• The Mind is the uncaused cause
    That is a physical process. You can call it perception. I asked you what is experience though.MoK
    I already answered that:

    An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories)...An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon. .Relativist

    You then asked me to define "perception", which I did, and now you've ignored all that and are reasking the question I already answered.

    I already defined experience. Given this definition, I distinguish between physical and experience.MoK
    Your definition ASSUMES there is something nonphysical, and then when a physicalist approach cannot account for it, you think you've proven something.

    Is there some relevant uncontroversial fact that I haven't yet accounted for?

    Do you think objects around you experience anythingMoK
    They don't have mental experiences.

    Please read OP and let me know if you have any questionsMoK
    I read it. Here's a few questions:

    • how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? Alternatively: does the mind actually have some material properties? If so, which ones?
    • Explain the connection between mind an brain: is there one place in the brain that makes this connnection? Multiple places? Does every neuron connect to it? Every synapse?
    • If minds occupy a specific location in space (at least in part, so it can interact with the brain) where is this? Does it occupy the same space as the brain? The brain, and it’s components, occupy physical space, so if the mind is to interact with it, there must be some sort of connection – one that connects to your brain, rather than your wife’s.
    • How does the brain deliver sights and sounds to the mind? For example, does every neuron connect to the mind, or only certain ones, or combinations? I discussed physical activity associated with vision. Where does the non-physical mind fit in to that?
    • Can a mind exist without a body? Can it become detached? If a mind can become detached from a body (as in an OBE or after death), how is it able to perceive what is happening in the absence of being connected to sense organs? If sense organs aren’t needed when disembodied, why are they needed when paired with the body?
    • Do minds pre-exist bodies, or do they come into existence with the body? If the latter, when? At fertilization? Does it develop in parallel with the brain?
    • What ties a specific mind to a specific body? E.g. if a mind causes me to raise my arm, why can’t my mind cause you to raise your arm?
    • If my mind causes me to raise my arm, and simultaneously your mind causes you to raise your arm, how do we know it wasn’t my arm causing your arm to raise, and your mind causing my arm to raise?
    • Memories are lost when brains are damaged from trauma or disease, showing that memories are encoded in the brain. If memories are physical, and destroyed as the brain decomposes at death, but your mind survives, in what sense is that mind still YOU? i.e. what aspects of YOU is your disembodied mind?
    • How do you account for the impact of natural chemicals (such as hormones, seratonin) and artificial chemicals (e.g.hallucinogens, mood altering substances) on thought processes?
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    define perceptionMoK
    Perception=a short term memory produced when our sensory organs sends electrochemical signals to a portion of the brain that channels the data to the cerebral cortex. E.g. photons stimilate the retina, signals are passed by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, and then the cerebral cortex. Physical changes throughout.

    Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness.MoK
    I accounted for experience as a purely physical phenomenon. What aspect of it can you prove to be nonphysical? Stipulating a non-physical definition isn't proving anything.

    Regarding consciousness: I embrace the film analogy: at each point of time, the brain is in an intentional state (analogous to a frame of a film). Consciousness entails the running of the film- a sequencing of brain states.


    Matter by definition is a substance that undergoes changes governed by the laws of physics. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the Hard Problem of consciousness. Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness.MoK

    I am defending a new version of substance dualism and I am attacking physicalism for two main reasons, 1) The Hard Problem of consciousness and 2) The common sense that tells us that the change in physical is due to experience.MoK
    "Conmon sense" isn't an argument. Appearances can be deceiving.

    Outline your theory. Explain what exists other than the physical, and how it interacts with the physical. E.g. is there a single conduit within the brain? Multiple? What ties this nonphysical thing to a specific body? I have many more questions, but need to know exactly what your theory is.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause

    An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories).

    But we cannot equate matter or change in matter with experience. Could we?MoK
    Yes, we can. An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon.

    It seems that you're trying to disprove physicalism by using phrasing that you interpret in ways inconsistent with physicalism.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    You defined "experience" as:

    A conscious event that is perceived by the Mind and contains information.MoK
    You're defining "experience" with more vague terms: "Event", "conscious event", "information".

    So you agree that the brain changes by new experiences, whether the experience is perception, thoughts, etc. You however didn't answer my question: How could the experience change the brain knowing that the experience is not a substance?MoK

    The brain changes due to perception (sensory and bodily) and due to thoughts. This is all there is to mental experience. You're treating "experiences" as something more than the brain changes. This is the source of your error in claiming there's overdetermination.

    I think the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because it is paradox-free.MoK
    What paradox is entailed by an actual quantum collapse from entanglement?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    There is an abundance of fake news (original definition) on social media. The list is common sense: it's ridiculous to give equal credibility to every comment one sees on the internet, irrespective of source. Do you not personally do something similar to the items listed?
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    I have three questions for you: 1) How experience can affect the brain knowing that it is not a substance, 2) Do you believe that physical motion is deterministic and is only based on the laws of nature? and 3) If yes, then how could the brain be affected by experience?MoK
    1)Your question reifies "experience". The brain is changed by new perceptions and the act of thinking.
    2) Yes to laws of nature, but there may be some indeterministic elements, due to quantum collapse.
    3) See #1, and (finally) provide your definition of "experience".
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Here's the notorious disinformstion primer that Shellenberger complained about:

    https://cnxus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/usaid-disinformation-primer.pdf

    Take a look at at and identify a few things that we should all be outraged about. Personally, it looks to me like solid advice. Here's an example:

    Step-By-Step Guide to Combatting Disinformation
    I. Do a Visual Assessment
    Assess the overall design. Fake news sites often look amat have lots of annoying ads, and use altered or stolen images Overall, does the news article and website seem hi quality?
    2. Identify the News Outlet
    The Wall Street Journal and CNN are examples of news you haven't heard of the news outlet, search online for more information. Is the news outlet well known, well respected, and trustworthy?
    3. Check the Web Domain
    Many fake news URLs look odd or end with ".com.co" or (e.g., abcnews.com.co) to mimic legitimate news sites. Does the URL seem legitimate?
    4. Check the "About Us" Section Trustworthy news outlets usually include detailed backgro information, policy statements, and email contacts in the "About/About Us" section.
    Does the site provide detailed background informa and contacts?
    5. ldentify the Author
    Fake news articles often don't include author names. If inc search the author's name online to see if he or she is well and respected.
    Does the article have a trusted author?
    6. ldentify the Central Message
    Read the article carefully. Fake news articles often push or viewpoint, have an angry tone, or make outrageous claims Does the article seem fair, balanced, and reasonab
    7. Assess Spelling, Grammar, and Punctuation If the article has misspelled words, words in ALL CAPS, poor grammar, or lots of "!!!," it's probably unreliable.
    Does the article have proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation?
    8. Analyze Sources and Quotes
    Consider the article's sources and who is quoted. Fake news articles often cite anonymous sources, unreliable sources, or sources at all.
    Does the article include and identify reliable sources?
    9. Find Other Articles
    Search the internet for more articles on the same topic. If you can't find any, chances are the story is fake.
    Are there multiple articles by other news outlets on topic?
    10.Turn to Fact Checkers
    FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact.com are widely trusted checking websites.
    Do the fact checkers say the news story is true?

    What is bad about this advice?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Your list adds up to about $729M. The single biggest item (over half) was $486M toward The "Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening".

    It's mission: is to work together with local, regional, and global partners to build resilient, inclusive and accountable democracies. "

    No doubt, you think this is a waste of money, but many of us feel it is a worthwhile cause. I would have no problem scrutinizing it with a cost/benefit analysis, but that's not the DOGE way. And that's the problem.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    In principle, it would be fine to compromise. But Trump's starting position is exactly everything Putin wants.

    Lindsay Graham actually had a good suggestion: that if Russia violates the newer Ukraine borders, this would trigger automatic entry into NATO. Are you good with that?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies.BitconnectCarlos
    You have been misreading if you inferred I was trying to arouse your sympathy. I simply trying to get across to you how Palestinians would take it, and that this will have consequences. You had suggested this would all go away.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    So you believe the end justifies the means and might makes right. Let's agree to disagree.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The war will continue until Palestinians accept their defeat. It took huge amounts of suffering for Germany and Japan to get there. What Israel is doing isn't any different than what the Allies did, except Israel is being much more careful. The punishment we inflicted on Japanese and German cities before they surrendered was incredible, but that's war.RogueAI
    International standards developed after WW2 in the Geneva Conventions (1949 and 1976) would consider our "punishment" of civilians as war crimes.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th centuryBitconnectCarlos
    So you think think it was appropriate to correct a situation established 1300 years earlier. That's as ludicrous as suggesting Israel should be abolished because of the past injustices to Palestinians. Irrespective of Palestinian claims, Israel exists and has a right to continue. That doesn't doesn't justify ethnic cleansing. I absolutlely understand Israel's need for security, but this approach seems likely to provoke more resentment from Palestinians and more hostility from Israel's neighbors.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    What allowed the Germans to accept that and move on but the Palestinians can't?RogueAI
    What difference does it make? You're judgement of what they "ought" to do doesn't compel them to do so.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity.BitconnectCarlos
    History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Many countries lose wars and accept the new reality and move on. Why won't the Palestinians?RogueAI
    There's not many close analogies of a conquered people being ejected from their land. But regardless, I'm discussing the reality that they aren't likely to be docile about it.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Jews are indigenous to the landBitconnectCarlos
    Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement.

    Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war.BitconnectCarlos
    And you think this means they should just accept their lot, like native Americans did? What "should" happen isn't the point. It's what WILL happen. They won't accept it, and neither will their Arab neighbors.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Giving the aggressor what he wants is a way to "peace" very similar to the 1938 Munich Agreement.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba."BitconnectCarlos
    You've completely ignored the history. These Arabs were in Palestine, and were forced out. Israel often excuses this as perfectly fine, because it's so similar to the treatment of native Americans in the US. They see that as perfectly fine.

    I'm not defending the actions of Palestinians, I'm explaining why they won't accept the theft of their "reservation". You had claimed it was no big deal. That's utter nonsense.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    There was a native, Arab population living the that area of the Ottoman empire labelled "Palestine". After WWI, the winning Western powers carved up the Arab area into "mandates" - quasi-sovereign states under European control (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine). Great Britain ruled Palestine. While the other mandates moved toward self-determination, Great Britain decided to turn their property into a homeland for Jews. At the time, Arabs lived in towns, villages and cities spread across Palestine. They wanted a state of their own, like the other mandates. Jews were a minority population, less than 10%. This grew during WW2 to 30%. After the WW2, the UN voted to partition Palestine to create the state of Israel. Native Arabs were ejected.

    So it's not that there was some loyalty to a state, but a sense that they were entitled to their geographical home- like everyone else in the region. Now they're being ejected again.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    I put "minds" in quotes. I don't believe a "mind" is an object that exists. Rather, a brain engages in mental activities (perceptions, moderating between stimulus and response intentional behaviors, deliberations, learning...). IMO, experience is the constant flow of these mental activites, which entails changes in the brain

    Now you tell me what you mean by "experiences".
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It's been 78 years since they were ejected from their homeland, and that hasn't faded from their memories yet. They believe they have a sacred bond to their land,and this part of their culture won't fade. Tribalism not assimilation, is typical in the Middle East.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Meanwhile, the Criminal-in-chief is at home talking about how reasonable it was for Putin to invade Ukraine, and blaming Ukraine for "going into" the war. Not to mention his overt politicization of the DOJ, ignoring laws and the Constitution.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trust me, when he believes Vladimir Putin more than his own American intelligence services, that tells something.ssu
    Good point. He does trust authoritarians, and mistrusts democratic leaders. But in terms of making "deals", I don't think he'll intentionally pick Russia over UK. The net result would be the same, because of the trust issue - and his stupidity.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    If wishing for the destruction of a culture where e.g. powerful men routinely abuse young boys or human sacrifice is a constant make me a Nazi then so be it.BitconnectCarlos
    Exiling Palestinians from their land will not destroy their culture. It will be a second Nakba.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trump is Putin's useful idiot.

    In his press conference on Feb 13, Trump made it abundantly clear that he completely agrees with Russia with regard to Ukraine.

    He said Russia had to go in to Ukraine, to prevent their joining NATO ("They've been saying that for a long time that Ukraine cannot go into NATO. And I'm Ok with that.")

    It's Ukraine's own damn fault ("it was not a good war [for Ukraine] to go into, and I think they have to make peace, that's what I think.")

    Russia deserves some of Ukraine's territory ("They took a lot of land, and they fought for that land, and they lost a lot of soldiers").

    When asked if he viewed "Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process?" Trump responded, in the negative ("It's an interesting question. I think they have to make peace. Their people are being killed, and I think they have to make peace." )

    Press conference transcript.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    So far, P01135809 has followed Putin in some respects:

    • gathered/appeased religious conservatives (and extremists, disillusioned)
    • threatened other countries
    • efforts to sideline (or remove most) non-loyalists, merits less relevant
    • moves to ditch some protection of minorities (or vulnerable)
    • lied

    (Did I miss any?)
    jorndoe

    Yes. You missed the Trump administration overtly using the DOJ to achieve political objectives, by ordering them to drop the prosecution against Eric Adams.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    JD Vance schools Europe’s overlords.NOS4A2
    Are you under the impression that his "lesson" was well-received by his "students"?

    JD Vance attacks Europe over free speech and migration

    "The address was met by silence in the hall, and later denounced by several politicians at the conference. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said it was "not acceptable".

    "The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, characterised Vance as "trying to pick a fight" with Europe, home to some of the US's closest allies."

    "Vance went on to criticise the use of laws enforcing buffer zones, saying that free speech was in retreat and alleging that the Scottish government had warned people against private prayer within their own homes."

    Unsurprisingly, his speech was well-received by the leader or the right wing "Alternative for Germany (AfD) party"
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Trump really wants to please both the leaders of Russia and China.ssu

    My take on it is that Trump has no favorites, which means he feels exactly the same about the UK or France as he does about Russia or China. So the concept of "allies" is a dead one under the Trump regime.

    He's demonstrated that he'll ignore treaties. He may not formally withdraw from NATO (as Bolton predicted), but I seriously doubt he would fulfill a commitment to help if a NATO country were attacked.
  • The Mind is the uncaused cause
    Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are not valid.
    — 180 Proof
    I am not talking about the abstract objects here. I am talking about experience. Are you denying that you experience and your experience is not subject to change?
    MoK

    I didn't talk about the mind and its role in the body but the experience.MoK

    Define "experience". A boulder rolling down a mountain has "experienced" the roll, and has been altered in the process. Similarly our "minds" are altered by sensory perceptions and by its own inner processes.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    The uncontroversial fact is that the deficit reflects spending more than is taken in. Therefore it can be lowered by decreasing spending, increasing revenues, or both.

    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
    8% Federal pensions (govmt & military)
    7% Economic security programs (Earned income tax credit, child tax credit, SNAP, SSI)
    5% Education
    2% Transportation
    1% Natural resources & Agriculture
    1% Science & Medical research
    1% Law enforcement
    1% International (embassies/consulates, humanitarian aid)
    5% All other

    Source

    Every year's deficit is added to the national debt. Offset by projected decreases in interest rates.

    Decreasing domestic spending will be contactionary (less money going into the economy; lower GDP; lower revenue)

    Decreasing taxes is expansionary (more money going into the economy, higher GDP, partly offsets the lost revenue).

    Deporting undocumented workers is contractionary (fewer consumers spendin $), and reduces revenue (primarily social security and medicare). Also will raise prices because of higher cost of labor.

    New tarriffs will increase revenue, but raise prices so it will be contractionary).
    -----------------------------
    There's no easy solutions, because all options entail both negative and positive aspects.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Unequivocal corruption:

    Order to drop New York Mayor Adams’ case roils Justice Department as high-ranking officials resign

    NEW YORK (AP) — Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon, and five high-ranking Justice Department officials resigned Thursday after she refused an order to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams — a stunning escalation in a dayslong standoff over the Trump administration prioritizing political aims over criminal culpability.

    For years, Trumpists falsely accused the DOJ of being politicized, to provide cover for Trump's criminal behavior. Now they're overtly politicizing it.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Vance had also said Trump would never pardon 1/6 criminals who'd committed violent crimes. What he says is meaningless.
  • Trump STOLE the election??
    According to Greg, even using conservative assumptions, this fraud SWUNG the election.hypericin

    I object to labelling changes to the law as "fraud".

    Changes were made in 2020 because of the pandemic. The changes made it easier to vote. As a consequence, we had record turnout (as a % of eligible voters). A positive consequence of the higher turnout: Trump lost.

    The GOP scaled this back, making it harder to vote. Consequently, voter turnout was lower and Trump won.

    It's easy to blame the law for the consequence, but I blame voters for not feeling sufficiently motivated to vote in spite of the impediments. I also blame single issue voters who stayed home because they perceived "no difference" on their single issue, and underestimated how bad things would get.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Who's this good for anyway?jorndoe

    There's some good in it for those who will save or make money.

    The fundamental problem is that the negative consequences will be: 1) marginal - the majority of people won't suffer directly from failures to find treatment for diseases. 2) not felt in the short term. New treatments that might have otherwise been developed would not have have made a difference during Trump's term.
  • A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From Composition
    Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying then. You seem to keep flip-flopping. First you mentioned that everything exists necessarily such that there is no way they could have failed to existBob Ross
    No, I didn't. Here's what I said:
    Concrete example:suppose determinism is true. This implies every event, and everything that comes to exist, is the necessary consequence of prior conditions.Relativist
    You correctly noted that I should have said "causal determination", but my meaning is clear. I'm insisting on two things:

    • Contingency entails non-actual possibilities
    • IF there is contingency, it must have an ontological basis.

    Here’s what I am thinking you are attempting to convey, and correct me if I am wrong: saying that a thing could have failed to exist if its parts did not get so arranged (or did not exist) does not demonstrate that it could have failed to exist because it may be the case that there were no other causal possibilities such that it would not have existed. Is that right?Bob Ross
    That's part of it. Also: composition is identity, and contingency implies non-actual possibilities (metaphysically possible).

    Consider composed object X. I deny that there are "accidental" properties, so 100% of the properties (intrinsic+relational) are essential to being X. "X" refers to the unique thing that has that particular set of properties. So it's an identity.

    In my sense of the term, a table is contingent upon its parts;Bob Ross
    A table is composed of its parts. Contingency implies something that could have been different. What is it that could have been different?

    I think you can agree that that particular chair would not exist if its legs, the wood it is made out of, etc. did not existBob Ross
    The chair IS the arrangement of parts. So it's equivalent to saying "the chair would not exist if the chair did not exist".

    Metaphysical possibility is such that a thing could exist in a manner that does not violate the nature of things;Bob Ross
    I have no problem with this definition, because "the nature of things" means that it's consistent with whatever metaphysical framework is true; in practice, we treat our own metaphysical framework as true.

    But this is just definition; it's not an ACCOUNT of possibility: what is the ontological basis for a claim that a non-actual possibility was possible?

    It's easy to conceive of non-actual states of affairs, and mistakenly claim it to be contingent. Example: the outcome of a throw of dice seems contingent because we can conceive of a different outcome. But the outcome is actually the deterministic outcome of the physical factors. So, given those factors, the outcome was necessary, not contingent.

    contingency is the dependence of one thing on another for its existence; and necessity is the independence of a thing on any other things for its existence.Bob Ross
    Contingency implies something that could have been different. Suppose necessary object A deterministically causes B. B therefore exists necessarily. What is it that could have been different?


    Causality is traditionally and widely accepted as explanations of why a thing is the way it is. What you are probably thinking of is physical or material causality.Bob Ross
    The Aristotelean paradigm. The modern physics paradigm is more straightforward, and it omits nothing. Labelling an object's composition its "cause" makes the word "cause" less precise and more ambiguous.
    -------------------------

    Did you read the whole SEP Article on Divine Simplicity? The section The Question of Coherence brings up a point similar to mine. It references Alvin Plantinga's objection to Divine Simplicity, which is perfectly reasonable under Plantinga's "approach to ontology", but that "Plantinga-style objections will not appear decisive to those who reject his metaphysical framework. "

    The same principle applies to me: your argument depends on a metaphysical framework different from mine. You'll never be able to make it fit.
  • A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From Composition
    I'll weigh in, starting with this quote from the article:

    "What could motivate such a strange and seemingly incoherent doctrine?"

    It's motivated by a desire to rationalize an argument for God's existence. I find it ludicrous to purport to "prove" God's existence based on an assumption that is seemingly incoherent. To be persuasive, the premises should be easy to accept.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I consider this good news:

    [b]Trump administration sues New York state over immigration[/b]

    Attorney General Pam Bondi said Wednesday that the Justice Department is suing the state of New York and its top officials for prioritizing "illegal aliens over American citizens."

    "As you know, we sued Illinois and New York didn't listen. So now you're next," Bondi said....

    Bondi, in her first news conference since being confirmed, said “millions” of people “with violent records have flooded into our communities, bringing violence and deadly drugs with them,” and that states like New York with permissive immigration policies were contributing to the problem.


    I welcome this, because it will lead to a rational analysis of the facts. It's well known that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than the general population. The Trump side can argue that even a single violent act by an immigrant would have not occurred if the particular culprit weren't here.

    But there's another relevant factor: undocumented immigrants fearful of being deported are unlikely to report crimes committed against them. That's why police departments have historically refrained from enquiring about this and taking action. Perfect border enforcement is impossible, so my going-in assumption is that this argument will be dispositive.

    A trial will constitute a well-moderated debate of the facts. I'll be surpised if Trump wins this, but either way, it will provide a good opportunity for critical thinkers to make an informed, rational judgement.
  • Ontology of Time
    The task of a metaphysician (including us amateurs) is to provide a metaphysical account of the clear facts. The best you can hope for is an account that is coherent and has sufficient explanatory power to address all the clear facts. If you develop or encounter multiple such metaphysical theories, they can be compared to see which seems (subjectively) superior (e.g. more parsimonious; is consistent with other metaphysical assumptions you may make).

    So yeah, it's worth pondering - but don't expect to land on a "proven" paradigm.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.