This demonstrates that it is a very complex issue. Essentially we choose, and are genetically inclined, to empathize with some and not with others. The tendencies may be somewhat unique to the individual, but they are readily shaped and modified by ideology. The limits to the "goodness" of empathy is a complex issue.

So, the synapses change accordingly to allow for memorizing things in time. — MoK

Don't you think so?

Do you disagree that memorizing requires synapse plasticity? — MoK

I think I was arguing the opposite. What I was saying is that despite talking about memories as if they are fixed objects, stored somewhere, they are never truly fixed. The plasticity means that they are always changing with each recollection.

Hume was also saying time doesn't exist. Could then time be the quality of ideas of objects perceived by mind in Hume? — Corvus

Hume has a mistaken premise, that sense perception consists of a "succession" of distinct perceptions. This is not consistent with experience, which demonstrates that we actually perceive continuous motion and change with our senses. This renders the quoted argument from Hume as unsound.

Consider, that there is a fundamental inconsistency between the observed continuity of movement and our conceptual representation of it, as demonstrated by Zeno. Hume describes our conceptual representation of motion as a "succession of changeable objects". He negates the Zeno inconsistency by describing sense perception as distinct perceptions. Then the continuity of movement is left out of the representation, as completely unreal. However, this is done by denying the reality that sense perception actually consists of continuous change rather than as a succession of objects. Accordingly, it also rids us of the fundamental Platonic principle of skepticism, that the senses deceive us. But it does this through his false premise, describing sensation as a succession of distinct perceptions. This false premise also produces the conclusion that time is not real, in a way related to how Zeno proved that motion is not real.

allowing people to understand deeply and care about the feelings of others — Rob J Kennedy

Is that what empathy is? I don't know about that.

The synapses only change when a new thing is memorized or learned. — MoK

Things are being learned and memorized at every moment in time.

Well, without synapse plasticity we just cannot memorize a new thing. — MoK

Memorizing is not a one time thing. Each time a person recollects, and memorizes, one does this in a new situation, under new conditions, therefore a new thing is memorized each time. Notice that to memorize something requires repeating the same thing over and over in the mind. The strength of the memory is dependent on the quality of the repetition. Whenever repetition is done under different conditions it is not really "the same thing" which is repeated. because of the new conditions. Plasticity allows that the memory can be strengthened or altered depending on the conditions of the repetition.

The memories are stored in the synapses. — MoK

I don't think that's accurate. Memory is attributed to synapse regulation, which works through synapse plasticity. So memory is a feature of this plasticity, which is a feature of synapse regulation, not the synapse itself. To understand memory is to understand how synapse plasticity is regulated.

What do you mean with the mind here? If by the mind you mean a substance, rather than physical, that ideas, such as thoughts, feelings, psychological time, etc. are present to it then I have to say there is a mind with the ability to experience the ideas. The ideas are however the manifestation of the neutrals' activities. — MoK

No, I don't think of the mind as a substance, I think of it as a cause of activity.

IMO, the boat amazing part of it is that, in my dreams, I am entirely surprised by everything. The scenery. What I find when I walk into a room. Who I run into. What others do. Events like the weather. I, obviously, created everything in my dream. Yet I chose to hide things from myself, and am somehow sble to do so. How do I make a character in my dream do and say everything it does and says, and still be surprised by everything it does and says? — Patterner

This is the real feature of dreams, the reality of dreams, which Christoffer is busily denying by reducing dreams to predictive coding.

But if memories are simply neural activity, then they are not "held" anywhere. They are something which happens, and it happens only when the memory is present to the mind.

If it is the case, then memories are not things stored in the subconscious, and your post is pretty much irrelevant.

I said that all memories stored in the subconscious mind are present to it at once. If not, then there must be many subconscious minds each knowing a certain memory at once. There are however two problems here which depend on how the memories are stored in the brain: 1) Either the memories are stored in different subconscious minds independently or 2) The memories are stored in different subconscious minds hierarchically, tree likes. — MoK

What if memory is like I suggested, a pattern of neural activity which is repeated?

It becomes impossible to even show you why you are wrong, where you are wrong and how, — Christoffer

That's the obvious consequence of a person being right. Accept the reality.

You aren't just calling what I argue about, pseudo-science, you actively point at these studies I've referenced and the science overall, calling it pseudo-science. — Christoffer

That's right, its pseudo-science. The final sentence in the passage confirms this. The author says, "the brain will jump from one prediction to another". Where's the verification in this? What actually occurs is not recognizable as prediction, so the author just claims, it's jumping around. The author is just assuming this to be some sort of predictive operation, so when the appearance is inconsistent with prediction, the claim is that it's jumping around.. The proper conclusion, the "bizarre, fragmented, and discontinuous dream narratives with vague, uncertain perceptual qualities" are not predictions at all.
The author makes the same mistake as you do, and provides the same pseudo science.

The author then supports this pseudo-science with what you call "anecdotal evidence", an example of a dream analyzed. How do we even know whether it's the report of an actual dream, and not just an example made up by the author?

And in what way does any evidence of that argue against what I'm saying? — Christoffer

I conclude that you are not very good with basic logic or critical thinling.

What I argue for is aligned with this; that when sleeping, sensory input is cut off, but the predictive operation continues, forming predictions from long term memory to test against experiences in our short term memory. — Christoffer

Then it's not predictive coding anymore, as the adversarial model indicates. That the two models are consistent with each other but applicable at different times, sleeping and awake, is not at all surprising, it is to be expected.

The adversarial process is just a layer that grounds this experience through virtual sensations. — Christoffer

The big issue though, is that the internal sensations, what you call "virtual sensations" are completely different from external sensations, as the difference between top-down and bottom-up. And this is the difference which makes verification irrelevant. And since verification is irrelevant the predictive coding model is not applicable.

In the article you quoted above, the author makes a half-ass attempt to show verification in the anecdotal evidence of the example dream, but it's clearly contrived and most likely fabricated evidence.

And for imagination and creativity when we are awake, it's the same thing, a decoupling of sensory verification using virtual verification to direct predictions from merely operating on reality. — Christoffer

"Virtual verification" is nonsense. It's a self-contradicting concept, fabricated in an attempt to apply the theory where it is not applicable.

None of this is a rejection of predictive coding, it's just expanding on details. — Christoffer

As I said, the adversarial model does not reject the predictive coding model. Nor did I ever reject the predictive coding model. I accept that it has its areas of application. However, the adversarial model is not an "expanding on details" of predictive coding. It is a representation of a distinct activity.

What I'd like to point out to you is that the two models are very distinct, modeling two distinct types of brain activity, one known as top-down, the other as bottom-up. They each have there place in the brain of a living human being, one taking priority when we are awake, the other when we are asleep. That these two are distinct is the reason for the op.

I'm constantly mentioning how the senses are cut off or scrambled and how it's this very fact that makes predictions unreliable and responsible for the surreal experience. I don't know why you don't get this simple fact and constantly try to change what I say to being that the process is relying on the senses and "have to include it". It's only relying on sense input for us to operating normally when we are awake through grounding the mental predictions. But I've said, numerous times, and it's the damn main point in my argument, that distortion of sense input or a complete lack of it scrambles the prediction ability; generating an experience we can either have as hallucinations or dreams. Just because the grounding data is distorted or gone doesn't mean the brain stops trying to predict in order to reach a state of normal operation. — Christoffer

I see you still refuse to differentiate between hallucinations which involve an input of sense data, and dreams, which do not. You do this intentionally so that you do not have to distinguish between a brain process which relies on sense input, and one which does not. This allows you to argue that predictive coding is applicable to dream activity.

Do you not recognize that being asleep is completely different from being awake? If you understand this, and recognize this difference, why wouldn't you also accept that the principal brain process when a person is asleep, is different from the principal brain process when a person is awake?

All three parts are essential for the normal operation when we are awake. — Christoffer

This is true if "normal operation" is restricted to predictive coding. That restriction however, is your mistake. Since dreaming is not explainable as predictive coding, this restriction leaves dreaming outside the category of "normal operation".

When our sense data is scrambled through drugs, or during sleep... — Christoffer

Sense input is not "scrambled" in sleep, it is absent. See you keep clutching at straws in your attempt to apply predictive coding where it is not suited.

so it grounds it in something else; the stored experiences in our short term memory as that's where our conscious experience has been stored when awake. — Christoffer

This is pure speculation, and it really makes no sense. If the predictive operation relies on sense input, how could it suddenly switch this reliance to memory instead? Even if it did, it wouldn't be predictive coding anymore, it would be a different process.

That you say that it can't be called predictive coding if one part isn't working, is just some odd straw-man attempt to render the theory invalid because what exactly? — Christoffer

When an essential aspect of a theory is missing from the thing which the theory is being consider to be applied to, the theory is not applicable. That's simple logic, it's not a straw man.

While when we sleep they're cut off or effectively subdued, and predictions must rely on something else for grounding. — Christoffer

If it's grounded in something else, then it's not consistent with predictive coding theory. The obvious conclusion, is that predictive coding is not applicable, as the supposed jumbled "predictions" are not really predictions at all, and there is no point in even looking for the "something else", because it's a completely distinct process.

IF you say the keys are in your pocket when they are in the door, then you are wrong. — Banno

As I said, that's a judgement. Do you dispute the obvious?

Second, how is it that someone can be wrong? To be wrong is to have a belief that is different to how the world is, but if the world is their creation, that would require someone to create a world different to how they believe the world to be. How can we make sense of this? — Banno

That someone is wrong is a judgement. There is no necessary relation between a judgement of "wrong", and how the world is. This is because a judgement is always a matter of choice. Therefore the question of "how is it that someone can be wrong?" is answered with "because we have the power of choice to judge someone as wrong".

The error that I’m pointing to, is taking the mind-independence assumed by naturalism as a metaphysical axiom or a statement about the actual nature of reality. — Wayfarer

Taking mind-independence for granted, as a metaphysical axiom, is completely pointless because it provides no ontological principles through which one could understand the assumed mind-independence. Without any such principles, we have nothing to base judgement of truth or falsity about mind-independence, and these judgements are therefore based in persuasive rhetoric, such as claims like "it's science".

This is why Aristotle proposed the law of identity, 'a thing is the same as itself'. This is meant as a first principle of mind-independence. As a metaphysical axiom it can be debated, accepted, or denied. But since it is the traditional first principle of mind-independence, denial of it prevents understanding of mind-independence, without an alternative proposal.

The law of identity is derived from, or based in, the observed temporal continuity of things, the tendency for things to remain as they are through a duration of time. approached this issue much earlier in the thread.

I don't think that is the case. The subconscious mind is a part of the brain, that part is a neural net, therefore the subconscious mind is intelligent. I also think that all the memories stored in the subconscious mind are present to it at once otherwise we are dealing with a regress when we try to recall something. — MoK

How could it be that all memories which a person has could be present to a mind (subconsciously) at the same time? Wouldn't this be amazingly confusing for that subconscious mind?

The rest of the memories are stored in the subconscious mind. — MoK

Do you think that the memories are actually "stored" in the subconscious? Or is it a subconscious activity which brings the memories to the attention of the conscious mind, and the memory itself is not actually stored anywhere?

An argument needs support in evidence, otherwise an argument is just an opinion. — Christoffer

I provided the evidence. Were you not paying attention?

You reject the actual science because it doesn't align with what you believe and therefore you believe that your own argument is more accurate than an argument based in the actual science. It's impossible to argue with someone who is so fundamentally entrenched in their own belief. — Christoffer

I have no problem with the science of predictive coding, I think it's fine in its application to the mental activity of an awake human being. But since an essential aspect of that theory is sensation, and this does not occur when we are asleep and dreaming, I reject, as pseudo-science, your attempt to apply the theory to dream activity.

And what empirical evidence do you have that rejects predictive coding? — Christoffer

The evidence is clear and obvious, sensing does not occur in the dream state. Further, sensing is an essential feature of predictive coding. Those two premises are well supported by evidence. Therefore the conclusion, that predictive coding is not applicable to dream activity is well supported by evidence.

You don't understand what predictive coding is and how it works. You invent your own interpretation of it and then argue against it. — Christoffer

Look, this is a direct quote from the link which you provided:

In neuroscience, predictive coding (also known as predictive processing) is a theory of brain function which postulates that the brain is constantly generating and updating a "mental model" of the environment. According to the theory, such a mental model is used to predict input signals from the senses that are then compared with the actual input signals from those senses. Predictive coding is member of a wider set of theories that follow the Bayesian brain hypothesis. — Wikipedia

Notice that the "model is used to predict input signals from the senses that are then compared with the actual input signals from those senses." If you really believe that the theory has been scientifically proven to apply to the dream state, then please explain the science. And don't simply refer to supposed chaotic and erroneous predictions that occur without sense input. These chaotic and erroneous "predictions" are not predictions at all, but acts of creativity.

What science are you drawing upon to make this counter-argument? — Christoffer

Are you familiar with theories of adversarial dreaming? Such theories use the concept of general adversarial networks, they focus on the creative capacity of dreams, and are completely distinct from predictive coding theory:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9071267

Predictive processing theories propose that these representations emerge from predicting or reconstructing sensory inputs. However, brains are known to generate virtual experiences, such as during imagination and dreaming, that go beyond previously experienced inputs. Here, we suggest that virtual experiences may be just as relevant as actual sensory inputs in shaping cortical representations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38097096/

Where's your foundation? What are the corner stones of your logic? — Christoffer

See above please.

And since the brain is active during sleep, so is the predictive coding process. — Christoffer

According to your referenced material, the predictive coding process operates with the use of "signals from the senses", which are noticeably absent from the dreaming process. Therefore, predictive coding is absent from the brain process occurring during sleep.

On what basis do you form that conclusion? In what way does not the science support what I say? Please provide that in order to reject it, your opinion of it is totally irrelevant. — Christoffer

See above please.

A system of individual parts operating with each other does not mean that if one of the systems fails then all other systems immediately fail as well. — Christoffer

Sure, but the way you describe predictive coding all three parts are required for it, as essential aspects. If one part is missing, then the process cannot be called predictive coding. Clearly, "signals from the senses" is an essential aspect of predictive coding, which is missing from the dream activity. Therefore the dream activity cannot be represented as predictive coding.

If you distort one of the systems, the experience will alter, but it wouldn't shut off the entire system. — Christoffer

This is not a case of distorting one of the systems, it is a case of one being absent. That's why I very intentionally stressed the point that hallucinating is not the same as dreaming, when you first engaged me.

If sense information is disrupted or cut off, the mental model is still trying to predict, but getting no input signals and when comparing, is biased towards the prediction. — Christoffer

If you are so convinced by "the science", then I assume you can produce the science which shows that the predictive coding model is applicable to brain activity which occurs, with no signals from the senses. I'll be waiting.

I should have said: The conscious mind owes most of its experiences to the subconscious mind". This is now an accurate statement. — MoK

Now, all you need to do is notice that the conscious mind has some causal power over the subconscious, and we'd be in agreement. From this agreement we could proceed to discuss the effect of this causal power, and the extent of it. Would you agree that what we call "will power" is an example of this causal power.

The subconscious mind is intelligent because it knows what sort of input the conscious mind requires when the conscious mind focuses on a topic. — MoK

How do you know that this is not just an automatic type of action, like a computer? Maybe the conscious indicates to the subconscious what to do, and the subconscious does it, like machine. You say that the conscious mind's access to memories is limited, and that's obvious from the fact that memory is not perfect, and degrades with time, but I think that this is generally a degradation of the subconscious part.

The subconscious mind can create thoughts as well. It occurred to me on several occasions in my life that I was thinking about something very hard without reaching a conclusion. — MoK

This is obvious, in dreams, and that is the point of the op. It is the subconscious which creates those thoughts. And we must call them "thoughts", because they are not memories, but imaginative fictional experiences. But what I was arguing, is that in these instances where the subconscious is "thinking", without being directed by the conscious, the thoughts are very random and not logically consistent.

But I do not agree that you could have been "thinking about something very hard" with only the subconscious part of your mind, because "very hard" implies conscious effort. And whether you reached a conclusion or not is irrelevant to whether you were thinking consciously or subconsciously.

The conscious mind does not receive any sense data when the person is asleep. It however receives hallucinations so-called dreams when the person is asleep. The situation is different when the person is awake. — MoK

Dreams are not hallucinations. The two are completely different because the hallucinating person is awake. There my be a blurred boundary between the two, such as when the hallucinating person passes out, or goes into a coma. Also, the lucid dreaming discussed earlier takes advantage of a similar blurred boundary between sleeping and being awake.

But you provide no support for that explanation. I'm referring to predictive coding which has experimental verification. — Christoffer

I provided you a very good argument demonstrating that dreaming cannot possibly be a predictive process. This leaves verification, which is related to predictive process, as totally irrelevant. That was my support.

"My" predictive coding theory? Sorry, but if you're to reject an actual scientific theory that has experimental proof behind it, then I'm sorry, but you're not operating on a level enough for critical thinking around this subject. — Christoffer

So-called "scientific theory" is rejected when it is not consistent with empirical evidence. That is the nature of one form of critical thinking.

If you are to object to it, provide references to other experimental data and theories that criticize it. There are some that do this, all thought today they're in a minority due to the experimental evidence backing predictive coding. — Christoffer

I've provided you the argument which eliminates the possibility that dreaming is a predictive process. To reiterate, a "prediction" consists of extending the immediate past into the future, to predict what will happen. Without any sense data there is no immediate past upon which to base a prediction for the future, therefore prediction is impossible. A dream is not a predictive process. "Predictive process" theory applies only to a brain which is actively sensing

Further, I provided personal evidence, of when I have dreamed about falling. In these dreams I awaken at the precise instance that prediction enters the experience. These dreams flow by, as experience at the present, with absolutely no predictive process, and when I start falling, the awakening is simultaneous with the prediction of hitting the ground. This clearly indicates to me, that prediction is a part of the awake mind, but not a part of the dreaming mind. That is my "experimental data".

Predictions are based on past experiences, that's what I'm saying, but these predictions are similar to generative computation in which the generated predictions are chaotic and filled with errors. Sense data grounds this and verifies it in real-time. — Christoffer

It seems that you have no rigorous criteria for what constitutes a "prediction". For you, a random generation would qualify as a prediction. And then instead of recognizing that a specific type of thinking is not a form of prediction at all, you look at that form of thinking which is not a form of prediction, as a prediction which is "chaotic and filled with errors". This is just sophistry, which allows you to include into a category, things which are not of that category at all, by saying that they are erroneous aspects of that category.

My "experimental data", explained above, demonstrates that prediction is actually excluded from the dreaming process. Whenever prediction attempts to infiltrate the dreaming process, the dreaming person is plunged into awakeness. This shows that the dream is not a prediction which is chaotic and filled with errors due to a lack of data from past experience. The dream actually consists of an exclusion of the predictive process. When prediction tries to force its way into the dream, the dreamer awakens.

And, when you look at the dream from the premise that thinking is fundamentally a predictive process, the dream appears to consist of predictions which are chaotic and filled with errors. But that's simply because the dream is not a predictive process, and the premise that thinking is fundamentally a predictive process is therefore proven to be false.

No, you are using "the dreaming mind" as a elemental object in your rhetoric as if it was an object in support of your conclusions. The "dreaming mind" means nothing without the facts on how it operates and function and why we dream in the first place. I'm speaking of the mechanics behind it, which then informs the reason why we experience the belief in our dreams as they happen. You can't just say "the dreaming mind" as some illusive part of your argument and ignore the reasons why we dream. — Christoffer

It is you who is making "the dreaming mind" into an elemental object, through your false premise. You premise that thinking is fundamentally a predictive process, and then you view all mental activity from this perspective. This gives you a significantly biased perspective.

Instead of viewing predictive capacity as a higher aspect proper only to a highly developed consciousness, with a highly developed intellectual capacity, you view predictive capacity as a fundamental aspect of any form of thinking. So when you look at the more base aspects of thinking, such as those demonstrated by dreaming, you improperly impose this highly developed aspect, predictive capacity, onto that base aspect, and conclude that the base aspect is carrying out the higher aspect to a lesser degree, which is chaotic and full of error. This robs you of the ability to properly understand the base capacity, for what it really is, and how it allowed for the development of the higher capacity, because all you can see is a lack of the higher capacity (chaotic and filled with errors), and you have no principles by which to understand what the base capacity really is.

Because it is part of understanding why it happens. When sensory verification gets cut off, people still believe the reality that is scrambled in their experience. Because there's no other system in the mind that operates as a form of separate perception of the experience able to deduce its validity or not, it's a holistic system in which the distortion of reality and the belief in that reality depends on how well the whole system is able to operate. A gradual process that at a certain point of distortion, distorts the whole process and in turn the ability to discern what's real and what's not based on our experience of verified reality.

It's hard to explain this when you seem to get lost in even the most basic explanation. — Christoffer

I agree that this is hard for you to explain to me. Your false premise makes "verification" irrelevant. So you'll never get through to me in this way. It's like you are saying that you can explain how the different shades of red are different degrees of sweetness, and you are going on about these different shades of sweetness, when I am insisting that your basic premise, "red is sweet" is false.

That's what I'm doing, I'm claiming that your basic premise "thinking is a predictive process" is false. So you'll never get through to me by talking about verification, because I've already excluded verification as irrelevant by denying your basic premise.

For the second time, it's not "my" theory, it's a scientific theory with experimental evidence. — Christoffer

It is your theory. You have adopted it, and support it. Therefore it is your theory, and it forms your bias, regardless of who invented it.

While this process is constantly happening, it's when we sleep that we consolidate and flush our short term memory and produce stronger neurological pathways. — Christoffer

OK, let's look at this. Would you agree, that when we sleep, and we "consolidate and flush our short term memory and produce stronger neurological pathways", that this is not a predictive process? If so, then why would you think that dreaming, which is also what occurs when we sleep, is a predictive process?

Predictive operation happens through the interplay between short term memory, long term memory and sense verification. Cutting out one of these out or distort it, will scramble the entire process, making the experience jarring for us, as we experience in hallucinations and dreams. — Christoffer

This is completely wrong, and misrepresentative. You are just making it up.

If "predictive operation" requires three aspects, and one of them is removed, then we no longer have "predictive operation". That is simple logic. If three parts are required to make a specific whole, and one is missing, then we do not have that specific whole. Taking one part out does not "scramble the entire process", it denies the possibility of that process.

You do not visit long term memory. It's not a damn book store. — Christoffer

It appears like you are so wrapped up in your pseudo-science, and deceptive false premises, that you do not even consider your own personal experiences, and how they would easily refute what you appear to believe. When I want to think about something which occurred years ago, I "visit long term memory", just like if it was a conveniently located book store.

Wrong, memory consolidation and the processes of the mind are proven to be "on" even when we sleep. You are denying the science here, making shit up to support your own ideas. — Christoffer

This demonstrates clearly what your problem is. You characterize "the processes of the mind" as fundamentally predictive, and you take this as a primary premise. Then you admit evidence which demonstrates that the mind is active even when we are asleep. But instead of admitting the evidence which demonstrates that the activity while asleep is not predictive, thereby disproving your primary premise, you wrongly assert that the activity while one is asleep is predictive.

Your experience is not evidence and proof of what you say. — Christoffer

If experience is not evidence then you are not doing science. This is more evidence that what you present is pseudo-science.

Predictive coding at its core is not about you "consciously" predicting anything. What does this have to do with predictive coding? You're just confused. I recommend you read up on what you're arguing against before making up odd interpretations of what the prediction aspect is about. — Christoffer

Why don't you read up on actual sleep science and neuroscience instead? — Christoffer

I think it's you who needs to read up on "predictive coding". You are wrongly applying the science of the neurological activity which depends on sense perception (awake), to the neurological activity which occurs without sense perception (asleep). This has gotten you totally confused.

Your belief is irrelevant when the science says otherwise. — Christoffer

Personal experience is irrelevant to you, because you are a pseudo-scientist. A true scientist knows that verification relies on experience.

No, as I repeatably have been saying, hallucinations and being under the influence, inflicts a disruption to the interplay in predictive coding, primarily sense perception verification, which makes our brain predicting unreliable and producing distortions to our experience. — Christoffer

Maybe we can get somewhere if you'll seriously consider this statement of yours. What do you think constitutes this "disruption"? Since predictive coding requires sense perception, difficulties in sense perception, evidenced as hallucinations, are responsible for the stated unreliability. Now, I ask you to remove all sense perception, like in the case of sleeping. Do you not see that there is no predictive coding at all? Therefore dreaming cannot be described by predictive coding theory.

Fundamentally, you ignore the science behind all of this. — Christoffer

What I ignore is the pseudo-science which you are professing.

Drawing on these, forming a holistic theory of what happens when the chain of operation is disrupted, either through chemical psychedelics and when we sleep. — Christoffer

I am waiting for you to respect the fact that when the disruption is complete, as in the case of sleeping, the operation, which is the predictive coding process, no longer occurs. Therefore we cannot apply predictive coding theory to the dreaming mind.

Russia has only conquered Russian speaking, ethnically Russian, and also Russian identifying (to a large extent), regions in Ukraine (large extent being defined here as enough to render pacification easy).

Russia is simply not conquering, nor shows any signs of intending to conquer, anyone who is not fundamentally cool with being conquered. — boethius

I would call this bullshit. Do you think that speaking a specific language means that you identify with, as belonging to, and wanting to be a citizen of, i.e. "conquered by", that mother country where the language derives? For example, do you think that Americans would be "fundamentally cool" with being conquered by England because they speak English?

Furthermore, it's very evident that many expatriates are expatriates because they disavow the governance of the homeland. But when the disgruntled ex-citizens are perceived as congregating and conspiring against the government of the homeland, by members of that government, they might feel compelled to take action against them.

(I recall, but can’t re-find, a remark by a Republican, dismissing concern, along the lines of ‘some kid crying because he didn’t get his milk bottle’.) — Wayfarer

The poor baby, it doesn't get fed and it starts crying. Best to just walk away and ignore it.

The difference is that when a person is awake, his conscious mind experiences a simulation of reality that is the result of sensory inputs -- he also experiences thoughts, feelings, etc., whereas when he is asleep, he only experiences a simulation constructed by the subconscious mind. — MoK

This does not address the problem. You said: "The conscious mind owes all its experiences to the subconscious mind". This implies that in both dreaming and awake, the consciousness "only experiences a simulation constructed by the subconscious mind".

Now you have simply asserted that in the awake condition the simulation is the result of sensory inputs, thoughts and feelings. But these are things experienced in the consciousness. And, you have in no way answered my question, which was how do you account for this difference. If the conscious mind owes all of its experiences to the subconscious, why, and how, would the subconscious be creating these two very distinct types of experience for the consciousness, the asleep experience, and the awake experience?

The difference between the two is that the conscious mind can only function properly when a person is awake, while the subconscious mind is always active. The conscious mind is also responsible for creating new thoughts based on what it perceives from the subconscious mind. These new thoughts then are registered in the subconscious mind's memory for further analysis in the future. — MoK

You are being inconsistent. If the consciousness owes all of its experience to the subconscious, as you claim, then it is inconsistent to say that the conscious mind can create something itself (new thoughts). And if we allow that the conscious mind has such a creative capacity, then we need principles to distinguish between what is created by the conscious and what is created by the subconscious. Without such principles, one could argue, as Cartesian skeptics do, that everything supposedly presented from the subconscious, along with sense data, are a creation of the conscious.

Becoming awake is partly due to senses (from Google): People wake up at a certain time in the morning primarily due to their "circadian rhythm," which is essentially the body's internal clock located in the brain's hypothalamus, that regulates sleep-wake cycles by releasing hormones like melatonin based on light exposure, causing us to feel sleepy at night and alert in the morning when light hits our eyes; essentially signaling the body to wake up. — MoK

I don't understand what you are saying. You explain the circadian rhythm as something completely independent from the senses, yet you claim that being awake is partly due to the senses.

As I mentioned, the subconscious mind is always active otherwise it could not construct dreams. — MoK

Again, this doesn't address the issue, which is the following. If the subconscious is always active, therefore always providing something for the consciousness, why would it at sometimes provide sense data, and at other times not? If things are as you say, that the subconscious is always in complete control over what the consciousness receives, and the consciousness has no causal influence over this, then how does the subconscious turn off and on the sense input, when it appears to be the opposite, because it is actually the consciousness which goes to sleep and wakes up? Since the consciousness is what goes to sleep and wakes up, it appears obvious that the consciousness itself turns off and on the sense data.

That is not what I was saying. I said that the similarities are in how it disconnects or scramble the verification process in the brain. Making the brain trying to predict something it does not get a verification to ground the predictions into an easily navigational space. — Christoffer

I explained to you why "verification" is irrelevant.

It's part of predictive coding theory which is the current dominant theory in the science of consciousness. If you don't agree, you need to provide something else that explains how the predictions are structured into a consistent experience. — Christoffer

No, I do not have to provide something else. I demonstrated logically, from sound premises, why your "predictive coding theory" is false in its application to dreams. There is no need for me to provide an alternative. In fact, the reason for starting this thread, was to ask others for theories. I simply reject yours, for the reasons given.

Why are you concluding it to be something else rather than unbound predictions based on the flow of memories? As I mentioned, in predictive coding, it's already stated that our sensory data grounds the predictive process, so you're simply wrong against the dominating theory. — Christoffer

Unless there is something experienced as "the past", there is no grounds for any prediction of "the future". Anything predicted of the future must be derived from something already experienced of the past. When you say that predictions are based on the flow of memories you admit to this. So unless you provide another source for memories, you have not any principles to deny that prediction is based in, and requires sensation.

Short term memory is a form of RAM memory bridge that is constantly feeding experiences into long term memory to restructure it for better predictions. — Christoffer

You have provided no principles to support this speculation that the purpose of this "memory bridge" is "better predictions". You simply assume "prediction" as your principle, and you see that this "bridge" could produce better predictions, so you conclude therefore it's purpose is better predictions. That is not a valid conclusion.

When we dream, it's our experience of this stream of sequences being consolidated into a restructuring of our predictive model. We experience our brain trying to predict reality based on the stream of sequences from our short term memory, but there's no sensory perception to ground that stream of experiences that's flushed out of our short term memory. So it predicts without solid footing and we experience this interplay between old and new memories as they're being consolidated into long term memories to later be used for future predictions when we wake up. — Christoffer

This makes no sense at all. If there is no sensory perception then there is no short term memory. Therefore the "stream of sequences" within a dream, when there is no sensory perception, is not "from our short term memory". It's very clear, from what a dream actually is, often involving relations from the distant past, that a dream is not a "stream of sequences from our short term memory". And since it is clearly not short term memories involved in a dream, it is equally ridiculous to claim that a dream is some sort of predictive process.

What is this "dreaming mind"? You're not describing an actual process here, just referring to some elusive conjecture called "the dreaming mind". — Christoffer

The "dreaming mind" is a mind which is dreaming. Have you never actually had a dream before? If you have, then I'm sure you've experienced your mind to be dreaming, and you know exactly what I mean by "the dreaming mind".

Our awareness of what is real and what is not has nothing to do with the prediction and verification process. — Christoffer

Then why present me with this theory of prediction and verification, if it has no bearing on what is expressed in the op? Are you admitting that your prediction theory is irrelevant here?

If your read what I'm saying, that's what I'm saying. Even though you're a bit off on the role of the sensory data (the sum experience of interplay between long term memory predictions and sensory data verifying it - is the thing that feeds the long term memory with alterations for how to predict the next moment), the concept is that without the sensory data to ground the prediction model, it can only use the short term memory's stored sequences from the last awaken state as its verification, which scrambles the experience as it's not raw data constantly grounding the predictions. — Christoffer

This is clear evidence that your prediction model is incapable of accurately representing the reality of the situation. First, there is no separation between sensory data and short term memory, as. Sensory data is short term memory, as the thing sensed is in the past by the time sensation of it is recognized. So, without sensory data (short term memory) the mind must rely on long term memory. This is why dreams often consist of long ago acquaintances. Next, long term memory does not predict the next moment. That's nonsensical, the next moment must be predicted from the last moment, i.e. short term memory. Finally, when we visit long term memories we are reflecting, or trying to learn some general principles, we are not predicting. Predicting is when we apply such principles.

So the dreaming mind, which is drawing on the long term memory, because the short term is incapacitated by sleep, is not predicting at all. Let me present you with an example, my childhood recurring dream of falling. My dreams would progress through many stages, until they'd reach the point when I am falling. Then, with the "prediction" of hitting the ground, I would wake up instantaneously. Waking up was simultaneous with predicting. So we can see that there was no predicting within the dream itself, and the occurrence of prediction coincided with waking up, as being a feature of the mind in its awake condition, not its dreaming condition.

But this wouldn't really account for the behavior of dreams combining experiences of both present day and long term stored memories. That there's an interplay between new experiences we just had and memories we might consciously have forgotten about. The interplay between them is the brain looking for connections, neural paths that combine into a solid prediction before the next day. — Christoffer

I do not think that this is representative of common dreaming at all. My dreams practically never have present day experiences within them. They are almost always completely removed and distinct from what I was doing that day, having no relationship to that whatsoever.

You essentially counter-argue with the same conclusion I've already made. Which implies you don't really understand what I'm talking about. And you're not really explaining anything, you're saying an opinion and then use that to form a conclusion. You need actual science and theories behind what you conclude, not just what you agree or don't agree with, otherwise it's just opiniated conjecture. — Christoffer

Again, all I need to show is the evidence to support my premises, and logic, which demonstrates that your predictive coding theory is not applicable to dreams. Then I have a sound conclusion, and I need no science, or other theories, because I have sound premises and valid logic.

I think you need to read up on predictive coding and what that implies for this topic. Otherwise you're getting lost in what I'm talking about. — Christoffer

As I said last post, I have no problem recognizing the importance of prediction in the workings of the mind. However, for the reason explained, and the logical argument I presented, I believe that Predictive coding is not applicable to the dreaming mind (activity of a mind in the dreaming condition).

I think that what is misleading you is that predictive coding is somewhat applicable to a mind under the influence of hallucinogens, and you seem to think that hallucinating is the same as dreaming. This is why I was very quick to tell you that being under the influence of psychedelics is completely different from being asleep and dreaming.

I don't think that the conscious mind has such a causal power at all. The conscious mind owes all its experiences to the subconscious mind. — MoK

Then how would you account for the difference between awake experiences, and dream experiences? If each is the subconscious presenting experience to the conscious, in the exact same way, why is there a difference between the two? We can't simply say that the senses are active in one case, and inactive in the other, because we need to account for whatever it is which activates the senses. The senses do noy activate themselves. Nor does it appear like the subconscious activates the senses, or else they would be activated in dreams. But in most cases, when a sense is activated (a loud sound for instance), it coincides with waking up.

The short version is that it involves using a nightmare scenario as a proxy for someone's total freedom and then using risk as a proxy for percentage to weigh various freedoms as a percentage of that total. — Dan

By "various freedoms", you really mean various constraints don't you? This is how "total freedom" is broken down into individual "freedoms", by imposing moral restrictions on any aspect of the total freedom which falls outside the boundaries of each individual freedom. So what you would really be weighing is the value of those restrictions, each set of restrictions designed to produce a different specific "freedom" from the base, total freedom.

So I don't understand which kind of causal power I have over the subconscious mind. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

I think I explained this already. The conscious part of your mind must have the ability to cause the subconscious part to present things to it in a sensible, rational way, or else the subconscious would be doing it in a random way like when we dream. So it is the ability to think rationally, and in a more general sense the ability to stay awake, which is the conscious mind exercising causal power over the subconscious.

For instance, you say that what is learned is registered in the subconscious. Let's call this a memory, and we'll say that the subconscious has a whole lot of memories. When the conscious mind thinks in a rational way, it needs to recall memories from the subconscious which it uses in that activity. Therefore it must have causal power over the subconscious, to cause the subconscious to present these memories to it in a way which makes sense. If the conscious did not have causal power over the subconscious, the subconscious would be presenting things in a random way, like in a dream.

We cannot remember everything that we experienced in the past since that information is huge. When it comes to memorizing the subconscious mind is very selective and just memorizes things that are necessary for the future. Anyhow, regarding remembering past life, I am arguing that this memory should be registered in another substance since people who report such memories do not have the same body. — MoK

I consider "memorizing" to be an activity of the conscious mind, not the subconscious. It is a repetitive practise of recollection.

Not really true. If you take psychedelics you will be aware of the hallucinations being fake until a point you start to believe in it. It's similar to what happens when we dream. — Christoffer

I've taken a lot of psychedelics, and I don't think it's at all similar to dreaming.

The closest we are to define what dreams are is that the mind, in the wake state, operates on a prediction process in which every perception we have of reality around us is a construct in our brain based on it predicting the next instance of time. Through out senses our brain "ground" our experience as a form of anchor by constantly verifying our predictions with reality around us. — Christoffer

I can agree that this prediction process, is an important aspect of consciousness, but I do not really agree with the verification aspect you are suggesting.

What happens when we dream or take psychedelics? It's basically cutting off or disrupting the sensory ability to verify predictions. Psychedelic visual hallucinations disturbs the verification process so much that the prediction process cannot get accurate verification, and so its scrambled. — Christoffer

I think you have this reversed, the predictions require sense perception as the basis of the prediction, what the prediction is derived from. To know what comes next requires sensing what just happened. Therefore, when sense perception is not there, in the dream, predictions simply cannot be made. This implies that what is produced in the dream state is something other than predictions.

It basically makes your brain trying to predict something based on the new conditions its in, and the new conditions are scrambled. This is why we soon start to believe in them, because its not our brain generating it directly, its that our verification of them tells our brain that yes, this is true. — Christoffer

In a dream, all of the so-called "conditions" are created by the dreaming mind. Therefore it is the brain generating the conditions directly, and the person dreaming believes them regardless of how scrambled they are. Verification is irrelevant, unless perhaps the person is lucid dreaming and has purposedly forced the desire for verification to become part of the dream.

So, when we sleep, the main thing that happens is that the brain shuts off the stream of sensory input that is used to verify what the brain is predicting. — Christoffer

You are neglecting the fact that a stream of sensory data is required to produce a prediction in the first place. And this is not available to the dreamer. Therefore the dream does not consist of predictions.

So the logical reason for why we dream and why we believe the dream we have when we experience it, is because we don't have a verification process during this phase. — Christoffer

As explained above, dreams are not predictions, and verification is irrelevant. So I think the rest of your post is derived from false premises.

I don't think that the conscious mind has such a causal power. I experience hallucinations all the time. I see things and hear things that other people cannot see or hear. — MoK

Have you ever considered that perhaps your mind might be somewhat lacking in this causal power which other people have with their minds, and this is why they say that you have schizophrenia?

People say that I have schizophrenia but they cannot explain the phenomenon at all. — MoK

Isn't what I said, 'a deficiency in that causal power', actually an explanation of the phenomenon? You do not accept that explanation, for whatever reason, but that doesn't negate it as an explanation. It just means that you do not believe it as an explanation.

If that is true then the memory should be registered in a substance that is not physical because we are aware of the shortage of physical memory and problems related to memory loss due to brain damage. — MoK

If I understand correctly, a specific memory consists of a specific pattern of neural activity. To remember something exactly as it was experienced, requires an exact recreation of that specific neural activity. Theoretically, therefore, we could remember everything experienced, by reproducing the necessary neural activity.

Therefore, such a memory must be registered in another substance other than physical. Perhaps soul! Who knows? — MoK

The issue of memory then, is not a matter of substance, but a matter of repeating neuronal activity. But this produces the further question of what it is that is performing this repetition, on demand, as remembering. Is it the soul which does this?

They don't care because they don't understand anything. That's how he got there in the first place. The majority of people who got him into office are uneducated and totally unaware of anything outside their small community bubble they live in. — Christoffer

This is the problem of democracy which Plato described in The Republic, and the reason why he designated democracy as the worst, or most corrupt form of government, to be surpassed in corruption only by tyranny which doesn't even qualify as a form of government. The average citizen is not inclined to educate oneself, concerning what constitutes good leadership, and ends up voting for whoever promises to please them.

In theory, democracy looks like the greatest form of government. In practise though, politics is an extremely difficult, and time consuming field of study. If a person doesn't engage oneself in this study it is likely that one will not make a good choice in the vote. To avoid the guilt of whimsy, the voter succumbs to populism or "mob rule".

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that lucid dreaming doesn't really solve the issue of inconsistency between dreaming and awake realities, but it removes the "distinct" aspect by blurring the boundary. When the boundary is blurred by lucidity, we can't really say whether the lucid dreamer is partly awake, or there is an awake person who is dreaming. Therefore lucid dreaming doesn't resolve the absurd self-deception I referred to in the op, it just increases the absurdity by allowing the conscious mind to take part in the self-deception.

So when says "I remember testing the state by knocking on a table while strolling by", this "test" is an act which confirms that the conscious mind has allowed itself to partake of the self-deceptive dream state. Instead of the conscious mind intentionally staying out of the deceptive dream state, because it cannot make any sense of what is going on, so it just stays out and lets the inconsistency and deception proceed in its own way, the conscious mind willfully allows itself to be drawn into the self-deception, ignoring the deceptive nature, and the absurdities involved.

The conscious mind just experiences a simulation created by the subconscious mind. It takes the experience granted to be real in the dream since it cannot analyze whether the dream represents something real or not. We can however have lucid dreams in which we are aware that what we experiencing is a dream. We can even have control over our actions in lucid dreams. I have lucid dreams from time to time. — MoK

From considering the evidence, I don't think it's possible for this to be a one way causation, of the subconscious causing, or granting, what is experienced by the conscious. As demonstrated by the randomness of dreams, the subconscious could present the conscious with almost any possible experience. However, the consciousness normally rejects the inconsistent absurd presentations, allowing them only in times of sleep. This means that in times of being awake, the conscious mind must be actively suppressing the subconscious, and exercising causal control over it, to ensure that it provides only presentations which make sense to it.

This cannot be merely a filtering of the subconscious presentations, the conscious part must be actively controlling the way that the subconscious formulates its presentations, to ensure that whatever is "granted" from the subconscious is coherent and consistent with the way that the conscious understands things. Otherwise the subconscious would be continually slipping into incoherent, and inconsistent presentations, like it does in dreaming. So this effort which the conscious part of the mind must make, in order to exercise control over what the subconscious is presenting it with, manifests as the effort of staying awake when a person gets sleepy. In general, this would be the essence of tiredness, weakening of the capacity to exercise that control.

The conscious mind has very limited memory. This memory is also temporary. Anything that the conscious mind experiences therefore must be registered in the subconscious mind to recall it later. So, either the subconscious mind playing a game with the conscious mind, or the dream is a supernatural phenomenon in which we, the conscious and subconscious minds, are immersed within. — MoK

I've heard speculations, that actually everything anyone ever experiences is put into one's memory. And, all the problems we have with memory are due to our ability to retrieve what is there in the memory. Have you ever heard of "Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory" or hyperthymesia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia

he perceptual functions of brain might be dormant during sleep.

But some brain functions such as imagination could still be active, — Corvus

Aren't the perceptual functions and imaginative functions pretty much the same though?

It's because your ability to track your own beliefs, and to detect inconsistencies between them, is greatly diminished when you are asleep and dreaming. — Pierre-Normand

Are you saying that when a person is asleep one cannot think rationally yet they are still thinking? I don't know if that type of brain activity, dreaming, can qualify as thinking. But then what is it?

Also, the set of the beliefs (or apparent perceptual experiences) that you acquire when dreaming, many of which are ephemeral and transient, aren't just inconsistent with the stable beliefs that you hold and are able to express or entertain when awake. They are internally inconsistent as well. So, if you would identify selves, or persons, with owners of sets of mutually consistent beliefs, then there would be either no person when you sleep, or as many transient persons as there are new inconsistent beliefs that occur unnoticed. — Pierre-Normand

OK, so then a "self" has no inherent consistency within one's mind, always drifting off into sleep where things get really confused.

What about the self-deception though? Why do things appear to be consistent and believable to the self in the dream state, when they are so far out of synch with what would be necessary for being consistent to the rational awake self? How can it do this to itself, to disconnect itself from all those rational capacities, and leave itself completely vulnerable to be so easily and completely deceived?

In the sort of lucid dream I described, one realizes exactly what is happening. I remember testing the state by knocking on a table while strolling by, feeling the fibers of the carpet beneath my feet. — jgill

But is this really a dream though? It doesn't sound like you were even asleep, if you noticed yourself strolling by a table, and you could even knock on the table to confirm that you were not asleep.

I have a knack for imagining situations through models but have a poor memory of my chronology. I know people who can recall small details of their early life and the order in which events occurred. For me, it is all a shuffled deck of flash cards with few names attached. — Paine

I guess I am sort of the opposite to you then. From a young age I would put effort into putting my memories into chronological order. It's not something that really comes naturally, reflecting on what happened and putting the memories in order, more like a skill to be developed. I believe the ambition to do that was derived from the desire to explain it to someone else. There's a similarity here, to waking up after a dream, and trying to remember what happened in the dream, to explain it to yourself. The big difference is that the order of events in the dream doesn't need to make any sense, whereas in establishing chronological order to past memories, making sense out of it all, facilitates putting them in order.

Rilke uses the gap to uncover what escapes perception without guidance: — Paine

I would assume that there is two sides to this, two directions to be looking across the gap. If perception must be guided by some kind of rationality, the rationality is also guided by perception. So for instance, when I try to order my past memories, perception gives me guidance by telling me what makes sense. However, the strangeness of my dreams indicates that perception itself must be guided in order for it to make sense.

Maybe this type of guidance is what @jgill is getting at with lucid dreaming.

My view is that you are the same person when asleep or awake, but your mental abilities and cognitive processes are very much different. — Pierre-Normand

How can the two be the same person, when the things believed by the sleeping person are completely inconsistent with the things believed by the awake person.

Imagine that the nucleus of the dream is some emotion, which surrounds itself with an event to explain the emotion. — frank

I find that my dreams start out as essentially emotionless, then certain emotions are stirred. So the emotion is caused by the event, which is the dream, not vise versa. When I was young I'd have a recurring dream of falling. The fear intensified until the emotion was so intense that it would wake me up. The dreams would start emotionless, then the emotion intensified to the point of being so intense that it actually woke me.

The subconscious mind creates what the conscious mind perceives whether what is perceived by the conscious mind is a dream or a simulation of reality. — MoK

This is on the right track of where the op is pointing. But the question is, how can the subconscious so thoroughly deceive the conscious, so that the conscious doesn't even know that it's not awake when the subconscious is producing dreams. Maybe there is no conscious mind when a person is dreaming, maybe it's all subconscious, and that's why the conscious doesn't know that it's just a dream, because the consciousness is completely absent. But then where is the consciousness at this time, and how can we account for the discontinuity?

Yes. But, in my personal philosophical thesis, Enformationism, Energy is a property/qualia of generic Information (the power to transform, or to cause change). Again, Information (or EnFormAction as I call it) is not a material Thing, but a Process and a relationship : cause/effect. The primary property of Whitehead's Process is Causation*1. — Gnomon

I don't see how this could solve the problem. Isn't it the case that information, or "EnFormAction", is itself a property of something, a system or something like that. So it doesn't really solve the problem, it defers it. You simply replace one property (energy) with another (information). This is similar to replacing the property of motion with the property of energy. In one context we would say that the thing has motion, but in another context we'd replace "motion" with "energy", and say that the thing has energy. Likewise, you now replace "the thing has energy" with "the thing has information". But you do not solve the problem of there needing to be a thing which has the said property.

A scientific resolution of such "problems" is over my untrained head. — Gnomon

The problem is ontological, I really don't think there even could be a scientific solution to it.

But in my own amateur thesis, the commonality between Processes (energy ; causation) and Objects (matter ; substance) is generic Information (the power to enform). I won't go off-topic on that notion in this thread, but my thesis and blog go into some detail, if you're interested in such unorthodox speculations. Basically, the post-Shannon understanding of "Information" is both Noun (objects) and Verb (processes). It's both causal Energy and sensable Concrescence. — Gnomon

"Energy" is a property, it is not something independent. We can speak about energy as if it is causal but we still have to account for the thing which the energy is a property of. That's why the problem is ontological.

Even if I admit that Trump and Musk may have ulterior motives they would do some things right yes? The coverage is ridiculous. — philosch

The problem with this approach is that when things are done right, it's not newsworthy, it's just the way things are expected to be done, so there is no news there, therefore no coverage. When things are done wrongly, there is news there, and so there is coverage.

The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. This problem forces Whitehead to employ mysterious concepts like concrescence, and prehension, which generally imply a form of panpsychism.

..."beings" sub specie durationis are atoms of "becoming" sub specie aeternitatis void... — 180 Proof

This is the problem, right here, in a nutshell. It's easy for a philosopher to simply assert that what appears to us as a substantial "being", is actually a conglomeration of distinct yet somehow united, activities, processes. However, to explain how such a reality is logically possible requires consistent principles which can be taken as true premises.

The fundamental issue which makes process philosophy counterintuitive, is that we cannot properly conceptualize a process, or activity without something which is active. This is a feature of our mode of conception, it's an epistemological issue. The conception of an activity itself, is something general, but when we apply that conception to the physical world, we need something particular which it is applied to.

In application therefore, there are boundaries required, and this commonly results in the use of systems theory. Now the problem is twofold. The boundaries of the system are quite arbitrary, designed for the purpose of the the people employing the theory, so the entity represented as "the system", being the assumed particular, is not a real entity. It's simply boundaries imposed for the purpose of study, experimentation, or prediction. Secondly, the activity within the system is always represented as an activity of objects, particles or whatever, so we do not have a true process premise here. Even electromagnetic waves become photons. This leaves systems theory as substance based, and inadequate for understanding process philosophy.

Also as another poster mentioned we don't want to draw Russia any closer to China. — BitconnectCarlos

Distance from Moscow to Beijing: 5,793.80 km

Reality itself cannot be known.
...
And if it just so happens that intellectual intuition is a real faculty of the human mind, if not the brain itself, then it follows that we can know Reality Itself. — Arcane Sandwich

What kind of logic takes you to a conclusion which contradicts your premise?

How else will they pay back their loans? — NOS4A2

Step into the twentieth century NOS, there's no need to payback loans. Just do what we all do, and pay interest on it forever.

Look:

2024 spending was $6.9 Trillion; revenues: $4.9 Trillion (deficit: $2 Trillion)

Spending breakdown:

24% Health Insurance (Medicare,Medicaid, CHIP, ACA)
21% Social Security
13% Defense
13% Interest on national debt
... — Relativist

It’s called diplomacy, a skill European’s seemed to have misplaced. Look how well all the silly war-mongering and war-profiteering has worked out until now. — NOS4A2

The war will work out great for Putin and Trump if they manage to divvy Ukraine's assets and leave the locals with nothing. That, is a lack of diplomacy.

Trump has no interest in the governing of Ukraine, the welfare of the people, or anything like that. He has no interest in people in general. To him, people are either cheering for him to do whatever he pleases, or they are annoying obstacles. He eyes Ukraine merely as assets to be divided, spoils of war. So he'll send armed forces in an attempt to make casualties out of any annoying obstacles. For him, there is no such thing as "Ukraine".

Because Trump isn't dividing anything to himself. What is he dividing for himself? — ssu

Trump has proposed American ownership of some of Ukraine's rare earth mineral deposits, and wants to send American troops to stake these claims.

mv is momentum, something reasonably intuitive. — noAxioms

If you think about it, the principle of momentum is really not at all intuitive. It's based in an assumption of constant velocity, which is not at all real, due to the influence of a multitude of factors. The constant velocity assumption is provided by Newton's first law, but this is just an ideal which is not at all representative of reality, due to that fact, that there is always an influence of a multitude of factors, constantly altering a body's velocity. In reality, velocity is always changing.

So Newton's first law is stated as a principle from which we can address the multitude of factors which are always causing velocity to change, as forces. It doesn't provide a truth about anything, but it provides a principle of utility, from which we can establish a perspective on changing velocity. However, since it negates the observed reality, that velocity is constantly changing due to the influence of a multitude of factors, which is the truth, and replaces it with an ideal fiction, designed with some specific purpose in mind. it is very counterintuitive. It is a denial of intuition for the sake of purpose.

KE is half mv², which is also intuitive to some, and is the same units as the mc² thingy. But those two formulas (momentum, KE) are newtonian concepts that work only at low v. — noAxioms

Kinetic energy is not a Newtonian concept, it is derived from Leibniz' "vis viva". Newton and Leibniz were at odds as to what was the best way to express an ideal (law) representing the conservation of motion. Leibniz insisted that his vis viva (kinetic energy) provided a better (more accurate) representation than Newton's momentum. Application demonstrated Leibniz to be correct. However, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that energy is never really conserved, and such principles are just fictional ideals anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis_viva

Biden was your successor and predecessor, but he planted the US flag in downtown Kyiv and declared on behalf of the United States that the US will be with Ukraine as long as it takes until Ukraine secures it's independence.

Now we might need to take another look at Ukraine's independence. Trump and Putin are in the midst of dividing it between themselves. We'll see how that works out.

No, it wouldn't be the cause for the trial. X being in court with prosecutors accusing, is the cause of the trial.

The debt spiral might not be able to be stopped. — NOS4A2

The politician's classic move. Promise the moon, to get elected, then admit it's not possible.