The US congress just passed legislation making it harder for a US president to withdraw from NATO. That kind of legislation doesn't usually work though. The SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional.

The reason for this attempt is that everyone expects 1) Trump will be reelected, and 2) he's going to withdraw form NATO and basically join BRIC. No, it doesn't make much sense, but such is life. :grin:

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear. — Tzeentch

The link between another Trump administration and a Russian invasion of Europe are also pretty clear. Neither Trump nor a large swath of the American population would care.

As if "physical or emotional injury" were not evil. — Banno

Most societies identify circumstances in which it's good to do physical and emotional injury. Plenty of moral codes identify actions as evil even if there's no associated harm.

This is not to say you can't decide that evil and harm are coextensive, it's just that you're not reflecting what social groups usually say. You're just pedaling your own religion.

The idea that Russia will attack Europe is extremely silly — Tzeentch

Famous last words

Germans believe Russia will attack Europe if Trump is elected.

:meh:

:up: :up: :up:

True.

What would you do if you had to either save two strangers or your wife or daughter? I'd choose wife or daughter. It's a question of the type of history that brings us to this moment of choice. — kudos

Exactly.

That is because it is not something that is experienced. It is an "idea". And there is no moral imperative to believe or agree with an idea. If an idea cannot compel assent on the weight of its own merit but requires coercion and ridicule to enforce, there is an obvious problem with the idea, and a bigger problem with the people that want to impose ideology upon others. — Merkwurdichliebe

Read what you wrote as if you were talking about money. Money is a successful social technology. So is the legal apparatus that allows us to do rule of law. We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years.

"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?" — kudos

Great post. The question you point to is a philosophical challenge covered by global warming text books. The issue is that we don't have any experience with "caring" on the temporal and geographical scale of climate change.

The p-zombie argument is an argument against physicalism. If you're a panpsychist then the p-zombie argument is irrelevant. You already accept the conclusion t — Michael

Or the p-zombie argument shows that we would need to expand the concept of physical in order to accommodate phenomenal consciousness. It also puts the burden of proof on a reductive physicalist.

Yes. Entities that do medical research take suggestions from the public, and I asked for that one: the effect of microplastics on the lungs.

Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever. — Lionino

There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification.

But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

Why do you think microplastics are killing us?

What does any of this mean? — Jamal

You know, you could contribute to what it means if you had any thoughts about language other than irritation about what other people know about it.

For instance, Arabic became the language of science, philosophy, and poetry among post 9th Century Muslims, even though they were Iranian and mostly spoke Persian. At the hub of the world's overland trade routes, they had long been polylingual, but there was something about Arabic that they particularly loved. So yes, a language can be viewed as superior for certain activities. And please stop being a butthead.

Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell. — AmadeusD

It's not likely that humans will become extinct due to climate change. Could the present global system fall due to climate change? Sure. When exactly? Don't know. It will be the third large scale collapse since humans invented civilization.

The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). — AmadeusD

The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. But toward the beginning of the thread Mikie warned that the earth will soon have a climate similar to that on Venus. I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say, tbh.

More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment. — AmadeusD

I agree. She's a sideshow.

But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction — AmadeusD

If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts.

But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift — Tzeentch

It's been making excellent click bait for thousands of years. 'Course one of these days they're going to be right. :grin:

I'd just say Chalmers has bad epistemic hygiene. Inflationism might be handy for making weak arguments appear strong, but I'm not seeing a good reason to take it seriously based on what the SEP says. — wonderer1

How would you explain the difference between logical and metaphysical possibility?

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate. — Tzeentch

Definitely.

"Inflationists, such as David Chalmers (2002), hold “Modal Monism”, the view that there is only one modal notion or primitive, such that metaphysical and logical modality coincide."
SEP

Since the p-zombie argument is associated with Chalmers, we might want to consider the way he uses "metaphysical possibility."

How do you get from being able to imagine something, to that thing being metaphysically possible? — wonderer1

Logical and metaphysical possibility amount to the same thing. A thing is metaphysically possible if some god could make it so.

Doomsday prophecies and claims to esotheric knowledge are signals to me that certain folks have been sent off the deep end. — Tzeentch

Do you think it's a hoax?

If consciousness is physical and if we are conscious then anything that is physically identical to us is conscious and anything that isn’t conscious is physically different. — Michael

There are two different senses of consciousness. One is functional consciousness, such as the ability to sense and react to stimulus. The p-zombie has this kind of consciousness. What it lacks is phenomenal consciousness. There is no experience that accompanies its interactions.

If I want to make the argument that phenomenal consciousness is fully addressed by an explanation of functional consciousness, my argument is vulnerable to the p-zombie argument. Since it's conceivable that a person could have the functions without the phenomenal, I have the burden of proving that functionality explains phenomenality. That would require that I have a working theory of consciousness, which doesn't exist at this time.

The outcome is that the "hardness" of the hard problem is affirmed. You could cast it as a threat to physicalism, but if we more fully understand phenomenal consciousness, we'll probably just add that to the realm of the physical. That's what's happened with other discoveries that upended previous conceptions of physicality. So the p-zombie argument just ends up saying that there's a giant gap in our understanding.

Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha? — AmadeusD

Some people just need to scream abusively at someone else. It doesn't really matter why. I guess that could be analyzed out as having to do with self-righteousness, but it's more likely that they received that kind of abuse in childhood and it's now cycling. The drama is hidden. All you see is the screaming.

Is that your favorite card to play?

And it's navigating the world and doing its job effectively, and it's doing all this without knowing anything??? How does that work, exactly? — RogueAI

It depends on how you want to define knowledge. If it's just a matter of having access to justification for an assertion, or being able to demonstrate some proficiency, then a p-zombie can have knowledge. If you want knowledge to have some extra phenomenal aspect, then obviously p-zombies wouldn't have it.

He's being more overtly fascist than he was the first time around. He knows he'll take Florida no matter what he says about Latinos. People are stupid.

However, what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

I don't think there is anything. They're basically the same thing.

Not a niqab, predecessor to the Covid mask? — Merkwurdichliebe

You see? It's all one global culture.

Getting ornery there, that is a typical veiled antisemitic response that I wouldn't expect from you. Easy big feller. — Merkwurdichliebe

You know me, they guy with the swastika tattooed on my forehead. I usually wear a veil.

You're handing me a bucket of bullshit to sort through. No thanks.

The real question is: which part does not represent everything that is condemned by Western standards? — Merkwurdichliebe

Westerners attack shit all the time. In fact, it's just something humans do.

Just showing how the values of Hamas differ from the values of Israel, and that the values of Israel fall closer in line with Western Liberal values than the values of Hamas do. How in the everfucking love could you disagree with that? — Merkwurdichliebe

Which part of Hamas' attack represents something Westerners never do?

It is a living example of non-Western values clashing with Western values. — Merkwurdichliebe

What the everloving fuck are you talking about?

I do wish to clarify that I don't think Westerners are more intelligent than non-Westerners, but I limit my comments to Western values in the sense I do in fact hold them superior to others, but not superior to all. — Hanover

The Israel/Hamas conflict is not west vs non-west.

That has always seemed a more reasonable approach to me, so fair enough lol. — AmadeusD

:up:

and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. — AmadeusD

It's a moot point. China is presently in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants, so there really isn't any global action to take. Most interested parties have moved on to considering the challenges of adaptation.