Though it is possible that Waltz invited one of the worst, rabid, anti-Trump journalists, from one of the worst, rabid, anti-Trump publications to read in on a chat with the vice-president, and the highest cabinet positions, the sheer unlikelihood of it demands consideration of other possibilities. — NOS4A2

ROFL!
"When the Fox host asked [Waltz]how Goldberg’s number ended up in the group, Waltz responded: “Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number there? " -- source

Sound familiar? (See my prior post)

I don’t consider the words of Jeffry Goldberg to be evidence. — NOS4A2

Of course you don't. You trust your biases:

Smells to me like deep-state sabotage. — NOS4A2

This is why know one should take you seriously.

the sheer unlikelihood of it — NOS4A2

Did anyone think the invite was intentional? The implication is that it was careless. Waltz may have had Goldberg's number misidentified, or it was in his computer's clipboard. As I noted, the app may have been hacked. Use of this app was probably inappropriate.

But it turns out, there was no classified information conveyed in the chat. See: this.

Silly Goldberg should have posted the info as soon as he received it.

You're right - whether or was a typo or hackers, they should have heeded to prior warnimg about using Signal.

It's possible hackers were involved. See: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

If true, then they were derelict in using Signal.

You're "supposed" to believe things based on evidence, not based on biased speculation. There IS evidence of Waltz' involvement - the invite came from his account. There are other possibilities, but it's irrational to jump to conclusions without evidence.

*edit*
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

Michael Waltz screwed up. There's no evidence of anyone else doing anything nefarious. The jounalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) did not release plans, in fact he asked to be removed from the chat group. He published his article after the planned actions were executed- he wasn't even sure it was real until he read of the events unfolding.

How do you feel about them in women's locker rooms? Or restrooms? Maybe it would matter how long they've been transitioning and what their results are? There's no easy answers. It's not Trump's fault. It's the difficulties inherent in trans life. Some people will transition for years and still not be passable. — BitconnectCarlos

There ARE easy answers: gender-neutral restrooms, single occupant restrooms. Single occupant shower/changing rooms in gyms are also feasible.

Trump is absolutely at fault. He has
-ordered the removal of TGs from the military and denyed them the ability to serve.
-blocked gender-affirming care from health-care providers
-forbade counselling in schools for students with gender identity problems.

This problem is intractable. You'd honestly want Trump to legislate on this? It's too thorny. — BitconnectCarlos

Of COURSE I don't want Trump to legislate on it, and his executive orders have created more problems.

Too thorny for what? Too thorny to be solved? There are difficult areas, and I expect it would take time- as did the evolution toward gays in the military and same-sex marriage. Both those "problems" are solved, notwithstanding the objections of those who are intolerant. The wholesale discrimination that Trump has ordered only appeals to the intolerant, as far as I can tell. Some aspects may be OK, but what's problematic is the process- a royal decree and bullying by Trump, with no consideration of consequences.

A judged blocked it. — BitconnectCarlos

It shouldn't have been issued in the first place, and it will be appealed.

The transgendered have historically been treated unfairly and been publicly ridiculed. It behooves us to redress this. I'm not claiming to have the answers, but I am confident the problems can be addressed. IMO, the general principles should include avoiding discrimination, making reasonable accommodations, but also avoiding hurting others. I would have no problem telling TG girls (who have had the prior physical benefit of testosterone) they weren't allowed to participate in girls sports, because this is unfair to biological girls. So they may not get everything they want, but they deserve to be listened to, and to receive sensible accommodation.

Did you forget about locker rooms? Among others.

Then you have bathrooms. And prisons. And if we're talking military service, which group do transgender recruits go with? The men or the women? Or do they get their own personal drill instructors?. — BitconnectCarlos

Trump's actions haven't solved those problems, it ignores them. For example, where SHOULD a transgender person go to the bathroom? Biological women taking testosterone develop a masculine physical appearance. If they use the ladies' room, this will frighten many.

Re: the military- drill them with their biological sex. Trump has denied them the right to serve at all.

I know some wonderful transgender people, but the idea that all gender identities simply must be respected on the legal level will usher in chaos

Not sure what you are referring to. My view is that they shouldn't be discriminated against. This doesn't mean a trans-woman should be treated identically to a biological woman. It's reasonable to debate what accommodations are appropriate, because I don't think there's an obvious, universal answer. Trump has solved no problems in this regard, because it simply ignores the reality.

we certainly cannot tolerate the idea that anyone can just be any gender/sex they feel without it leading to mass chaos. — BitconnectCarlos

This is ridiculous. The biggest problem with the gender identity issue is the intolerance that many people have with it. The only legitimate issue I see is sports participation, which can be unfair to biological girls. That could be dealt with without infringing on other freedoms of TG people.

endless streams of illegal immigrants and gang members and sex traffickers making their way into the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Immigration and asylum law needs to be updated, but the entry and residing of undocumented people shouldn't be conflated with gang activity and sex trafficking. Less that 4% of violent crimes are committed by undocumented immigrants. This is another case of Trump leveraging bias for political gain.

:up: :up: :up: :up:

. The administration has only moved to cut political bureaucrats. — NOS4A2

That's B.S.. They've gone after anyone who was involved in the investigations and prosecution of Trump's crimes, and the crimes by those involved in 1/6. Also, Trump has specifically installed partisan loyalists at the top echelon of the DOJ, one of which is Kash Patel (who had published an enemy's list).

So far, nothing relevant to the assassination has been found in this trove of documents, but it has revealed the social security numbers of hundreds of people who were Congressional staffers.

This demonstrates that Kash Patel is first a foremost a political operative. It's highly unlikely there were every any constraints on pursuing any of the "10 most wanted," but It's disingenuous to brag about "this administration is giving the new FBI..." the resources, when it was the GOP that cut the FBI budget when Biden was President.

Trump publicly remarks that whoever signed the USMCA agreement is an idi — jorndoe

This sounded to bizarre to be true, so I googled it. Here's one of the many stories that shows it's true:

Donald Trump insults himself by slamming trade agreement he signed in live blunder

The actual news is providing some stiff competition for the Onion.

I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, — Punshhh

They shouldn't have been surprised. In his debate with Kamala Harris, he was asked if he wanted Ukraine to win the war. He refused to answer yes/no; he said he just wanted the war to be over.

It appears he will get his wish- Ukraine is likely to surrender much of the territory Russia has seized. A loss for Ukraine is a "win" for the Trump-Putin coalition.

It looks interesting. I'll read it when I get a chance. The bibliography also lists some references that may also be helpful.

What does happen at the neural level when the infant realizes the object, and distinguishes it from the background? — MoK

I imagine it entails pattern recognition: seeing the same image pattern against a relatively constant background. Artificial neural networks learn patterns, and they are considerably simpler that biological neural networks because they lack neuroplasticity (the growing of new neurons and synapses).

So I am wondering how can deterministic processes lead to the realization of options. — MoK

Options that are before us lead us to mentally deliberate to develop a choice. If we could wind the clock back, could we actually have made a different choice? Clearly, if determinism is true, then we could not. But if determinism is false- why think our deliberation would have led to a different outcome? The same mental factors would have been in place.

Do you condone Trump's blatant assault on free speech?

ICE Arrests Columbia Student Who Helped Lead Pro-Palestinian Protests

Trump seems to be conflating "pro-Palestinian" with anti-Semitic. The person in question is Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card holder, who's pregnant wife is a American citizen.

DHS spokesman, Tricia McLaughlin, alleged he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization” . I suspect the "tie to Hamas" is no more than being pro-Palestinian.

“Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union told CNN’s Boris Sanchez 'there is not a hint of a claim” that Khalil ever worked with Hamas.
The claim is that his opposition to the activities of Israel with regard to the Palestinians are grounds for him to be deported. And that is simply illegal,' Lieberman said. “It’s wrong. And it reeks of McCarthyism.” -- source

It's counter productive to attack CHIPS, because it's purpose was to wean the US of its dependency on China for semiconductor chips. As you said, the only thing "wrong" with it is that it passed under Biden.

Unprecedented political retribution.

In short, if you maintain that if you were to set the entire world state back to what it was before a decision (including every aspect of your mental being, your will, your agency), and then something different might happen... well, maybe something different might happen, but you can't attribute that difference to your will. — flannel jesus

If you set the world back to just before the decision point, all the factors that led to the decision would still be present - even mental factors that may operate independently of the deterministic universe. I don't see how a different decission could ensue- unless it's due to some randomness. Randomness doesn't seem a reasonable basis for libertarian free will.

But all these "laws of physics" are a consequence of the fundamental laws of strings. — Relativist

Correct. — MoK

Great! You at last agree that reductive physicalism is possible.

A stationary electron is a vibrating string, let's call this vibration V1. The string related to a moving electron has another vibration mode due to the motion of the electron, let's call this mode of vibration V2. The Mind experiences both vibrations of the string, V1 and V2, at time t0 and as a result, causes another string at time t1 at a position that is dictated by V2 while keeping V1 the same. The history of the string is held in the subjective time. Its future depends on V2 and the position of the string in the future. So the process of motion of the string is continuous. — MoK

Rewrite this while Incorporating the mind's "vertical causality.

Electrons are distinguishable to the Mind since each electron has a specific location in space. — MoK

OK, that gives a continuity for electrons consistent with a form of perdurantism. But that's a particle, a simple object. Now consider a complex organism, like MoK. There's not a fixed set of particles that comprise comprise you, so you can't base it on particle continuity. I suggest you accept perdurantism for this, instead of essentialism - it would be more consistent.

Within string theory, a string has infinite modes of vibration available. Each mode is related to specific particles and forces, in other words, to specific laws of nature. — MoK

This treats strings as fundamental, consistent with reductive physicalism.

In string theory, any specific vibration of the string is related to a specific particle and force, hence specific laws of physics. — MoK

But all these "laws of physics" are a consequence of the fundamental laws of strings.

The act of causation is such that the new particle is created at time t1 in the vicinity of the former particle that exists at time t0 so continuity is preserved. — MoK

There is no particle-particle continuity. Each particle is brand new, with no history and no future.

The duplication is such that the intrinsic properties of a particle are held. — MoK

Duplication is not the same thing as preservation.
— Relativist
The duplication is such that the intrinsic properties of a particle are held. — MoK

Makes no sense. The particle at t0 has properties; this particle (with its properties) is annihilated a t1. A new particle exists at t1 that has the same properties, but it's not the same particle.

Every electron in the universe has the same intrinsic properties. So when a specific electron at t0 is replaced by a "duplicate" at t1, what maked this particular electron the same identity? See my second picture and description, below.

I discussed this in depth. You can find my explanation here and here. The brain is not identical in the different instant of time since the relational properties of its parts are changing all the time. — MoK

Neither of those posts define what constitutes an identity over time. For example, you said:, "I think that we are not the same person to some extent as yesterday since a part of us is subject to change."

This does not define what IS the same- what aspects of yesterday's person make it the same person today? You referred to genetics, but your genes mutate over time. You are not geneticall identical to infant MoK.

All you claims are just vague allusions. The most common bases are: 1) essentialism - which associates an identity with an essence (a subset of properties that are necessary and sufficient for constituting an individual identity); 2) perdurance: an identity consisting of a connected series of temporal parts.

Because you embrace identity of the indiscernibles, you don't have the essentialist option. So you need some form of perdurantism, but you need to define what connects the temporal parts. The problem is that you have no direct causal connection between temporal parts. Here's a depiction of what you seem to be claiming with your "vertical causation":

The mind is creating electron/brain/body at each instant of time, with no direct connection between the "temporal parts". There's an indirect connection through mind, but the mind is simultaneously recreating every electron/brain/body. Let's focus on electrons: there's a universe full of electrons coming into existence at each instant of time. Here's a depiction of 3 electrons (electX,electY, electZ):


ElectX@t0->mind->ElectX@t1 is indistinquishable from
ElectX@t0->mind->ElectY@t1

What does reductive physicalism have to do with string theory? — MoK

As I discussed above, string theory is consistent with reductive physicalism

As I said, same old tired crap. I've discussed all this with you before and showed how wrong you are.

"During her Jan. 15 Senate confirmation hearing, [attorney general Pam] Bondi denied that she would engage in a politically motivated purge of the Justice Department..."Politics will not play a part".

But when interviewed by Sean Hannity this week, she said:

"Well, first and foremost, we got rid of the Jack Smith team. Gone. Those people are gone...We're still trying to find … a lot of people in the FBI and also in the Department of Justice who despise Donald Trump, despise us, don't want to be there....You have to do the right thing and right now we're going to root them out...We will find them, and they will no longer be employed.”
-- 'Everything is on the table' on DOJ purge of Trump haters, AG Pam Bondi says

Loyalty to Donald is now a condition of employment in the DOJ.

Meanwhile:

Jan. 6 prosecutors demoted by Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington
"The lead prosecutors on both the Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy case and the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy case, among the highest-profile Jan. 6 prosecutions, were demoted to work cases in D.C. Superior Court"

I would not be surprised if Trump were to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy and (of course) pardoned by Trump.

Same old tired crap. ssu was discussing Mueller, and you bring up a distorted view of the predecessor investigation - omitting the fact that it was most certainly warranted (even Durham acknowledged that).

Rachel Maddow, fact-checking the liar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GanWPYhUq04 — tim wood

For those who prefer to read rather than watch, here's NPR's fact-check:
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/04/g-s1-50488/trump-congress-joint-address-fact-check

You ask "what is faith?"

There's no objectively correct answer. It would make more sense to ask what someone means when they use the term. Here's an article on a Christian Apologist website. That guy provides 3 definitions:

Leap of Faith

The first usage is summarized quite nicely by Mark Twain. He said that faith is “believing what you know ain’t true”. This is where we get the phrase “leap of faith”; it really means something like a leap in the dark. A mother might have faith that her son is still alive even though all of the evidence suggests otherwise. She certainly believes that her son is alive, yet she can’t be said to know he is. The mother lacks evidence and knowledge, nevertheless has faith – or strongly believes – he is still alive. She takes a leap of faith.

Faith as Trust

The second usage is also very common. Here faith would be something like “trust”. One can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. That isn’t a leap in the dark, one can have good reason to believe it will rise (given past experience). So faith in this sense is being used as synonymous with trust or confidence. It should be noted here that the first two senses can be had by Christians and non-Christians. An atheist could have faith that science will eventually reveal all there is to know. Now, I don’t believe science could possibly do such a thing [1], but the point is that anyone can have faith in the first two senses.

Christian Faith

The third usage, by contrast, is exclusive to Christianity. One can have faith in this sense if and only if Christianity is true. On this account, faith is knowledge of the Gospel produced in us by the work of the Holy Spirit. Modern thinkers will want to reject the idea that faith is actually knowledge. However, if Christianity is true and the Holy Spirit does instigate belief in the Gospel, then what we would have is knowledge, not merely a confidence or trust. Also notice it wouldn’t be anything like a blind leap of faith. It would be more akin to beliefs produced through memory or sensory organs. These beliefs aren’t blind leaps in the dark. They are produced by some sort of mechanism.

His third definition is contingent upon Christianity being true. If it's not true, then it would imply that Christian faith is delusion. More generously, I'd say that faith (to a believer) is an attitude of certainty toward a belief.

there are an infinite number of the laws of nature. — MoK

What accounts for this being possible? IMO, something must exist to account for non-actual possibilities. The alternative is to assume everything that is logically possible, is actually (metaphysically) possible.

I have already explained this twice. The string's specific vibration mode defines the related particle's intrinsic properties. The Mind experiences this mode of vibration and, as a result, creates another copy of the string with the same mode of vibration at another point in space. Therefore, the intrinsic properties of the particle are preserved. — MoK

And I've explained multiple times that this entails an absence of continuity. Duplication is not the same thing as preservation.

You have still not accounted for identity over time. Even if we pretend duplication = preservation, you haven't identified what makes brain at t1 the same as the brain at t0. Per your account, they are not identical. The same is true for MoK's body as a whole: it's constantly changing, so it's properties are changing - so it's not strictly identical from one instant to the next.

You assume a mind is choosing among the "choices".
— Relativist
I just said that the Mind experiences and causes. How did we end up with such a universe with these specific laws of physics? — MoK

Either the Mind is making a choice, or it is random. Why call this object a "mind" if it isn't making choices?

string theory is only one theory among many other possible theories since in string theory one assumes that the fundamental entity is a string but that fundamental entity could have any geometrical form. — MoK

Not if reductive physicalism is true. You deny this, but you still need to account for the contingency: what makes those other possibilities possible?

I struggling to see a difference between Trump and dictators. There seems to be no impediments to what he chooses to do.

does that accurately describe all people who believe anything that hasn’t been empirically/experientially verified yet? Are all such believers refusing to be reasonable? — Fire Ologist

We all believe things that haven't been verified, so I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to do so.

Philosophers convince themselves of all sorts of things that aren't verifiable or falsifiable. Their beliefs tend to be pretty tenacious.

no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected.
— Relativist

Oh my God. Faith sounds terrible!
Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers. — Fire Ologist

Weird reaction. I was just describing the nature of faith: it's is incorrigible belief. Additional context is also relevant:
1) God's existence is logically possible
2) Personal experience plays a role: many people believe they feel God's presence. This belief is itself incorrigible.
3) For many, it's an integral part of their world-view, not just a simple proposition that they affirm.

Some who cannot change their belief, no matter what, is a problem for cognitive science to delve into, but I would say:

The belief is an emotional position, and emotions have a direct path into consciousness, sometimes firm and lasting, and at other times less so, bypassing rational logic. — PoeticUniverse

Some beliefs have emotional components, others don't. Most of us have no emotional attachment to the 4-color theorem or Goldbach's conjecture, and this makes us perfectly willing to reject such beliefs.

Most of us who believe gods don't exist can willingly entertain their existence, because we have no emotional connection to its truth or falsity. But theists have that connection, and that makes the belief incorrigible.

I distinguished between the laws of nature (which are ontological) and laws of physics (epistemological; best guesses based on available data). Newton's law of gravity (which implied instantaneous action at a distance) is (or was) a law of physics - and was never a law of nature.
— Relativist
I don't understand your distinction between the laws of nature and the laws of physics here. — MoK

"Law of nature" = an aspect of physical reality; an aspect of the way the world actually is (whether we know it or not)
"Law of physics" = a theory (developed by physicists). It corresponds to a law of nature if it is true.

F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 is a law of physics. It was assumed to be true for many years. Strictly speaking, it is not exactly true, so it is not a law of nature.

General relativity is a law of physics that seems to be true; if so then it is a law of nature.

That universal mind is remembering the properties and creating them afresh. That is not an ontological preservation; it is a duplication.
— Relativist
Yes, it is a duplication. That is what I mean by causation/creation. — MoK

Therefore, as I said, properties are not "preserved", as you had said. Instead, they are duplicated. So you were wrong when you said: "The intrinsic properties are preserved by time"

What am I? I am a person with a body and at least two minds — MoK

You just now came into existence, having been vertically caused by the Mind. There's a "you" that came into existence 1 minute ago, 5 days ago, and even one nanosecond ago. Nothing is preserved from one moment to the next

Nothing connects all these "you's". Nothing accounts for a preserved identity, since there just a continuous series of MoKs who come into existence ex nihilo with no causal relation between them.

The current you is analogous to the projected image of a single frame of a film. One frame doesn't cause the next; there's just an illusion of motion.

What I am trying to say here is that the laws of physics are not universal because there are an infinite number of different candidates available. — MoK

You assume a mind is choosing among the "choices".

A reductive physicalist believes the observed laws of physics are manifestations of more fundamental law. Consider string theory: it can account for 10^500 3-dimensional "brane universes", each with a different "physics", but all are accounted for by the string theory.

Faith is more that just holding that something is true. Faith requires that one believe even in the face of adversity. Greater faith is had by those who believe despite the arguments and the evidence.

So those with the greatest faith would be the ones convinced by logical arguments that god does not exist, and yet who believe despite this. — Banno

No. Rather, their faith would lead them to believe there's something wrong with the logical argument.

Example: William Lane Craig was asked a hypothetical: if he were taken back in time to the first century, and seen Jesus' body crucified, watched it rot for weeks on the cross and eaten as carrion, would he renounce his faith in the resurection. His response: no, he would assume he was being deceived because he "knows" Jesus was resurrected.

This is what faith looks like.

“Nyet means Nyet. Russia’s NATO enlargement Red Lines”. — NOS4A2

That is a recent "red line" of Putin's, that Trump uncritically accepts. Go back a few years, and Putin expressed indifference to former USSR states joining NATO, including Ukraine.

"In May 2002, when asked for his views on the future of Ukraine’s relations with NATO, Putin dispassionately replied, 'I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day, the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners'" (source)

Putin raised no complaints when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004.

The article I cited above suggests that Putin's main driver is opposition to democratic reforms:

"Russian president Vladimir Putin wants you to believe that NATO is responsible for his February 24 invasion of Ukraine—that rounds of NATO enlargement made Russia insecure, forcing Putin to lash out. This argument has two key flaws. First, NATO has been a variable and not a constant source of tension between Russia and the West. Moscow has in the past acknowledged Ukraine’s right to join NATO; the Kremlin’s complaints about the alliance spike in a clear pattern after democratic breakthroughs in the post-Soviet space. This highlights a second flaw: Since Putin fears democracy and the threat that it poses to his regime, and not expanded NATO membership, taking the latter off the table will not quell his insecurity. His declared goal of the invasion, the “denazification” of Ukraine, is a code for his real aim: antidemocratic regime change."

I can understand Trump liking his ego stroked by Putin. But Russia seems an unlikely ally for any of the factions that make up Trumps power base (or pull his strings). It seems to me that Russia has little to offer to any political faction in the US. — Echarmion

"Traditional" Republicans are anti-Russia, but they're pro-personal power. Trump's presence as President gives them power, but only if they support everything he does.

The relationship between body and mind is primarily a methodological and not an ontological problem — Wolfgang

methodology is the most important discipline in the philosophy of mind. The focus is not on the ontological questions about the "essence" of the spirit or consciousness, but on the critical reflection of our methods of cognition and descriptions. A methodologically reflected philosophy of mind does not primarily investigate what consciousness "is", but how we grasp it, describe it and examine it. — Wolfgang

That's a perfectly fine approach, but ontology of mind will continue to be of interest to many philosophers.

If you accept there are possible alternative laws of physics then it follows that our universe could be different therefore the laws of physics are not universal. — MoK

I distinguished between the laws of nature (which are ontological) and laws of physics (epistemological; best guesses based on available data). Newton's law of gravity (which implied instantaneous action at a distance) is (or was) a law of physics - and was never a law of nature.

So there may be different laws of physics (what we would have guessed at) but they would be due to the same, fundamental laws of nature - assuming reductionism (as I do).

On this semantical account, you would apparently deny there are laws of nature, because all causation is "vertical"- a consequence of the universal mind. You could accept "laws" of physics as instrumentalist descriptions of observed behavior, but you have to be open to the universal mind choosing to operate differently

You're contradicting yourself again: perpetual creation of everything ex nihilo entails no preservation of properties.
— Relativist
It does since the act of causation is supported by experience. — MoK

That universal mind is remembering the properties and creating them afresh. That is not an ontological preservation; it is a duplication.

Each morning that I wake up, I, my conscious mind, am feeded by several types of information from my subconscious mind. — MoK

This is inconsistent with your claim that the universal mind recreates your brain ex nihilo at every instant.

You still haven't explained what YOU are. You just began to exist, ex nihilo.