Cool. That's closer to Kripke than to Lewis. I think this the best way for you to defend your account. I wasn't expecting you to take that option. — Banno

:up:

I don't quite agree, but it's now a fairly trivial point. If someone were to ask "What if schopenhauer1 had had a different genetics", your answer is that the question cannot be asked, that a schopenhauer1 with a different genetics is a different being, not a schopenhauer1, but something else which still might have the name "schopenhauer1". I'd say that the question can be sensibly asked, and that if it is it is a question about schopenhauer1. — Banno

Yes correct. I just want to add that the genetics is part of the equation but the causal-historical aspect of that instance also is part of the equation. I can see by way of saying something like "instance" that this might confuse the situation. But all that means is that I acknowledge that it is possible for there to be duplicate combinations of a set of genomes (like twins or clones). This is why I say that there is another aspect to it. But I can see the possible confusion with something like, "This instance of schopenhauer1 is schopenhauer1 in this world as that is to that world, etc." and that is not what I mean.

So have you looked into every possible universe and seen that all the schopenhauer1's have the same genome?

Or is it rather that you have specified that any posited schopenhauer1 with a different genome is not a schopenhauer1? — Banno

The second one, but you have simplified it too much as I also explained the causal-historical aspect of it (which accounts for twins, etc.). It also depends on how we are using "genome", but for the sake of argument, I'll say the second.

Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying. I am I guess, "making a discovery about how things are", that is, as it relates to persons and the range of possibilities of those persons.

So all of these ideas seem to be circling around a similar hesitation I had regarding the idea of "conceptual schema" in another thread. What is this, "conceptual schema" other than fiat concept made up by a philosopher. It didn't seem to have its root in empirical sciences. However, as we discussed, it could be some grounds for a scientist to possibly incorporate a version of this idea in various studies. This was done let's say with John Searle's notion of intention and "social facts" and Tomasello's experiments on "joint intention" in animals and toddlers, comparing the two and seeing if other animals say, have the ability to call attention to things such that the other person needs to cooperate, and for something that is not an immediate reward. This was to be a possible evolutionary reasoning for an origin of the function of language in humans.

Anyways, this is indeed extra-scientific as it is dealing with causality, possibility, and identity. These things are not going to be seen in a microscope or shouted at you from the universe in some way through an equation. Rather, it has metaphysical implications as to how possibilities are carried out over physical things, like objects.

And thus, I take a "natural kind", Moliere, to be something that one can break down into some substance. A chair by itself is a concept that depends on one's notion of what a chair does or how the maker intended it to work. That isn't a natural kind. However, a piece of wood from the chair would be of a natural kind as you can analyze its substance to some physical property. But of course, since ideas, and neurons, and concepts ultimately come from some "physical substrate", it can be argued this too is natural. However, now we are going far afield as it turns into the mind/body problem and how the neurochemical configures are the same as "chair", and we have lost the point of this thread.. Because that argument would not matter to the point I am making.. Once "chair" the concept is found to be a "natural kind" in the neurochemistry, let's say, it too would be subject to this theory as well.

Thus, natural kinds, like humans, and the gametes, are of a substance and a causal instance. At that point where the substance is present, that causal-historical point in time, that becomes the point at which that object can be said to carry with it the possibilities of that object. And thus, you the human looking back to see if you could have lived a counterfactual life, can only go back so far before the very possibility that brought about this person of this substance was no longer even a possibility to begin with. I identified this at the point of conception.

I'm wondering if you believe natural kinds and causation have anything to do with the continuity of a person? — Moliere

One way is insofar as all the possibilities of the continuities of that person are had from the terminus of the conception of that person and no further back. Clearly, the gametes at conception are of a "natural kind". They are cells made of compounds, made of atoms, etc.

However, if you mean in terms of the fact that the genes are generally stable, that's harder to answer. I would be inclined to say yes, but with variation. Personalities it has been reported, are very much tied to genetics, even though it is also shaped in large part by environment, for example. It is probable that various capacities and abilities are more likely tied to genes than people might admit, etc.

The suggestiong to my mind is if one could establish that human beings are a natural kind, and natural kinds of the sort that human beings are can be said to be different under such-and-such circumstances, then we could say when a person is, which in turn should at least hint whether genetics are necessary for the identity of a person as an object (given such and such beliefs, of course) -- but I'm wondering if this is just too far astray from the case you'd make for the continuity of a person? The example of a religion changing a person's name seems to indicate something more along the lines of how I think of personhood, but that also doesn't necessarily eliminate it from being included as a natural kind (considering that we're naturally social creatures, a case might be made...) — Moliere

If humans are part of "nature", then even sociality in general is "natural". But usually this becomes word games because we often split things at the physical and socio-cultural level so that it represents some artificial divide. I think it is harder to define someone's "personal identity" because that does seem socially-determined by others or oneself based on a number of contingent social factors (personality, likes, social roles, beliefs, ethnic-identity, family ties, friend groups, hobbies, or anything really). What can be determined perhaps, modally, is that when you look back on your life and ask yourself, "Could I have lived differently", the point at which you could no longer have had the range of possibilities that YOU had, including the one at the present, would have been at conception. Prior to that, it could not be the same person looking back at a counterfactual life as you would be doing in this moment, as that person. Even if it was a different sperm that conceived that night a second earlier, that is not you, so the set of possibilities that encompasses the YOU looking back in hindsight is no longer even a fact.

Even a chair can be tricksy, though, here's a Picasso sculpture of a chair: — mcdoodle

Yep, I actually think a combination of use and intention would be a good way to describe most man-made items if we were to explore its "essence" in any way. In the case of Picasso, more intention than use!

I think I get lost in the talk of causation and natural kinds. I tried to write out a few paragraphs after this and ended up just deleting them because they got too tangential every time. — Moliere

Yeah, it's tricky determining these kind of things and it harkens back to questions that Aristotle grappled with and the like. Identity, existence, essence, etc.

Straw man. Nobody has argued for this. — Benkei

So what is your position? We all hate Bibi-ism, so we don't even need to debate that. Do you think Israel has a fundamental right to exist?

But besides your personal point, it's this weird insinuation by equivocating Hamas attacks and Israel as an existing state. Thus when @ssu used this equivalency:

A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point. — ssu

I pointed out that in one case it was simply to exist. In the other it was to banish and derail any two state solutions, as if this whole time Hamas hasn't been trying to continually kill people as talks were happening. And currently, their Isis version of how they operate...

Thanks for the vids. — Baden

I'll look at the one from SSU. Yeah, I thought the Wright/Friedman interview was actually one where realistic situations and assessments were being discussed.

Do each of these examples have to have the same criteria?

The first seems to be asking after the psychological, the second a kind of everyday understanding of medium-sized dry goods, and the third relies upon a notion of science and how that relates to our understanding of objects. At least that's how I'd put it, and so think that the criteria would differ since those three topics would be answered differently if we were to put it in question form. — Moliere

I think for the chair, there can be distinctions made that are different than the case of people or natural kinds (like water). I was just making a point that the debate is about when an object thus becomes an object. A man-made object like a chair seems more about social notions like "use" and "intention", and indeed seems more subjective. It would need a human determiner for this to be true. And indeed, even for personal identity (which I messed up by naming this thread that but I'll keep it for now for historical purposes of the debate), we can say that there needs to be a human determiner to understand "what" a person is at a given time. However, where there might be overlap is how the man-made and the natural kind can come to be in a causal-historical instance in time. You can say, perhaps, there was a point in time that that chair became the chair. And thus there was a terminus which the history of that chair can then go back to where all things referring to that chair has the range of possibilities that can happen "for that chair", and not just, say, the wood components that comprise that chair. It's a bit harder to define though because a chair is very subjective and because of its social nature, harder to determine its "rigidity" as a thing.

However, the natural kind/human analogy is more equivalent. That is because there is an element of substance to the identity, and in the case of an "instance" of a natural kind (that instance of water, that instance of a human), we have the causal aspect of a place and time when there is a terminus when it goes back to a time when it was that instance of the object, and whereby we talk about "possibilities for that object", we are talking about the range of possibilities for that object and not something else or something prior.

Being sarcastic, as you are the one asking if islamist resistance group will just give up the fight. — ssu

So, I guess they can give up the fight by sending back the hostages leaving to Qatar or something and have the Israelis let them for now do that. They can exit the region to their mansions and hotel rooms in Qatar or whatnot, and try to hide wherever, but vacate the place.

So similarly, You think the Irgun would just have given up too at the British and "come to their senses", had just "dealt with it" and "moved on" (as your favorite Bill Maher says)? As if at some point they would understand that there couldn't be an Israel as an homeland for Jews, but they simply have to coexist with the Arabs in Palestine under the benevolent leadership of the British Mandate? — ssu

So this is where there are false equivalencies in terms of means and ends- in this case more ends. Israel wanted a nation but they were willing to live peacefully with an Arab neighbor, something where they could have some political autonomy but yet coexist with an Arab autonomous state as well. That wasn't the same sentiment by Arab neighbors. Hamas wants what? Oh that's right, to wipe off the Israeli state from the map. This seems very cynical to not see that Hamas has been trying to screw up a peace deal from day 1. They aren't reformed (obviously), and they aren't looking to simply govern a peaceful state next door, "Bibism" aside. Never was, and in fact is one of the contributors to derailing a number of peace attempts in the past.

A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point. — ssu

So, this does make me question the motives of the posters here, to be fair. So the Jews experienced a Holocaust in Europe with many displaced persons, many times the Jews going back were faced with continued hostilities from populations, etc. But don't worry, if they try to make a state of it in Israel, the same Europeans will call foul and say, "You better not do that either, or we will root for the Palestinians to push you into the sea there as well!". And of course, this doesn't look great, but I don't know how else to make of these sentiments other than it seems acceptable for a certain contingent to see Jewry as victims, or perpetually some underdog, but not gain any agency without getting tremendous hatred. There was no winning. I can understand European Jewry wanting a national state, whatever their thoughts before that. Simply, "Ah, come on back, it won't be as bad this time!" seems a bit off there. Anyways, it just makes me wonder what the actual feelings of some posters are on matters like this. To be completely ambivalent or even hostile sort of would make me wonder. Maybe after a horrific world war where a lot of European countries collaborated (willingly or unwillingly), it feels cathartic to then say, "But see! They are X, Y, Z!".

Thomas Friedman made quite rational remarks. 'Bibism', as he coined, has been now a disaster. And it should be understood that this will go on, if the assumption is that Israel can continue a perpetual low-intensity war with the occasional "mowing of the lawn". Advocates of the perpetual war won't give safety they say they are so in favor of. And any "final solution" type of policy will just alienate Israel. — ssu

I agree with his assessment, and probably politically align more with his thoughts on the matter. But the way the forum here is framing the debates, it's as if Hamas has no part they have played in this, and thus has forced me to explain their role in this. They still have hostages. They still want Israel gone, etc. etc. I do agree that Israel seems to have had no other contingencies and simply followed a siege plan rather than other ideas, but I can't even get to that point when there doesn't seem to be good faith on the other side on how they regard Israel in the first place.

On a side note, this was one of the better conversations I have seen in regards to what is happening and where it might be going. @ssu, you might find Thomas Friedman's analysis pretty insightful. Robert Wright does a good job framing the questions as well. Wright actually has conducted a fair amount of interviews with philosophers (like Chalmers and Dennett I believe), and he has some decently detailed books regarding the history and philosophy of religion and evolution. Friedman of course has been a long time New York Times writer on foreign affairs, specifically the Middle East.

Yes, Palestians can go to Jordan, Egypt and all other places in the Middle East. Why are they making it so difficult for themselves? — ssu

So now it if you who are not differentiating?

I don't see why he's fighting to be on any ballot considering he's already told us the elections are rigged. Why does he want to enter a contest where he knows the result is already decided against him? It seems more fair that he be cheated early by the Colorado courts than to force him through the time and expense to just be cheated later by the vote counters. — Hanover

:lol:

If he loses it’s rigged, if he wins it’s just.

Why do you say that a human egg (fertilized, like my caterpillar eggs) is a person? — Ludwig V

So the question at hand is what counts as being that object versus no longer being that object- either it is a proto-object where it is the components but not the object itself, or it is not that object at all. So, in the case of the caterpillar, indeed even with that case, it was its conception where all possibilities for that individual had its terminus.

Hamas isn't Isis. — ssu

So are you splitting hairs on who is more barbaric? Are they for the 800s? Again this looks kind of 600s to me:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

Calling for a Jihad and then actually thinking today's world is like the 600s seems close to Isis-like thinking.

But as far as the beheadings and rapings and such, what should we then compare it to? I mean, Genghis Khan works for me. The social media aspect adds the modern part to it I guess.

But to equivocate Likud with that, eh, bit of a stretch. I know, I know, the response to such attacks is somehow the equivalent, and that we are just going to disagree. Civilians dying alone doesn't make a Genghis Kahn. And then we inevitably will discuss just wars and all that.

(The New York Times, Nov 5th, 2023 )Israel has quietly tried to build international support in recent weeks for the transfer of several hundred thousand civilians from Gaza to Egypt for the duration of its war in the territory, according to six senior foreign diplomats.

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

(Times of Israel, Nov 14th, 2023) Two Israeli lawmakers, one from the ruling Likud party and the other from the opposition Yesh Atid party, have urged the international community to take in Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip

In a rare display of cross-party solidarity, Danny Danon (Likud) and Ram Ben-Barak (Yesh Atid) published an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, calling for “countries around the world to accept limited numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate.”

Of course, the smaller political parties are quite open about their demands on expelling the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria too. — ssu

Um, that can be interpreted to protect civilians, as their dear Arab friend neighbors don't let them in.

Hamas can give up the hostages and give up the fight too. That is an option, is it not? Yes or no? You can sidestep the answer by not answering it, but I'd like a yes or no whether in theory and in practicality, they can literally give up this fight.

Right, it's not just the rhetoric, but the actions that makes it seem like people are doing a false equivalency when we compare Hamas with say, Likud. One wants the 600s it seems all over again, and has shown that they don't mind ending things all around them in that goal. But, they sure don't mind that billions of dollars and living large in Qatar and places like that either...

That was PRIOR to the Hamas attacks in October: Saudi Arabia was still holding on to the Arab peace initiative. So your wrong to argue that this "offer" was something in the distant past. — ssu

I'm just wondering, is there a strategy here, cynical one? Perhaps you can reference articles why Israel didn't take it...

Same reason why Hamas is starting to get more support. — ssu

Started? Unlike Likud, Hamas acts on violence and terrorism outside of government when it's not in power, and then got into actual governmental power over control of territory which is why this awful mess is how it is. Israel thought there was a chance they might act differently. Nope.

So I knew that again schopenhauer1 would again totally sideline the crucial factor of just who is in power in Israel (or in Gaza, for that matter). — ssu

No, you see, I already acknowledged who I'd prefer to be in power, and voted in. However, in this debate where it's heavily one-sided I choose not to muddle that point with the broader debate which heavily overlooks Palestinian violence and poor decision-making that led to this. That Maher video is especially pertinent on that point as it is as much psychological than anything else. A grievance is a grievance as long as you hold on to it.

It's Likud and it's right-wing allies that is in power, not the Labour party, not the Kadima party. — ssu

And if you look at the posts before this, I explained how that happened. It didn't happen over night.

It was the Labour party that made the Oslo accords happen (with Rabin, who later was assassinated).

It was Labour party that withdrew from Lebanon (with Ehud Barak as prime minister). — ssu

Yes it was. Wasn't that nice (and then got punished with Hezbollah). But anyways, the moderate Pals did not take a deal when they had the chance.

There was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative , reindorsed 2007 and 2017, which was immediately embraced by the Palestinians, by Arafat (and later by Abbas). And notable, included in the 57 Arab and Muslim states is also Iran. The Arab states, those that are still technically at war with Israel (like Kuwait etc) would normalize their relations if Israel withdrew from the 1967 occupied territories and accepted the two-state solution. Distribution of territory could also be discussed.

Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel. — ssu

You mean the "offer" accompanied by a Hamas terror attack on Passover?

Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel.

The fact is that it's the moderate lines that aren't tolerated. Israel has killed for example those Palestinian leaders that have been promoting the two state solution. And let's not forget that Bibi supported Hamas first (in order to weaken the PA). Non-compromising zealots just love if the other side is also made of non-compromising zealots: pretty easy to explain then why a negotiated settlement isn't possible. — ssu

I mean, now we are just treading over the same ground, where we forget why someone like Netanyahu started getting more support.

It's dumb shit like this that's tiresome. It's not Israelis that regularly get massacred en masse. — Benkei

Do you mean like the suicide bombings that regularly occurred in Israel prior to them building that wall in the West Bank? Do you mean the reason why billions dollars were put into the Iron Dome so Israel didn't have thousands of people dying since Hamas sends rockets in a quarter-yearly basis (or whatever frequency it was). Do you mean the brutal rapes, murders, and indiscriminate killings that were showcased with glee on social media by Hamas and their supporters?

Why should an oppressed people give up land that Israel has no right to? There's a UN partition plan. — Benkei

You mean the plan that Israel agreed to and the Arab nations (there wasn't even a Palestine yet), decided to call for an all out war to wipe Israel out completely?

There are even the borders of 1967 where Israel has stolen land, a crime of aggression that was punished with hanging at Nuremberg, that the Palestinians are willing to accept. Which is already a huge concession. — Benkei

Just wondering, are you aware the borders are not given from on high, but are negotiated things, right? This idea that everything has to be fixed or nothing happens and no other factors (yes like security) can come into play? Europe has shifted its borders numerous times in history, sometimes in conflict, but sometimes not. The fact is, the Pals were given almost all of that 1967 territory but there were some contingencies that Israel, security-wise, and politically wanted to maintain. Being they had the position of power, the Pals had a chance to take a deal and then build on it and create their own X society they wanted, working with Israel on security measures etc. But nope. Because of the all-or-nothing notions that you represent here, this continues.

It is Israel, especially under Likud, that refuses to compromise and has been slowly strangling the Palestinians. Once they are done with Gaza - and they will be done when they fully occupy it and it basically doesn't exist anymore because all infrastructure is gone then they will turn to the West Bank and eat and eat away. But you know, keep writing dumb shit. It's entertaining at least. — Benkei

Gaza was given a huge number of greenhouses that could have helped sustain their food supply. Israel also offered to help build the ports. But nope, they didn't want to take "Jewish money". No, instead, Hamas was voted in, violent attitudes reigned, and then Hamas decided to take money from international organizations, funneling billions of dollars to the leadership and building a huge tunnel system and weapons.

I hope that Gaza could be reconstructed into something that is a peaceful enclave that is part of a peaceful state that can compromise with its neighbors.

That some of those rights are actually inalienable and not subject to compromise, that having a fucking moral backbone requires you to not tell victims to give in to the demands of their aggressors. — Benkei

But Israelis would say that this is the case regarding them in 10/7 and that left to their devices, Hamas would just continue this. Rather than "take it on the chin", Israel probably doesn't want that threat looming and growing for the next attack. In your ideal world, Hamas is able to do a thousand 10/7s until the Jews are pushed to the sea. Then perhaps you might switch over to supporting the Jews (perhaps not, depending on how far the hate goes), because then the Jews would be the "underdogs" and "victims". Of course, I don't even see it in this way. Rather, I see it as a set of bad decisions that were made and are continued to be made. Unlike you, who seems to have no scrupples regarding the Palestinian violence, I do think that Israel needs to moderate as much as possible, and that Netanyahu and the Likud and rightwing policies should be voted out. But then, if I say that, you think it's an opening.

As for the ad homs, I'm just ignoring.

The idea of a causal web is usually a better way to look at things - as many, many accident reports illustrate. When looking for a causal chain for a specific event, it is more helpful to identify a causal web and then select the most helpful causal chain. — Ludwig V

Sure, it is a shorthand, admittedly when I use "causal-historical chain". Perhaps a "causal web" is better. Indeed, I brought up earlier, Harman's idea of not overmining an object to all causal factors involved with the object. We don't even need to know all the combination of factors that allow the gametes to start forming the embryonic development, we can point to a "web" of causal factors that are involved without picking out all of them. In other words, not knowing each factor, doesn't negate the case. The microscope doesn't need to be that granular when we reference the event.

The question is, if I had been an accountant or a rock star, would I have become a different person? For me, it depends what you mean by a different person. A stronger example might be the question whether could I imagine being a bat, which means with a bat's perceptions and desires. I don't think so. A weaker case is the one about wearing pink shoes. I agree, not only that I might have worn pink shoes this morning, but that I can imagine myself wearing pink shoes. This question may well be too unclear to be answerable. But then, that too, would be a result. — Ludwig V

I mean to be fair, isn't that the general nature of most philosophical debates? Being unanswerable is almost a requirement of a philosophical issue :). But I guess you can mean it, that there is no way in hell that any philosopher would come up with a theory of identity that would ever have any validity or soundness. I mean, why pick this issue out as being interminably impossible to answer versus any other philosophical question? It's all debatable and hence philosophy continues....

So, I think the question you ask is slightly different than where this question of identity has shifted. Indeed, to a point made earlier, personal identity can start looking very personal and "existential" (we define our identity, not given it). My question in this line of thought is more the following:

"At what point would that person no longer have the set of all possibilities that that person could have? In other words, whether that person wore pink shoes or is an accountant or what not, is necessarily/rigidly designated to something. At what point would that something be something else that one is ascribing a personal identity to.

Surely, we can agree that certain physical-spatial-causal events are not transposable. At some point that chair became a chair, and not just pieces of wood, plastic, whatever. At the point at which it is a chair, it becomes a new "possibilities" of what can happen to that chair. We can talk reasonably about that chair qua chair versus other chairs, or other objects.

When hydrogen and oxygen combine in a process to make water, when water forms, it is now that substance and not its antecedents we are discussing. We can pick it out (H20), and it has an instance in causal-space-history (hence why I say it is not just a natural kind, but an instance of a natural kind.. that instance of water.

In such a case there were two separate conceptions resulting in one person. — wonderer1

That’s cool but even more to my point as it’s so unique. That doesn’t counter my gametes theory, it just elaborates on an interesting variation of it.

I donl't get this. The possibilities are of the person - It's you who might have had pink shows on. I don't see a question clear enough to have an answer. — Banno

What differentiates one individual from the other? The discernible is the persons combination of gametes at an instance. All counterfactual after that can be whatever. Before that, we are not talking about that person as now that person doesn’t exist to even speak of.

involved the Palestinians having no to little self-determination and was only concerned with Israeli security. — Benkei

Wonder why :rofl: you make that sound like it was not relevant to be concerned about security. Take a deal and build on it. As Maher said, how’s the other way working?

And finally, Israel always wanted to carve up the land in such a way and control Palestinian movement that it would not result in a viable state for the Palestinians. — Benkei

They were given large tracts of land but not 100%. It’s called compromise.

You’re so biased you would want perpetual warfare. You’d at least want Jews to be in a position where they can live precariously at the whims of their violent neighbors.

Sucks that they got pushed to the right as they did but getting blown up constantly during that process didn’t help matters. The pals moderate failure led to Hamas pushing a stronger case for Likud.

You have to choose one approach or the other. They are not the sort of thing you can mix and match to suit your mood. — Banno

My quest here is to find an objective thing that differentiates a person from being all possibilities that that person can hold. Clearly the stopping point for that person to be all counterparts of that person would be at conception. How could it be otherwise?

Counterpart theory? — Banno

Only after conception yes. Before no.

It remains you who has the different circumstances. — Banno

BEFORE conception? Like a transposable soul or something? :brow:. After perhaps yeah.

...as well as who we think he is and choose him to be. Direction of fit helps here, again, in that we choose what counts as schopenhauer1. It appears problematic mainly because folk are looking for something in the world that is schopenhauer1, whereas to a large extent the direction of fit is the revers of this - we get to choose. — Banno

This is a good point because this started as a discussion of hindsight and counterfactuals - what life would be like if you were born in different circumstances. My point in that discussion was that at some point there could be no changes in circumstances without not existing at all. I discerned that point to be the point of conception. Up until that point, if anything changed, there would be no YOU reflecting back in the first place. After that point, one can make an argument that various things could change and you might end up more-or-less the same. So perhaps it is the point of conception where identity is necessitated with physical components, after which experience and development can shape it and it can be thus defined this way or that, whether if the wind blew northeast versus southwest but everything else was the same that Tuesday morning, whether you would have been a different YOU, let alone major differences in upbringing.

To be clear as to the issue here, one would need to very carefully differential between modal identity and personal identity, between a=a and what makes schopenhauer1 who he is. — Banno

Yes, the word "personal" really screwed up the discussion because I am really discussing modal identity.

My theory of substance and causal-historical-spatial instance is one of a modal identity which is to say what makes that object and not another object in ANY possible world.

And here the conjecture falls off the rails, because of course modally we can specify a possible world in which your genetics is different, and yet you are physically and psychologically the same. — Banno

In this we must be careful what we mean by "genetics", because as the Ship of Theseus problem is indeed something to consider (what if all genetics were slowly replaced over time), the instance of that person still needs to have started somewhere, that person started with the casual-temporal-spatial instance of the combination of gametes of an individual.

If we just said it was the causal aspect, we are not designating the substance that it is the instance of.. It's not a piece of wood, or speck of dust but this person. This person would not be anything one way or the other without the initial meeting of their particular gametes, even in the possible world scenario where their genetics were switched out.

Edit: But I also realize people will come up with some possible world where people exist without gametes, or something where people were created differently than now. Then we can discuss at what point is that person then even a person and not something else (artificial person, robot, engineered person, whatever). It would be a new "kind" and possibly not fall into the logic of the possible worlds in the same way. What if water was H30 for example, is not a move one can make in many modal logic hypotheticals.

Edit 2: And thus, personal identity can be contingent on any number of existential and physical factors, where the gamete/causal aspect is modally invariant for that person to be that person and not someone else.

Delete

And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). — ssu

Also I did explain here how whilst in an 8 minute video, even that could still be construed as "correct" as it is acknowledged that the British at various points "controlled" Ireland, some times more ironhandedly than others (was it Lords, or was it mainly chieftains, or was it now Dukes from England.. it waned and waxed over time).. But that the current conflict really started with the settlement of in the late 1500s of Scotch and English into Northern Ireland, kicking out the Irish Catholic landlords etc.. "This" can be considered what he meant with his very brief comment (really more of joke punchline) for "wanted to start an empire". Yes, British already controlled it, but it was that that is much of the reason the conflict specifically over the holdout of Northern Ireland has played out the way it did.

What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:

5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"

The answer would be: it's working quite well!

Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together.

And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). Also somehow from the part where historical events were listed with the argument "Deal with it" / "Just move on..", the Holocaust was somehow forgotten, only a reference to pogroms in Russia was made.

So no, things aren't just in the category of "it happened, so just move on". — ssu

So I knew you were going to bring up the Likud part there.. It would make sense if it was symmetrical but the point he was making isn't symmetrical. His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals, even when they lost over and over in armed conflict and were in a position where if they took it, they would have gotten much of what they wanted. His point was that eventually, people move on. If I was forced out of my house, and let's say there was 700,000 people also forced out (and that's not even necessarily that straightforward a story), if I got to war over it a bunch of times and lose, and then there's deals made where I could get something else and I don't take it, at that point, my whole identity as this or that nationality is no longer functioning other than purely from a place of grievance and revenge. It wouldn't help if I am educated from birth a narrative that completely denies anything historical about the other side OTHER THAN that they are occupiers. Welp, there we have it. A psychology that cannot move on. At the end of the day, coping is what is needed. It psychological. None of this shit is real except for the extent which people cannot move forward with their lives. It's psychological as much as anything. But people will reify it to no end.

I say this as someone who wants to see the conflict end, wants minimized civilian casualties, and is not a fan of Netanyahu or Likud. But none of that negates the much of that responsibility before and on October 7th on the Palestinian side. Israel got shifted to the right because there was very weak moderate partners (Arafat for example), and their right wing wasn't just "right wing" it was "blow people up" . You play with fire and vote in a group that does this, you now have a group that will destroy all dissenters, enforces strict religious rules, and puts most of its funds into violence rather than development.

But @tim wood has laid it out really well here:

And October seventh happens. I am of the view that sometimes events are so terrible that there is no need to look behind them for the purposes of addressing and responding to them. That is, Hamas made their own free choice and the Palestinians are now paying a terrible, and predictable, price. This show, in its entirety, is all Hamas's production. And in principle, I would like to think, the Palestinians can end it in a moment by merely surrendering their goals of murder, and surrendering the current crop of murderers. Nor do I see how Israel can reasonably unilaterally stop before their own goals are met.

This business of 7 Oct. being done, when it is done, then we can all hope that insanity will start to come to an end. I have opined earlier that the Palestinians may well find that their best friends and allies will be ultimately the Israelis themselves, when and if the poison is washed away. — tim wood

And then look behind you and you see @Benkei who also didn't get the point of the video.

The reason why all these comparisons fail is because unlike Nigeria, Algeria and Turkey, Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. — Benkei

Um, not sure what video you watched, but Maher isn't making a claim that Israel has a right to the land from the river Jordan to the sea. Rather, it's quite the other way he is criticizing (and it's aimed mainly at college kids, leftists, and "useful idiots").

It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. That is the crime of aggression for which Germans were hanged at Nuremberg. A crime so egregious that the law criminalising it was written after it was committed just so they could sentence them. — Benkei

This just isn't even coherently connected to anything about the theme of that video. Out of all the people debating thus far, it is you who might want to internalize and really grapple with what he is saying. You seemed to have missed the point if you even watched it.

No, that's not how it happened either and Ulster is not a County and you have no clue what you're talking about but if you would like to know something, you can read this. We are off topic. — Baden

Cool, sorry yeah I used Ulster province as a shorthand for the name of the six individual counties that are under the British (versus the remaining 3 under Ireland), my bad. And saying "You have no clue what you are talking about" is not helpful, even if you think you are right, which you aren't :).

The whole reason for the claim of Northern Ireland by Britain is the settlers, so no :roll:

And yeah, I get the counties and provinces mixed up. Mea culpa

The re-conquest was completed during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, after several brutal conflicts. (See the Desmond Rebellions, 1569–73 and 1579–83, and the Nine Years War, 1594–1603, for details.) After this point, the English authorities in Dublin established real control over Ireland for the first time, bringing a centralised government to the entire island, and successfully disarmed the native lordships. In 1614 the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament was overthrown through the creation of numerous new boroughs which were dominated by the new settlers. However, the English were not successful in converting the Catholic Irish to the Protestant religion and the brutal methods used by crown authority (including resorting to martial law) to bring the country under English control, heightened resentment of English rule.

From the mid-16th to the early 17th century, crown governments had carried out a policy of land confiscation and colonisation known as Plantations. Scottish and English Protestant colonists were sent to the provinces of Munster, Ulster and the counties of Laois and Offaly. These Protestant settlers replaced the Irish Catholic landowners who were removed from their lands. These settlers formed the ruling class of future British appointed administrations in Ireland. Several Penal Laws, aimed at Catholics, Baptists and Presbyterians, were introduced to encourage conversion to the established (Anglican) Church of Ireland. — Ireland Article

It is the paragraph in bold that I wanted to claim makes that statement right in terms of Britain colonizing (starting the empire), and not just controlling the region. Hence, "maintaining" that foothold was what happened by keeping Northern Ireland. So yeah the conflict of political control is one thing, but then the colonization part can be said to have been the main sticking point for why it is claimed as part of the British Empire and not the Republic of Ireland.

"The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip."

It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened. — Baden

The British were "starting" the empire, by settling the Scottish/Northern English Presbyterian/Anglican / Protestant immigrants. They were "maintaining it" by keeping Northern Ireland in the negotiation for the Republic of Ireland being independent (sans an Ulster County not just Ulster county but the area of ulster containing those counties..).

Maher spells out nothing new. He only reminds us of very obvious historical truths. — Merkwurdichliebe

:up:

So a familiar debate tactic is to focus on some wording issue. Thus the main idea is lost to fighting over the trees and not the forest. I don't even agree that Maher was wrong on this, but even if I did, that would be the tactic you are bringing up. I actually think he did quite good cramming a lot of conflict-history in a short amount of time to make a broader point about getting over what one perceives as historical wrongs over land and whatnot. The Israeli-Pals issue is no different than what has happened and in the past people have coped, dealt with it, moved on, compromised.

It's not disagreement. He just got it totally wrong. The whole island of Ireland was fully under the control of Britain and then we fought a war of independence in which we negotiated away N. Ireland at which point the Free State, now the Republic came into being. It was not a case of Ireland being free (having the whole island to ourselves) and then Britain came and took N. Ireland (our tip) away when it became a colonial power. As I said, he just made that up. The fact that you took it seriously without doing even two minutes research on it, is a major weakness that I guess extends to your understanding of Israle/Palestine. Get your facts from books or other reliable sources, not second rate comedians. Also, don't double down when someone points out you're wrong as if Maher is some sort of a reliable source. — Baden

Oh yeah, he wasn't going to discuss all that in an 8 minute segment. Just watch the video.

But, to be fair, it depends in what part of the history you are discussing. Yes, Britain "controlled" Ireland, but they "settled" Northern Ireland much earlier than Ireland's independence movement, which depending on how we are looking at the history, is why the conflict is a thing in the first place. But yeah, maybe the exact wording doesn't quite fit that narrative, but it is true that Ireland wanted all of it under the Republic of Ireland, including Ulster County, and Britain said no, we retain that.

@Baden Anyways, videos are meant to be watched. There are demographics and timing things, and jokes made that are not really understood through just reading the transcript. I just ask that you watch the video first before you really judge minutia that often is there as a setup for a joke.

The bit about Ireland is completely and utterly wrong, but whatever, it's light entertainment, so I don't expect him to know anything about that or bother finding out. It's not the point of the show. Ditto with the Middle East and the context there. He might get something right or not randomly. But most people, I presume, watch his show just to relax and have a laugh not to fact check it. Which is fine. — Baden

Yes, I heard you say that, but you didn't provide your reason for your disagreement. As far as the show, yea I generally agree. He isn't writing all that material. He probably gives his main outline and other people fill in some historical context is my guess, though he is quite informed. But I have yet to see what was wrong there. As you stated, it has to be short so he can make his point. He isn't giving a lecture on every conflict, but a broader understanding about conflict, coping, and at some point compromising and the result of the lack thereof.

Best to argue by attacking the commentator for not being sufficiently comedic. — Merkwurdichliebe

Seem to be a common tactic..