1 and WW2, Europeans even themselves noticed how bad the constant infighting was. Yet the US has had a notable role in the integration of Europe also.

But this arraignment has allowed NATO countries to forget about their duty to defend themselves, to spend less tax dollars on militaries, and to spend the money they saved for their own benefit and no one else’s—and all while maintaining that air of European superiority. — NOS4A2

If there's peace and your own military is training with all of your neighbors militaries and the soldiers and officers know each other well and the countries have friendly relations, what's the need for a large military? The Dutch don't have to be prepared if the Germans or Belgium would attack them. Yet Israel obviously needs a large military. It wouldn't have such large military if it as good relations with it's neighbors as Nordic countries have. The size of the military is directly related to a) the threat posed by other countries or b) the role being a great power. If you aren't b) and there is no a), then why would you need a large army?

I myself am an active reservist and have spent now decades in the voluntary defense training here in Finland. I remember few years ago sitting down after the sauna with fellow reserve officers and NCOs who also have been working in the voluntary defense training for many years and asked them one question: "Who of them would have joined the military, if our neighbor in the east with over 1000km land border would be Canada?" None would have joined in that case the military. There naturally wouldn't be a reason for universal conscription and the tiny Finnish armed forces would be struggling with the same problems as the armed forces of Canada, or Belgium. Now, as one commodore put it to me, Finland has an abundance of men to fill it's military ...and a shortage of everything else. The shortage is because we face Russia as an existential threat.

—and all while maintaining that air of European superiority. — NOS4A2

Who, other than the French, do maintain that feeling? Nobody else. The core of continental Europe is France and perhaps the Benelux countries... and everybody else looks as being somehow out from the center or have underlying issues, like Germany.

Perhaps, but then what is it about? Turing was playing with the idea that machines can think, but even that question was largely avoided in his paper. — Leontiskos

Notice what I said: it isn't a theorem. It's not giving a logical definition.

It is not what a theorem is: a general proposition that is not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths. Basically logic, mathematics and science in general the structure of the reasoning process is based on theorems.

Turing Test is more like a loose description of what computers exhibiting human-like intelligence would be like. That's not a theorem, yet many people take it as the example when computers have human-like intelligence. With current LLMs, I guess we are there after 75 years Turing wrote about his test. Turing himself thought that this would take about 200 years.

I live in an insignificant little state and it's population is twice that of Finland. Could I see half my state become socialist? Sure, especially if it didn't have to defend itself. — frank

What would this "socialism" mean in this case?

Opting for something equivalent to the labour government of Keir Starmer in the UK?

Opting for social-democracy like in Sweden? This would be I think closest to what Democratic Socialists in the US dream of.

Or something closer to Venezuela, left-wing populism and authoritarianism? Because it will hardly be old-school Marxism-Leninism.

And just what that defend themselves means? Or do mean to defend the turn to left-wing politics? Remember that it was social-democrat lead administrations in Sweden and Finland that opted to join NATO and got rid off the last remnants of the neutrality doctrine. That leftist don't care about defense issues is a right-wing myth.

(These progressive social-democrat women decided that NATO membership was better than neutrality for their countries.)

Simply put it: The Turing test isn't at all a theorem about consciousness. It should be noted that even the Church-Turing thesis is a thesis, not a theorem, so that tells a lot about the idea of a Turing Machine. So there's a lot to do even with the basics of just what a Turing Machine is.

Conservatives are usually willing to let nature take care of social problems. They think that when we interfere with nature (due to an overload of compassion), we inevitably undermine a process that leads to social health and well-being. This process happens to be brutal, but conservatives are ok with that. This is because compassion isn't their driving value. — frank

That might be true for some Americans, but for example in my country (or in the Nordic countries in generals), this doesn't hold for the conservatives. They are totally OK and do appreciate the welfare state, but do point out that in order for there to be a welfare state, one has to have a well functioning healthy private sector and economy.

Absolute poverty, especially rural poverty has been solved and is non-existent, when just hundred years ago it still was around in my country. People don't live in the streets and beg for food or money. That's something that conservatives in my country value. Yes, they are full aware of the free rider problem and the negative aspects of a welfare state, but they understand that these are little compared to the negative effects of not having social security net. Yet the welfare state hasn't been just a leftist program as there has been a political consensus about it. This is something hard to fathom, if people think that politics in other places is totally similar to US politics and political discourse.

As you should notice, conservatism in Nordic countries is quite different from what it is in the US. Yet even in the US there's a difference between ideology and actual reality: when we actually look at what even the Republicans think about social security or Medicare/Medicaid, they actually are totally OK with these programs, even if the ideological think tanks oppose these. The actual policies implemented by Republican administrations show this.

Just one example:

President Bush enacted policies to help Americans receive the care they need at a price they can afford and also infused transparency and innovation into the health care system. The President instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs. The President also created tax-free Health Savings Accounts to help Americans take charge of their health care decision-making, and increased funding for medical research, which contributed to medical breakthroughs such as the development of the HPV cancer vaccine.

So is it really that conservatives are willing to let nature take care of social problems? Everybody is for themselves?

Trump says that Venezuelan aerospace is closed and now hinting on attacks on mainland Venezuela.

The ordinary issue would be now to attack Venezuelan air defenses and command centers. That would be the "conventional" way to attack a country (like in case of Libya/Serbia/Iraq/ran etc.

Now if it's really some drug labs ...some huts in middle of the jungle, then it's really peculiar, a real world "Clear and present"-movie. However, announcing the closure of Venezuelan aerospace hints that the US is anticipating going head to head against the Venezuelan air defenses.

Perhaps the Colombian president says what's the reality:

(CNN) Colombian President Gustavo Petro said in a new interview that oil is at the center of the Trump administration’s pressure campaign in Venezuela instead of the fight against narcotics.

“[Oil] is at the heart of the matter,” Petro told CNN in the interview, published Wednesday.

“So, that’s a negotiation about oil. I believe that is [President] Trump’s logic. He’s not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking,” the South American president, who last month was sanctioned by the Trump administration, added.

I have a theory that the driving force behind progressivism is compassion. Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it.

True? — frank

If you are a right-wing libertarian and believe in free market, rights of the individual and limited government making the best society possible, why wouldn't that also be compassionate? Libertarians believe that their way makes the society function better, so why wouldn't that be compassion too? There's no hidden sinister agenda behind to have some "social darwinism" to eradicate the people libertarians hate. Libertarians look at Switzerland and think it works just fine.

I think the real issue is collectivism and the role of the government that make progressives differ from others. Government, the state and legislation are there tools to address social problems and inequality for the progressives. Not the market mechanism and choices of the individual. I think this is the core in progressivism.

Europe has been fighting itself for thousands and thousands of years, and not even that long ago. Hell, they were doing genocide there not more than 30 years ago. The entire union is essentially a rogues gallery of states. It was Europe that invented fascism and communism, and spread them worldwide. We don’t even need to speak of the travesty of European colonialism. — NOS4A2

If you add Russia to Europe, which I would do, this is totally true. Russia is the most clearest example of European colonialism and imperialism. And the last pure example of it, I would add.

The real tragedy is that Soviet leaders did peacefully handle the collapse of the Empire, but then our famous KGB officer that was picked to lead Russia after Yeltsin thought this was the biggest tragedy of the 20th Century and sees that the Russian Empire is the natural state of Russia (and thus countries like Ukraine are artificial).

I never said it was a demand from Europe for the US to provide security, like what you and ssu seem to believe. — NOS4A2

Nobody has said that. What we try to say that the US has benefited from role it has enjoyed.

What I said was you all have been taking advantage of the United States taxpayer for far too long without developing any way to defend yourselves. — NOS4A2

Says the guy who isn't an US taxpayer. No, what you simply don't understand that the US has benefited from being the security guarantor, the Superpower. That most valuable thing that has come from this role has been the US dollar being the reserve currency. No other great power has enjoyed the situation of the currency they print being the universal reserve currency. If the US would have chosen again the "Splendid isolation" after WW2, the West would have gone with Bancor. It's pure insanity and total ignorance to believe that the role of the US dollar as the reserve currency would just somehow descend from Heaven to the US because it was afterwards the biggest economy.

The other perk from being that Superpower is that countries listen to the US, which they wouldn't if the US had no alliances.

But somehow you don't get the above and go on with the Trumpian populism.

This is a bit confusing and I would agree with @AmadeusD that this isn't support, actually.

It's basically window dressing and an attempt to avoid criticism from other Latin American countries that the Bush administration got for recognizing the Carmona government when ultimately the coup attempt failed (as the Presidential Guard then saved Chavez and he regained power).

A failed coup attempt with angry Latin American countries isn't something the US wants to be attached to anyway. But this I wouldn't call support of the Chavez regime.

The Chavez/Maduro regime has been on the naughty list for a long while and Chavez himself accused, naturally (what else would a genuine populist do), many times of the US being behind every opposition action against his regime there has been in Venezuela.

Now that they have become unreliable and untrustworthy their power will shrink, leaving a void for China to fill. — Punshhh

I'm not sure if China will fill anything in Europe, but it already has filled a large role in Asia and Africa. The issue really is that nothing will replace the Superpower US, it will just leave a huge void, which will create a large whirlpool. (Which actually, already has happened in the Middle East).

Europe will now re-arm and keep Russia at bay without help from the U.S. — Punshhh

Hope that this will happen. The other alternative is that some European will just "Finlandize" towards Russia, like Hungary and Serbia.

This was their project, not a demand from Europe for them to provide security. — Punshhh

This is the irony so evident in the ignorance and the obvious cluelessness of Trump supporters. The project was for the US itself. Yet I think past administrations are partly guilty of this because the whole foreign policy hasn't been marketed correctly to Americans, only basically with fear of enemies that "hate everything American".

American presence there is the only deterrent Europe has ever had, and the only reason NATO stands any chance. The problem is you all have been taking advantage of the United States taxpayer for far too long without developing any way to defend yourselves. And once that tit is finally pulled away their leaders start to cry while they scramble for answers. — NOS4A2

Drinking the Kool aid again, I see. — Punshhh

Yep. This is the Trumpian bullshit rhetoric people like NOS4A2 believe.

France and UK have their own nuclear deterrents, so they are out of the question here (France was even out of NATO for a while). West Germany has been quite supervised about just what kind of military to have. For example with my country, the US was long against us having surface to air missiles or any modern fighter aircraft. Perhaps just assuming that we would be a likely axis with Russia. So that's what the US actually offered us during the Cold War: no security guarantees, likely just tactical nukes on the Northern airfields in order that the Soviets couldn't use them.

Above all, because of the Superpower status and the alliances, the US has been in the leadership role enjoying all the perks that come from that because of the vast alliances it has. Without these alliances, the US president would be a totally minor person at the World stage and the dollar wouldn't have the position enjoys. Someone like the prime minister of Canada. China's economy is big too, but do we follow what the Chinese leader has lately said? Of course not!

This is the thing that many Americans are totally ignorant of and seem to be totally incapable of understanding. The dollar has it's reserve role because of political reasons, not because of economic reasons. Without the US having the Superpower status and it's relations it would be just the largest currency in a basket of currencies, but definitely not the reserve currency. The UK pound never enjoyed this kind of role before when the British Empire was at it's greatest. Such role is only understandable only because of political reasons. Yet this is something never told to Trump loving Americans, who are spoon fed the lie all the time that their Superpower status hasn't been very good for them, that it's been a sucker deal for them. That somehow because they just have the biggest economy, their currency is the reserve currency and thus they can just print more money without any worries.

NATO was never masculine. They can hardly move tanks between each other’s countries. — NOS4A2

Absolute nonsense. NATO passed with flying colors the role it had during the Cold War of creating a credible deterrence. Hardly can move tanks? LOL.

How about those Reforger exercises? Reforger 88 had about 125 000 men, all deployed to Germany from the US, France, Canada, UK, Denmark. The whole objective of the annual Reforger exercises was the moving of tanks into West Germany. And NATO is finally getting back to it's original role (thank God). Some countries unfortunately ran down their militaries (the 90's peace dividend), luckily that stupidity didn't reach my country. But that era has passed.

At any rate, I can’t wait to watch the EU bring out their counterproposal, which will invariably lead to WW3. — NOS4A2

You don't know or care about what the response is, which is obvious from referring to the EU, not the group actually active in the issue.

Anyway, many think that this peace-deal that Axios published was an intentional move by the Russians to humiliate Trump and harass Ukraine. Naturally Trump doesn't notice, but anyway, who cares. I think this will pass as an example how Trump caves in always to get a peace deal.

* * *

Well, I hope the country you are living in chooses to have Swedish Gripens, just like Ukraine. One absolutely cannot trust Trump and as Americans have now twice voted Trump into power, with the US there is a risk, unfortunately, of it being an untrustworthy ally/weapons provider... when the customer isn't Israel. So I think my country is taking a little risk when choosing the F-35. Not a huge risk, but still.

(CBC, Nov 21st 2025) The Liberal government is reviewing whether to proceed with a full order of 88 F-35 fighters from U.S.-based Lockheed Martin. It has been suggested that Canada could accept the first batch of 16 stealth jets and then pivot to filling out the rest of the order with Saab Gripens — or some other aircraft.

You may disagree, but I think that may be something related to, but different from, fundamentalism. — Tom Storm

Fundamentalism is an apt word here, as is zealotry.

Do you see much fundamentalism where you live? Here in Australia, it flickers in marginal spaces, largely due to the influence of American Protestant culture via social media and online communities. But it’s still a minor force. The default setting here seems to be a general lack of interest in God or religion. — Tom Storm

My country has had a novel way to eradicate religious fundamentalism: we have had state religion since our independence. And state naturally does something with far less enthusiasm as some voluntary churches desperately competing of having people. So I had religion taught at school, where I have to say thay two of the best teachers ever where also lutheran priests, who both also taught philosophy.

There are only few Christian sects especially in the North, and they fit the "deeply religious" stereotype, but political influence is minimal.

Sufficienly corroborable evidence. — 180 Proof

If you have sufficiently corroborable evidence, then the issue isn't about faith anymore, is it?

I think that many religions understand that they are an issue of faith, not something evidence, which is comes back to my point here.

Atheism is a pretty broad area. — Tom Storm

So is faith/religion and religiousness, yes.

I am a freethinker and atheist, but my form of atheism is simply that I lack a belief in God. I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, because I don’t have that knowledge. - I think it is a common view among organised atheists these days. — Tom Storm

Isn't that a level of agnosticism? I myself have been since my childhood an agnostic and feel quite happy about it.

The problem with most obvious forms of atheism is that they only critique the low-hanging fruit of fundamentalism and literalism, which is equally disparaged by many believers, including theologians like David Bentley Hart and Bishop John Shelby Spong. — Tom Storm

That's a very good point. But we usually tend to go with the stereotypes or the worst possible examples of some ideology or viewpoint and not accept the fact that a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable and informed people can have totally opposite world views from us.

Or then it's simply these times where the discourse is dominated by the algorithms, where two people with opposite views but with an understanding and respect where the other person comes from, is too boring. As if we would then yawn ourselves to death.

Literalism seems to be a reaction to modernity and a retreat into concrete thinking as a bulwark against changing culture. — Tom Storm

I think it's even more general than that. It's basic human nature, which you can see in even in philosophy itself, where especially the "puritans", "fundamentalists" and those who don't swerve of from the teachings of their great philosopher, be it the Karl Marx or someone else, will put themselves on the pedestal and proclaim to be better than others. If it happens even in philosophy, you bet it will happen in other human endeavors also.

No. Again: I claim that it is demonstrable that theism is not true (see links in my previous posts). — 180 Proof

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles"). — 180 Proof

?

Very difficult and confusing wording in my view. But I'm not very clever. What is "providing nonsubjective truth-makers"?

Yet notice the difference between "it can be proven" and "it is demonstrable, that something".

In Your math example:

(1×1=2) cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false"

one has to remember that you can give a proof that 1x1=1. At least you can refer to the axioms and an axiomatic system. Hence no need for the demonstrability of falsehood when you can give a direct proof.

Yet when the only thing you can give is an indirect Reductio ad absurdum proof, it actually isn't the same as an ordinary proof. It leaves open questions.

And anyway, my point was that to give a proof as in logic or science, one needs objectivity. Yet not all questions can be answered objectively as they are inherently subjective. Religion deals a lot on those subjective questions, like what is good and what is bad. Giving thus proofs in religious issues forgets the requirement for objectivity. And not only "proving God" forgets this, it actually goes against a lot of religions itself.

The typical atheist argument is that for example all the creation stories are, to put it mildly, quite far from our scientific understanding, hence everything in religion is quite dubious. The problem then comes when the same question is asked, what then is good and what is bad? The vague reference to humanity or something else hides that the problem isn't solved. It still is a subjective issue and an objective proof as in science/logic cannot be found.

In fact, if Russia invades again, they face destruction at the hands of NATO and the US.

10. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked; — NOS4A2

What bullshit is this "decisive coordinated military response", when a) you cannot train for this and Ukraine cannot be a member or anybody else (like Ireland etc.) cannot join NATO? The emasculation of NATO and Ukraine-NATO ties makes this totally ludicrous statement. Who the fuck will defend Ukraine, when NATO cannot be in Ukraine?

No matter. If this deal goes through, invasion would be illegal according to Russia’s own laws.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine. — NOS4A2

HAHAHAA!!! :rofl:

Wait... :brow:

...you are serious??? :worry:

You really believe the country lead by Putin, that has several times, actually, put into writing that it didn't have ANY territorial claims toward Ukraine or Crimea, to have no aggression towards other "artificial" countries like Ukraine? And then there were ALL the Minsk agreements. How much Putin valued those? What horseshit do you believe in???

Above all, read your history: Russia never attacks, it only defends itself. According to Soviet Union, my little country attacked the Soviet Union in 1939, just as the Baltic States wanted to join the Soviet Union in 1940. So the can easily have a hypocrite law that argues they won't attack anybody. Incredible garbage.

And do notice, this is just like Trump surrender deal with the Taliban. That peace-deal also said that:

4. A permanent and comprehensive ceasefire will be an item on the agenda of the intra-Afghan
dialogue and negotiations. The participants of intra-Afghan negotiations will discuss the date
and modalities of a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire, including joint implementation
mechanisms, which will be announced along with the completion and agreement over the future
political roadmap of Afghanistan.

Which the Taleban cared shit about. They didn't even pretend to have talks with Republic of Afghanistan. Did Trump (or Biden) care about that? Of course not. But do notice the evident Trumpian issue on both of the peace-deals. Then in 2020 Trump announced the following in the Taleban surrender-deal:

A comprehensive peace agreement is made of four parts:

1. Guarantees and enforcement mechanisms that will prevent the use of the soil of Afghanistan by
any group or individual against the security of the United States and its allies.
2. Guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and announcement of a timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan.

Did he bring up this with the foreign forces, that by 2020 were by manpower a larger force than the US personnel on ground? Of course not! It was just a surprise for them... just like this brainfart. And the same thing is here, where Trump is just demanding actions not only from Ukraine, but European countries too.

South Vietnam, Afghanistan... seems next in line is Ukraine for the US. Or Trump is basically hellbent on Ukraine to be in that category.

Hopefully our leaders keep their calm and handle this as one of those Trump stupidities that comes out from the current White House like the US annexing Greenland and Canada. Trump seems to desperately want that Nobel-prize and one can just imagine what fortunes have the Russians promised to Trump.

(1×1=2) "cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false. — 180 Proof

Mathematics is totally objective.

Besides, my claim is that 'theism is Not True is demonstrable' – "not true" is not necessarily equivalent to "false" (e.g. non-propositional statements are not true and not false). — 180 Proof

I think I didn't understand this. Are you saying the issue is undemonstrable or undecidable?

At least now, I guess Trump's DOJ has had enough time to destroy all the worst things for Trump in the files.

* * *

Well, Axios has released Trump's "peace plan" for Ukraine. It's even worse than the surrender to the Taliban, which is now I guess the low point of American diplomacy.

From the proposal:

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

And notice that article 3. isn't about Ukraine, because there's articles 7. and 8:

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

So basically this is a wet dream for Putin. Trump will emasculate the strongest alliance that the US has had ...and Putin will also get Ukraine. This is at least on par (if not worse) than the surrender deal that Trump made with the Taleban (and it should be noted, Biden carried out to the end dutifully).

Why this thread is more apt to review this whimsical action from Trump than the Ukraine thread is that likely (and hopefully) this surrender purposal won't go anywhere.

What an incredible surrender monkey Trump is.

Exactly.
Above all, with a proof... or with God appearing to everyone and being part of physical reality, it's not essentially an issue of faith, of choosing your life choices.

Your not basically making moral choices to be "good" or to be religious, to have faith or not, or to be an atheist. You are then making simply practical choices, just like how you cope with the planet spinning on it's axis and circling around the sun and creating night and day and the seasons. Morality goes out of the question, just as it's not a choice for us to have night or day. At least when we are on this planet.

Thus, I think it can be demonstrated that theism is not true¹ even though other conceptions of divinity (such as e.g. acosmism & pandeism) are completely undecidable (agnostic). — 180 Proof

I would put it that basically matters of faith cannot be objectively answered and are hence truly subjective.

And when you cannot demonstrate that theism is true, you cannot demonstrate it's false.

In my view it cannot be proved and such proof goes against the whole idea of believing in God and against all Abrahamic religions.

When there's a proof, you don't need to have faith. Christianity, and Jesus Christ, say to take God into your heart. That doesn't mean to think it out, use reason and then you will find God. I assume all Abrahamic religions are similar in this case.

And lastly, just assume there would be this proof. It itself would then obviously quite powerful religious item. Why then need things like the Holy Bible and so on? God exists, so then just pick the correct God or the God closest to this proof. Hence the proof itself would be basically an idol and believing in the proof would be idolatry.

It's possible that Trump is trying to pressure Maduro into negotiations, like he does with the tariffs. The bully tactic he's known for. I think he actually likes Maduro, and wants to force him into alliance, or more likely allegiance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually Maduro would be totally open for talks.

(BBC) Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has said that he is willing to hold face-to-face talks with representatives of the Trump administration as US pressure on him grows.

Maduro made the comment hours after US President Donald Trump said he had not ruled out deploying ground forces to the South American country.

But here I think you have to notice that Venezuela is here on a totally different position than let's say the threat posed by Trump to Denmark (with Greenland) or Panama. Covert operations are already underway.

Perhaps Maduro should just try to attempt to bribe Trump. Give that Trump presidential library some oil wealth.

Seriously, the Swiss got their tariffs lowered by giving Trump lavish gifts including a beautiful gold bar. So some small percentage of that oil wealth and then just wait a couple years that Trump isn't in power so you can tell it was a joke. After all, how long did Putin and the Russians have Trump oogling for them for a possible hotel build in Moscow? And we all remember how enthusiastic Trump became, when Ukrainians offered mineral rights to him.

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities. — Astorre

We love the escapism.

It's an old genre of making criminals to be heroes and then trying to portray the story as a critique of the society. It's the old idea that criminals are forced into crime, because of the economy/society, not being people that actually like crime and voluntarily choose the lifestyle, do like violence for the sake of violence and are actual hideous people like psychopaths are. Usually they are forced to crime, not actively seeking crime and leaving a dull normal life they could totally chosen. And at some stage, they usually show that they still have morals, and aren't the psychopaths they often are.

For example mobsters have been portrayed as rockstars living a life different from us is the perfect escapism for us from our dull safe lives. This was totally obvious even before Coppola and Scorsese, from the films during the time when the US had really a Mafia problem. Only with the exception then that the "Cosa Nostra" remained hidden from the public.



Finally, there is punishment in the end, which is there to make actually the viewer to feel better. The main character has to die, usually with a violent yet glorious ending. Be it Breaking Bad, Scarface or in the gangster movies of James Cagney. Only in very few movies the criminal actually gets away with the murder and the lifestyle without there being any karma or justice. Just as only a few films are the police the actual gangsters, which they easily can be.

This all makes sense, when we understand the underlying reasoning: it's entertainment. A movie like Schindler's list isn't made to entertain you, but "Breaking Bad", "Scarface", "The Godfather", "The Departed", "Goodfellas", they all are there to entertain you. You won't feel bad afterwards. That's the issue here.

Just like with violence itself, people like it as entertainment. The Romans loved the Gladiator games, executions were flocked to see later in history. Quentin Tarantino says the truth about our love for violence: it's entertainment. It doesn't mean that we love actual violence. Not only is there this moral judgement in the end or the fact that the story implies the main character was somehow forced to crime, in the end they are all actors and it's fiction, even if based on a real story. Nobody actually died. Hence we can enjoy it as entertainment. Hence the real object isn't the main character, the real object is for the viewer to feel good afterwards and think the movie was worth wile to see.

It would be totally different if we would have just actual footage of people being tortured to death, being ripped apart into pieces by bomb blast with the viewer understanding that it isn't fake, that it's really innocent children or walkers passing by being killed. Naturally there that actual footage that criminals use to instill fear on others. Many wouldn't finish their popcorn, but throw up and be traumatized from the images.

As @Metaphysician Undercover noted above, the drug war has been more of an excuse to do something with totally different objectives, not the actual reason. To deal with something like the drug trade the military isn't at all the best options, but it's a flashy way to show off that you are doing something.

Yet here does lie a major problem: just what is the military objective here? Just how is it thought to be reached? If one assumes that with naval and air power regime change would be obtained, then that objective is very optimistic indeed. Likely any airstrikes will just reinforce the support of the regime. It's not at all obvious that even killing Maduro that the regime would collapse. What about the opposition? Basically I've noticed nothing done in that sector and when Trump is already hinting the willingness to have talks with Maduro, that willingness totally undermines the support for the opposition. And anyway, many of those people against the Maduro regime have already left the country.

Hence this is more like a show of gun diplomacy and if then some strike is implemented, the result will be similar as when attacking Iran. Trump will just declare that the strikes have been successful and the Maduro regime will continue just like the Iranian regime continued on. Any contrary finding will dealt with firings, so the success of a military strike is as obvious as that there is absolutely no inflation in the US under Trump now. :wink:

Now some might wish to argue that "... modern Western liberalism: secular, pluralistic, rule-of-law-based, with an emphasis on individual rights and freedoms". is not dead yet. But as this is only a virtual autopsy, and has to take place before the wretched corpse is buried for good and all, I can assume the death from various words and deeds of Western leaders, who find it convenient to pay lip-service to enlightenment principles whilst undermining them in practice. — unenlightened

Have ever leaders followed any principles in their actual actions? Grand speeches are different as are the high-minded reasons given for real-politik or de-facto imperial aspirations.

One could have written off also religion even at the time of Nietzsche, but religion and faith is still important even in this Millennium. So no need for the autopsy of religion either. Philosophical views and ideologies die only when they are thoroughly replaced, not when they are generally accepted, have achieved their main objectives and are old textbook stuff that no current university student gets excited about. Yet they aren't replaced, they just seem very bland as they aren't new ideas. What likely happens is that when the main objectives have been achieved and the thinking has been generally accepted, the orthodox believers come up with a next wave, which in the end is likely something hilariously stupid.

With liberalism it's I guess the libertarians with the most vocal being perhaps the anarcho-capitalists, who think that rights of the individual mean that everything collective is bad and everything can be handled by the market mechanism. And some of them come even to this forum to share their enthusiasm when their first "philosopher" they've read has been Ayn Rand. We now how that will go.

The death of Enlightenment and it's values is even more dubious. Not every Western country has a Trump administration chipping away the institutions that make Western democracies themselves and filling the void with corruption and a police state. I think there's a lot more focus on Enlightenment values because of what is happening in the US.

The left-wing populism of Hugo Chavez (which Maduro tries to continue) is quite similar to right-wing populism of Trump. Few do notice the similarity (or do want to accept the similarity), yet it is totally obvious.

Quite fitting to the moment:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/I-2r-qJcxKc

Since the leader of Venezuela has been designated a narco-terrorist, I think that goal is clear. But viewing poor drug runners as dispensable pawns, for the purpose of inciting conflict, is pathetic. — Metaphysician Undercover

Trump doesn't care if the reasons are pathetic, which they are. As a populist he doesn't care. Everything opposing his actions is just basically "liberals whining" for him.

More Epstein files have been released — NOS4A2

Yeah, tells something when they covered 23000 pages of files from Epstein:

Number of times of mentions in the documents:
Melania Trump: 12 times
Putin: 792 times
Obama: 1783 times
Trump: 9 379

So it seems that the best friends then had a breakup in their bromance. What else would be new?

I wonder... is there a way, a certain order of steps maybe, that leads the mind toward the best possible conclusion — even if only for now? How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? I hope you understand what I mean. — GreekSkeptic

There are no steps in thoughts. Some ideas might come to you sooner than other ideas. You're not assembling a machine where there's a user's manual to follow step by step. — @

Thoughts and ideas come to mind in a myriad of ways. Perhaps the steps you are looking for would be the ways to check up if your conclusion is valid. I don't think there's one optimal way to do it (and likely not even theoretically). You are not a machine like @L'éléphant said, you are capable of understanding and changing your own "algorithms".

There's just guidelines like if you think you have made a new conclusion finding, check if anybody has made the same conclusion or something similar to it. Any other person ever lived not to have thought about what you are thinking would be strange. Or tell the conclusion to people and if ALL disagree / don't understand / don't follow your reasoning and there really is nobody that agrees with you, perhaps the problem is in your conclusion.

Genocide is the intentional destruction of existing sentient beings who wish to live. Ending breeding is the prevention of future suffering through non-creation of victims. There is no killing, coercion, or hatred involved - only a refusal to keep breeding sentient beings for exploitation. — Truth Seeker

Reproduction and breeding aren't synonyms. Ending the ability for an animal species or plant species to reproduce does mean extinction, which you seem to be in denial on how cruel that is. And what you are basically saying that exploitation of a domesticated species is a just cause for extinction and eradication of that species. And yet you declare you draw no differences on animals and then argue for extinction of large animal populations ...all in the name of preventing suffering, when your are at the same instant making dramatically huge lines on just what animals deserve to exist what don't deserve to.

Again, I would totally agree on the improvement on the life quality of farm animals, yet the insistence on on the extinction of all farm animals seems like a sinister ideology in sheeps clothing.

You’ve built a strawman version of the position. “Let nature take care of it” does not mean “abandon all ecological management.” Vegan ethics does not entail passivity - it calls for active, non-exploitative stewardship. - In the case of reindeer, population control through non-lethal immunocontraception, controlled rewilding, and habitat management can maintain balance without slaughter. — Truth Seeker

Finally some hints that you are getting to my point with "non-exploitative stewardship". So we both understand and accept that there must be that stewardship that humans do with the environment and the various species. Yet that isn't a strawman argument. Letting nature take care of it means that humans don't interfere at all with the process. Stewardship means that you are taking an active role in the supervision and care taking of something.

Yet what is the real difference between "non-exploitative stewardship" and exploitative stewardship or just ordinary stewardship? And again, just to make it clear, sterilization isn't so morally humane as you promote it to be.

And anyway, veganism is, as you said, something that 1% of the population adhers to. You might think that you are part of the bold vanguard of people, but then we don't have a stomach like herbivores and a balance healthy diet contains a small part of meat, which accepted by the vast majority of people. If you want to change that, it's very difficult in a democracy. That we don't do manual work as much as before, we don't seem to have a reason for a high calorie diet.

The way how distinct people and their cultures die isn't usually talked about.

It's by cultural assimilation, not by some dramatic and brutal action like genocide. Likely those violent attempts fail and only increase the cohesion of the persecuted people as they then have a common history. But children going to school and learning a language that isn't spoken at home doesn't seem as a hostile issue. The state usually has a central role in this assimilation starting from the crucial decision of which is or are the official languages and if education is given in a local language or not. Hence language politics matters.

One good example is the state of France and the French language. During the French Revolution it is estimated that only half of the people in the Kingdom of France could speak actually French. You had many other languages like Occitan in the south, which now less than a million people speak as a native tongue. When you have a centralized and universal education system in France in French and the only official language is French, then that language is a tool for that cultural assimilation. Same thing in Russia. One of the first things that now Putin's Russia has done in the occupied Ukrainian territories starting from Crimea is to replace Ukrainian schoolbooks with Russian ones and start to demand that Russian is used in schools and that Russian curriculum is followed in schools.

Determinism is a red herring here, because IME no one can give an account of how free will would work and make sense even in a non deterministic universe. — Mijin

We can indeed model the world as being deterministic, everything having a cause and effect, like the Einstein's block universe. But as you said, this is irrelevant for us as we are part of this reality, this universe, and cannot escape it, jump out of it.

For example, there are no other possibilities that either @Mijin responds to this comment mine or he does not. That's determinism, unavoidable yet not at all useful as we would first assume.

Do we then have total free will? Again this is idea as a model of reality is similarly not so useful as we could first think of this. What we do on this planet hardly matters in the big picture, assuming if you think about galaxies and billions of years.

Everything is actually about the questions you make. The questions define what is an useful model of reality and what isn't. Thus then to argue is some model is right while others are wrong doesn't at all understand this.

You mentioned researching. Why wouldn't it be work? Best work is something that you like so much you would do it even voluntary. But if you are paid for it... and get the obvious perk of not being unemployed, why not?

I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. The ethical distinction isn’t between “wild” and “domesticated,” but between free existence and forced breeding for human exploitation. — Truth Seeker

My point is that when we are responsible for the species and the ecology, we have to make decisions that you seem not to think that don't have to be made. Veganism as a choice of an individual surely doesn't have to answer to these issues, but others have to do it.

There’s no hostility toward any sentient being - only opposition to exploitation. I already said in my previous post: all sentient beings matter equally. — Truth Seeker

You're not making sense. How can you even say that you are treating animals equally when you are hell bent on eradicating all livestock and farm animals? That's billions of animals. That "they would die of old age" isn't as humane as you think it is, just like it wouldn't have made less diabolical the genocidal objectives of the Nazi if they would just had separated every male and female [/i]Untermensch there exists and let them die of old age. We would naturally call it a genocide and that the people would be treated more humanely than being slaughtered doesn't make the end result morally better.

Reindeer who roam freely in tundra ecosystems and maintain natural behaviors are not comparable to cows or chickens bred into total dependency, mutilation, and slaughter. — Truth Seeker

Well, they are killed in the end. So what's different? You think every cow or chicken that has ever lived has been treated cruelly? And because of this they, as animals, shouldn't exist? You truly are drawing dramatic lines on just what species is worthy of living based on their treatment and their connection to humans and then denying this, which is very confusing.

If reindeer were no longer bred for consumption but allowed to live and die naturally, that would align perfectly with veganism and ecological balance. — Truth Seeker

OK, let's think this through.

We know how an "ecological balance" comes about. So your argument would be simply to "let nature take care of the reindeer". Knowing how fragile the Nordic tundra is, that is a recipe for disaster. Now when the reindeer would be left wander on without any supervision and let them freely have offspring, then the amount of them would likely multiply because there simply aren't enough predators around to eat them. For example, just in Finland there are 200 000 reindeer. In one year, they multiply to 300 000 and hence roughly 100 000 are slaughtered annually and the population is kept at a steady 200 000. Predators eat roughly 2000 of them annually and about 3000 of them die in traffic accidents (because they are smart animals, they use the few roads in Lapland as it's more easy to move on them than in the marshy forests and the reindeer lick the salt used to de-ice the roads). Yet that's a small dent in the 100 000 newborn population annually.

Reality for drivers in Finnish Lapland. No need for English translation, the other Finn is pissed off and cursing about the traffic jam, the other one takes it humorously:


So you can easily see how in just a few years, reindeers would be a huge problem when reindeer increase substantially. Of course, the "ecological balance" would be found with the millions reindeer eating the tundra bare land and then dying in numbers in a famine in the millions. In the end, some kind of "balance" could perhaps be the outcome, but the fragile tundra would have gotten a severe beating with likely many plants species becoming extinct.

The introduction of rabbits into Australia shows what happens when there aren't enough predators around.



Simply put it, when we have molded the biosphere as we, we have to take care of it. And taking care means that we have to anticipate what results our actions have. The simplistic ideology of do not harm animals and let them be isn't going to work here, because the "hands off" approach is a horrible decision and to "have some of them die of old age" has also huge consequences. The ideology is simply not taking at all into consideration what it would mean when taken as an universal law.

A 2/3 support for the war is quite high.

I believe work should be done and taxes should be paid by robots while all humans live as monarchs in their bubbles. — Copernicus

Would it go so in reality ever? And you seem not to like work. What's wrong with working? And what's wrong in contributing to the society?

Skim a little off that ridiculous trillion-dollar pay package and it could be done in your neck of the woods.

It's not economics, it's a choice. — Banno

Actually, the US has a very dismal record in implementing such welfare-state politics. Usually the end result is a system far more expensive and far less effective than it's European counterparts.

Now I think the US puts per capita third most money into education (only such well-off countries as Luxembourg and Norway put more), but it's results are quite moderate. Again, it's up to the few Ivy-league universities attracting the best in the world that makes the US education system look good. But if we look at average education let's say in New Mexico and West Virginia...

Basically the US always creates systems that are inefficient and very costly compared to any other country.

↪Linkey 27% of Russians support the war. — AmadeusD

In today's Russia it's very difficult to get truthful polls were what you say depends on the people you are saying the things to. As the saying went in Soviet times, a Russian has one opinion at work and another at home in the kitchen, when surrounded by trusted people.

From this, it can be concluded that most Germans derived sadistic pleasure from carrying out the Holocaust, and this sadism became a need for them. — Linkey

I think sadism is generally something that isn't inherent especially to the German people. A more explanatory reason, like always when people think that the World will be better if some people or class of people are killed, is ideology.

People running concentration and extermination camps are one type and likely the sadists will enjoy it. But those still were few people and it went far broader than just the sadists in the population, which in the end are a small part of any population.

Nazi ideology and the ideological racism is crucial in understanding the behaviour of Germans in WW2. Just look at how the German armed forces behaved in Norway and Denmark and compare to their Poland and Russia. The difference is that Norwegians, the Danes (as Finns too) were part of the so-called Nordic race and were not untermenschen. The obvious proof of this is that German soldiers could marry Finns, Norwegians and Danes. Also Denmark and Norway weren't the planned new Lebensraum for the German people in Hitler's plans. In Denmark the German occupiers kindly hinted at the Danish authorities that the Jews in Denmark would be a problem and the Danish government quickly moved the small Jewish population into neutral Sweden. Not so in Poland, in the Baltics or in Russia. Also there is the different treatment of Russian prisoners in war compared the POWs of Western countries. And when it came the Finns to change sides and give the Dolchstoss to it's former ally (that just had saved them from a Russian offensive in the summer of 1944), there were no atrocities towards the few Finns and Sami people that lived in Northern Finland. Not only did the Germans let the civilian population to evacuate to Sweden, in some few cases they even helped with the evacuation. And then the Germans destroyed absolutely everything they could in their withdrawal to the Norwegian border, which was the norm in the fighting in the east-front in WW2 (so talk about German pünktlichkeit). It all goes back to the Nazi ideology and understanding that evil ideology makes then "sense" in differences in actions. These people genuinely thought that they would be making the world a better place, just as the Marxist-Leninists when killing the class enemy in their revolutions.

First point— this has nothing to do with psychoanalysis. — T Clark

:up:

We created that dependence through artificial selection; we can end it responsibly through gradual, compassionate transition. — Truth Seeker

So your answer is to end them. With a "gradual, compassionate transition". You want these breeds to be erased, but are "compassionate" about it.

In this view you seem to put a lower value on animals that have been bread by humans than to other wildlife. Why the hostility and the categorical inequality between sentient animals? Or how about reindeer? They were domesticated from Mountain reindeer in the 13th Century in Norway and since them have roamed around freely in the tundra here in the Nordic Lapland. But since we have domesticated them and eat their meat (which is one of the most healthiest meats around as reindeer have a hugely varied diet with hundreds of different plants), I guess according to you the 200 000 or reindeer have to go too.

In every case, these animals die long before reaching even a small fraction of their natural lifespan. — Truth Seeker

Five years out of 20 years isn't a small fraction. And do note that not all live up to 20 years in the wild, just as not all humans reach 75 years.

I think your point is something that is very popular with many people: they make this huge and all-encompassing separation with humans and the wildlife/biosphere being totally different from us. Seems like everything we have touched is contaminated and has to deposed of. With vegans it's about animals, but with others it's foreign species introduced to new environments by humans. Of course this can be destabilizing, when you introduce some species that doesn't have anything eating it or limiting it's expanse. But in many cases the introduction isn't so bad, especially when the plant or animal is basically cultivated or farmed. Yet I don't share this view of humans being different from everything else as I think we are part of the biosphere and just a dominant species among others and what we do is similar to other species that mold their environment. That doesn't mean that we don't have a responsibility, naturally.

I assume that a Trump presidency is bad for gun producers. People don't have the urge to buy guns. When it's the next Democrat who is portrayed to seek gun-control, then there's a boom when people are buying even more guns to protect their home.

Yep, in Kremlin's propaganda Finland is preparing to attack Russia.