• Ukraine Crisis
    Now it seems taking Kiev may require door to door fighting. The whole argument of being liberators from Western oppression goes to shit when you are facing a strong insurgency as you try to move in, and it is unclear at this point if taking Kiev would even get them the capitulation they want.Count Timothy von Icarus

    The reality isn't hard to find here. Ukrainian people are united and putting up a brave defence against an aggressor. The Hungarian Uprising comes to my mind.ssu

    Russian propaganda is referring to all Ukrainian fighters (including, apparently, the regular army) as "nationalists." Even official statements invariably use this term. So they have their explanation for the resistance: "the virus of nationalism," as Putin put it in his war speech. Whether the Russian people will buy it, and for how long is another matter...

    (Also, they are not calling it a "war," but a "special operation" - that makes all the difference, you see. The authorities actually forbid Russian media to use the words "war" and "invasion" or to mention civilian casualties.)
  • Ukraine Crisis
    One wonders if this kind of issue could cause the Russian army to become more aggressive. There's still no clear goal set for this war, that I've heard. Some say that they want to overthrow Ukraine's president.

    Maybe.
    Manuel

    Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday called on the Ukrainian army to overthrow the government whose leaders he described as "terrorists" and "a gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis."The Moscow Times

    One wonders if this kind of issue could cause the Russian army to become more aggressive.Manuel

    So far they have been acting with relative restraint, i.e. they have not employed the kind of heavy bombardment that characterized their tactics in Chechnya and Syria. They have used cluster munitions in urban areas though (as they did in engagements elsewhere), which is widely considered to be a war crime.

    Residents of a village in northern Ukraine (sorry, US-backed neo-Nazis) trying to stop Russian tanks with their bare hands:

  • Ukraine Crisis
    One way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to dismiss the protagonist as "mad".Baden

    I agree that just saying "he's mad" is intellectually lazy and boring.ssu

    Then again, a common mistake is to regard Putin as an (evil) mastermind who has it all perfectly planned, calculated and under control. That is hardly ever the case if we look at other rulers at other times and places, and Putin is no exception. He is just a man. He makes mistakes, he can be deluded, angry, impatient, scared - and yes, even mad. In democratic countries with strong institutions that may not make much difference in the long run, especially since rulers relinquish power on a regular basis. But in a country like Russia with largely decorative democratic institutions, ruled by the same strongman for 22 years, the mental state of the man at the top can matter a great deal.

    And indeed some veteran Putin watchers have noted a change in his behavior over the past few years:

    During the pandemic, analysts had noticed a change in Mr. Putin — a man who isolated himself in a bubble of social distancing without parallel among Western leaders. In isolation, he appeared to become more aggrieved and more emotional, and increasingly spoke about his mission in stark historical terms. His public remarks descended ever deeper into distorted historiography as he spoke of the need to right perceived historical wrongs suffered by Russia over the centuries at the hands of the West.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    NOS4A2 shows up with the sole aim of spreading an utterly baseless "genocide" narrative. Show one iota of evidence for this or we can just presume you're up to your old tricks of spreading Russian propaganda again.Baden

    Isaac is here to back him up:

    For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US.Isaac

    That's a lie.

    In the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election he received 1.16% of the vote. In the October 2014 parliamentary election Tyahnybok was again first on the election list of his party; since the party came 0,29% short to overcome the 5% threshold to win seats on the nationwide list he was not re-elected into parliament.Wikipedia

    And no one was "installed": here Isaac is parroting Putin.

    Well, not to worry: soon Ukraine will be denazified and liberated from the clutches of Western imperialism.

    Well, as I discussed with StreetlightX earlier, there indeed still is this neonazi party in the Ukrainian Parliament. With ONE SEAT. And it is NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT. Zelenskyi's party was formed in 2018 and he was elected President of Ukraine in 2019, beating incumbent president Petro Poroshenko with nearly 73% of the vote to Poroshenko's 25%. So I guess Ukrainians weren't so enthuastic about Poroshenko.ssu

    Poroshenko was many things, but "neo-Nazi" he was not. The fact is that no far-right presidential candidate or party got ahead in national elections since 2014. UKIP did better in its heyday than Svoboda did at any time in its history. Perhaps Putin should liberate UK next?

    (Don't bother digging up links, Isaac. I've taken your measure. You know fuck-all about what's going on and care even less, but once you publicly commit to a position you will stick to your guns no matter what.)
  • What are you listening to right now?


    this is my mood today...
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yeah, Zelensky's administration is so unconcerned about a possible Russian invasion that, after all their resolute posturing, they now seem to be backpedaling on Ukraine's NATO aspirations.

    Scholz, Zelenskiy play down talk of NATO membership for Ukraine
    Zelenskiy said NATO membership was a remote “dream.”

    Ukrainian government floats prospect of holding referendum on NATO membership.
    A possible diplomatic path out of the Ukraine crisis came into sharper focus on Wednesday when a minister in the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine floated the possibility of a referendum that could keep his country from joining NATO.

    This, of course, has nothing to do with the totally made up threat promulgated by Western imperialists.

    (It should be noted that Zelensky is treading a very fine line with these overtures. The actual prospects of a Russian invasion are debatable, but he faces a very real threat from within if he is seen to be giving in to Russian demands.)
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    Why don't we understand everything?Srap Tasmaner

    Understanding is always understanding something in terms of something else; reducing one thing to another; fitting the explanandum within an explanatory framework - explanans, which is, for the present purposes, taken for granted. Therefore, understanding literally everything is an oxymoron. A narrative that purports to explain everything would not even be recognizable to us as an explanation. Any explanation must be grounded in some givens.

    One concern perhaps relevant to this discussion is to remember that this is what we're doing: it's all too easy to think that by naming what we don't yet understand, we do understand it. Thus we use words like "energy" and "matter" and "force" as if they mean something. We can show how we use those terms in our theories, and thus how they connect up to things we consider explained and understood, but there's some lingering suspicion that we don't really understand our explanations. (If some of our variables are still unbound, the logician might remind us, we don't yet have a proposition -- only something like a proposition generator.)Srap Tasmaner

    This, as they say, is a feature, not a bug. Feynman has a nice discussion of force in his lectures apropo of exactly this.

    Science doesn't attempt to understand everything: scientific explanations are reductive, rather than totalizing. You study some phenomena from a certain perspective, identify an underlying structure, then try to fit the phenomena of interest within that structure. The structure - the scientific theory - is your given in this context. Science has many constantly evolving theories, but theories are only succeeded by more theories. There can never be a point where everything is explained away into nothing.

    Of course, understanding, sense-making is a much more general activity than just doing science. We engage in it constantly, in every act of cognition. Vision, for example, is a low-level, largely unconscious process of sense-making, where we reconcile visual signals with a predictive model, adjusting the model as needed.

    It is possible to explain everything within the context of an explanatory framework - that is, explain everything other than the framework itself. It doesn't usually happen in science, but a broader gestalt, a religious or spiritual system, or even just a state of mind, however fleeting, can make such a claim. (Perhaps this is what people mean by being at peace with the world.) But even such all-encompassing sense-making frameworks depend on something being taken for granted, left unexplained: they cannot explain away themselves. As you say,

    we have no way of establishing that our research tools (our own minds) are in good working order (there's no standard we could possibly reach for)Srap Tasmaner

    Even where we can reach for some other standard (than a given explanatory framework), that only moves the question one step further.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.ssu

    Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII.

    I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF.Benkei

    what
  • Currently Reading
    Kazuo Ishiguro – The Buried KnightSnakes Alive

    The Buried Giant, surely? (It's on my list.)

    Books I read recently:

    Ivan Bunin - Stories and novellas
    Thomas Mann - Death in Venice and other stories
    JM Coetzee - Waiting for the Barbarians
    Dino Buzzati - The Tartar Steppe
    Salman Rushdie - Midnight's Children
    Olga Tokarczuk - The Books of Jacob - just started. This one will take a while...

    Jude the Obscure
    by Thomas Hardy
    Pantagruel

    A great read, but gloomier even than Tess, in its own way.
  • Replies to Steven French’s Eliminativism about Objects and Material Constitution. (Now with TLDR)
    It’s from “There’s are No Such Things as Ordinary Objects” in the bookThe Nature of Ordinary ObjectsIgnoredreddituser

    Thanks!

    For those who don't have the book, which is probably most of us, this article may help: Defending eliminative structuralism and a whole lot more (or less).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target.frank

    Well, you can't mount a full-scale invasion in secret, so this is neither here nor there. If they were in fact preparing for an invasion, it would look pretty much how it looks today.

    And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it.ssu

    Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

    No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making.
  • Replies to Steven French’s Eliminativism about Objects and Material Constitution. (Now with TLDR)
    Not looking for a summary of the thread, just the paper referred to in the OP, thanks.
  • Replies to Steven French’s Eliminativism about Objects and Material Constitution. (Now with TLDR)
    I’ve been teaching myself metaphysics, it’s been pretty challenging since I don’t really have anyway to get feedback. I was wondering if you guys have an ideas how to reply to an argument Steven French makes below. It seems like a combination of the grounding problem and overdetermination to me, but I’m not sure if I’m on the right track or how to reply to it. Everything below is an excerpt from his paper.Ignoredreddituser

    What is the paper? If you want to discuss it, please cite it for the benefit of everyone else, because it is difficult to comment on an out-of-context excerpt. And to make it clear that you citing someone, use the quote function. Select the text and click the talk bubble icon on top of the post box or put quote tags around it:

    [quote] ... [/quote]
    
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    SophistiCat, I read a lot of what you post and generally find it both well-informed and level-headed, but as long as I’ve been reading you, you have remained, shall we say, unimpressed by such expressions of wonder and bafflement. For you, if there’s a theory that works, all strangeness of the phenomena accounted for is banished, and no strangeness attaches to a theory that is successful. I’m exaggerating, I suppose, but have I mistaken your attitude?Srap Tasmaner

    5plB6Z.jpg

    I don't know, I don't think I have a consistent attitude towards wonder and bafflement in general. There is one sense in which this is probably true: if we are talking about surprise as an epistemic state, i.e. what happens when we encounter something unexpected, or something for which we have no explanation. This state of surprise is eliminated if we find a satisfactory explanation. Of course, nothing can be totally explained without a residue, so you might say that, upon reflection, we should always be in a state of wonder: Why does the world exist? Why is it the way it is? That sort of thing.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    It's studying what the classics - up till Newton - and a bit beyond him, took to be a fact about the world, that we could understand it. We can't.Manuel

    Where "understanding," according to you (I am not sure about Chomsky), means reconciling with our hypothetical innate intuitions. I say "hypothetical" because, other than young children, everyone's innate intuitions are mixed up with learned or constructed "theoretical" understanding, and separating them takes some work. In addition to which, intuitive understandings are, for the most part, unthought and unarticulated, many of them embodied in our physical abilities of seeing, hearing, moving, and so on. Making these implicit beliefs and theories explicit also takes quite a bit of reconstruction.

    But, as I keep saying, it is simply implausible to assert that "the classics" were feral savants, operating on pristine God- or Nature-given intuitions. They were not. They were as sophisticated theoreticians as anyone today - it's just that their background was of their age, not ours. If anything, it was Hume and his fellow empiricists who pushed to clear out the "occult" deposits of classical theory and turn to a more direct, phenomenological perception of the world. Which just served as a renewed basis for more theory construction. That innocent age of theory-free understanding of the world? I don't think it ever happened.

    What I think the Newtonian revolution in physics exemplifies is a rise of empirical science that was happening at that time, enabled and spurred on by developments in instrumentation and analysis and the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. Prior to this development, natural philosophy could be intuitive or "occult" or somewhere in-between. There were controversies, but as long as contesting theories remained nice and vague and metaphysical, they were all on equal footing, and one was free to believe whatever appealed to one's intuitions, politics or learned doctrine.

    The new sciences, when they arrived, had an unfair advantage: they "worked." And it is hard to argue with what works; even the unlearned could eventually appreciate their fruits in the form of useful technologies. And so, like it or not, they had to win out.

    I don't mean to frame this as an opposition between benighted tradition and the objective truth that science finally uncovered. I think there is continuity and mutual influence between the old and the new ways of thinking. The shape and direction of scientific theorizing owes much to our nature and to our culture. On the other hand, what today's common man or woman considers commonsense are just the sort of things that were baffling Newton and his contemporaries (with the caveat of the enduring pull of folk science). 300 years of scientific dominance have left their mark on our cultural background.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It's hard to see what it is that he is pissed about, what he is trying to gain, and why now. I think that Western diplomats aren't being coy when they say that they are baffled.

    Is he enraged about military aid to Ukraine? Well, Russia has been arming, supplying and otherwise aiding and directing rebels inside Ukraine for years, and everyone knows it, and the Russians know that everyone knows - they aren't being particularly sneaky about it. One has to be a terminally oblivious Putinversteher to think that Russia is the wronged side here.

    Is he just doing it to keep the West on its toes, as some say? But this is too dangerous and too costly an adventure for such a modest payout. And what would be his end-game? After all these hysterics and military escalation he can't just back down or settle on a reasonable compromise. He is spoiling for a fight. This is the scariest aspect of the whole thing.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    It's the simple view that there are things we can know and things we cannot, given that we are natural creatures. Not in this essay, but in a different one, he distinguishes between "problems" and "mysteries", problems are those questions we can ask and (hopefully) answer. "Mysteries" are those we can ask and not answer, such as say, free will or how is it possible for matter to think? Then there are questions we can't even ask, because we don't know how to phrase them.

    This would give an "updated" view on the intuitive aspect:

    https://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/COMPLETE-REPORT-Goswami-Childrens-Cognitive-Development-and-Learning.pdf

    Particularly "naive physics" p.6.
    Manuel

    Yes, there is an interesting body of research in psychology and education regarding "folk" or "naive" conceptions of the world and their relation to science. What has been found is that folk have fairly robust beliefs and (arguably) theories concerning the operation of the physical world, that they often conflict with the scientific view, and that they are resistant to modification via scientific instruction (though the extent of their incorrigibility is debated). Is this what you think Chomsky means with his "mysteries"?

    The claim itself is unremarkable, considering that it has been known and studied for decades. But the implication of the unintelligibility of the world and impossibility of knowledge is nonsense. Intelligibility and knowledge aren't about innate intuitions, or else we would have to say that pretty much our entire body of so-called knowledge isn't actually intelligible to us! This is just language on holiday.

    The 17th century scientific revolution was a reaction to Aristotelean physics, which postulated occult forces that no longer made sense. But of course, Aristotle was taken very seriously and was considered by many to be among the greatest of thinkers, no doubt about that. Aristotle was likely highlighting other aspects of our innate "folk psychology", putting emphasis on different aspects of the world, which were not satisfactory for many of the 17th century figures.Manuel

    The conception of the world as a mechanical contraption, which Chomsky identifies with materialism and contrasts with later scientific ideas, such as Newton's gravity, is actually pretty specific to that time and place on which he dwells the most. I am sure that it has connections with folk physics, but I don't think that it is identical to it. Those materialists were pretty sophisticated folk, for better or for worse.

    I'd only quibble that I don't think physicists have intuitions about how gravity works, they have intuitions about how theories about gravity work and how they can relate to other phenomena in the world. The intuition would be on the theory side.Manuel

    Point taken, these are not identical to physical intuitions, as those psychology studies that we've been referring to show.

    The main topic of the essay, as I read it, is that we've lowered the standards of science, we no longer seek to understand the world, but seek theories about aspects of the world. That's a big lowering of standards of explanation.Manuel

    But whose standards are these? Who ever thought that a newborn babe, so to speak, could intuitively grasp how the world works, down to the very foundations?

    This is why I am skeptical that this is really what Chomsky was driving at - that he was even driving at any such specific thesis. He seems perfectly happy and engaged with his dilettante notes on the history and philosophy of science, but I don't see him pushing hard for some grand claim.

    As for your last question, I think, in the end, the point is going to be person dependent. For me, it's quite crazy that we understand so little and that the world exists at all, it's baffling to me. There's no reason to expect any species to evolve having a capacity to ask and answer questions about the world at all, there's no obvious benefit to doing these things.Manuel

    Well, evolution is notorious for its lack of foresight. I also don't think that there was any simple and specific reason for this outcome.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Russia could have prevented NATO far more successfully by simply NOT DOING ANYTHING AGGRESSIVE.ssu

    Russia is in an excellent position now to keep Ukraine out of NATO pretty much indefinitely. Everyone here (everyone else, not you) unthinkingly swallows Russian propaganda line about NATO on their doorstep. But as all sides knew even before this brouhaha started, Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO any time soon, if ever. For one thing, joining NATO is a consensus decision of all current NATO members, and whatever was said years ago, few want Ukraine there now. Just the other day the president of Croatia made this very clear (Croatia is a NATO member). All Russia has to do to practically guarantee that Ukraine doesn't join NATO is to maintain the status quo. A country that is continually being bled by its hybrid war with Russia, including a low-intensity armed conflict on a large part of its territory, has no chance of being admitted to NATO or to EU.
  • What's the big mystery about time?
    It is common nowadays for philosophers to have a second (or indeed first) degree in the discipline in which they specialize. I know of some prominent philosophers of physics with physics or math degrees: David Albert, David Wallace, Huw Price, Dennis Dieks.

    Like I said, don't take us bullshitting on this forum as an indication of what's going on in academic philosophy.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    What's quite ironic in all of this - these so called "naturalists" and "empiricists" - who look at say, Hume, with much admiration, is that they don't read him, or they read him badly, not only with regard to mysteries, but regarding "innate ideas".Manuel

    "Naturalists" and "empiricists," with or without scare quotes, can admire Hume, if it pleases them, but why should they slavishly follow him in everything? What good are you as a philosopher if all you can do is repeat what someone else wrote three hundred years ago? Don't confuse philology with philosophy.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    I mean, it’s not interesting to me, insofar as I agree with this approach to philosophy and see people who disagree with the main points to be very mistaken. However, if I had to attack it, I don’t see any alternative to people who currently ridicule “mysteriansim”, like Dennett or the Churchlands.Manuel

    As I already said earlier, I don't think that Chomsky, in this essay at least, engages with the issues that animate debates between Nagel, Chalmers, McGinn, etc. on the one side, and Dennett, Churchlands, etc. on the other. Calling Chomsky's position "mysterianism" is misleading. Indeed, going by the evidence of this essay, I am not sure that he is even familiar with that other "mysterianism."

    If you think that he is advancing a "mysterian" thesis, how would you summarize it? It is not all that clear to me that he is developing a consistent thesis throughout the essay, but here is how I might tentatively reconstruct it. As Chomsky tells it, up until Newton, natural philosophy was following our intuitive understanding of how the world works. At one point he makes a connection with our innate intuitions, as revealed in psychological studies - folk physics and the like. More often, he talks about a "conception of the world as a machine"; how naturally intuitive that is is not obvious to me, but apparently he believes it to be so.

    (This is a very dubious claim, by the way: to equate 18th century European philosophers' thinking with innate, animalistic intuitions. So, neither Aristotle nor three millennia of human civilization made a dent in their thinking? Or were they all that childish-simple, Aristotle included? I hesitate to attribute this claim to Chomsky, so correct me if you read it differently.)

    So then comes Newton with his radically unintuitive theory, and after some fruitless attempts to reconcile it with traditional metaphysics, he throws up his hands and pleads hypotheses non fingo: it's just a mathematical theory, and the only thing going for it is that it works. And thus modern science was born, increasingly divorced from our intuitions, comprehensible only to the intellect, if even that.

    But the picture is not so simple, is it? Our understanding evolves throughout our individual lives, as well as throughout humanity's cultural evolution. At one point Chomsky seems to acknowledge this, seemingly contradicting the thesis that he has been developing, when he quotes 19th century mathematician Friedrich Lange saying that we have "so accustomed ourselves to the abstract notion of forces, or rather to a notion hovering in a mystic obscurity between abstraction and concrete comprehension, that we no longer find any difficulty in making one particle of matter act upon another without immediate contact, ... through void space without any material link." The same could be said about anyone educated in a modern school system. Action at a distance is not that big a deal any more. We throw around concepts like "force" and "energy" as if knew what we were talking about. And that's just the average person; physicists, mathematicians and other specialists develop even more advanced intuitions in their areas.

    There could be a case to be made for a core of innate intuitions, but what would be the significance of it? That we can transcend our nature-endowed intuitions is perhaps the defining trait of our species. So what is all this hand-wringing about the unintelligibility of the universe?
  • Pragmatic epistemology
    You certainly are welcome to keep posting hereT Clark

    No, he is not. This is a returning banned poster.
  • What's the big mystery about time?
    This thread illuminates what it is to be a philosopher in modern timesjgill

    No, it doesn't. To see what philosophy in modern times looks like, read some actual philosophy, e.g. here: https://philpapers.org/browse/time/
  • Ukraine Crisis
    This article in Foreign Policy from a few days ago makes the same points:

    Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis
    jamalrob

    Counterpoint in the same magazine: There’s Plenty of Blame to Go Around on Ukraine

    Reveal
    Realists are sometimes criticized for ignoring weaker states’ agency, but Walt takes the argument to its absurd conclusion by denying the agency of everyone but U.S. policymakers. It’s U.S. officials who make the choices that matter—bad ones—while the rest of the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin included, are simply enacting the eternal laws of history.

    Realists argue that regional powers always seek primacy in their neighborhood. According to this logic, a recovering Russia would seek to reestablish regional hegemony regardless of U.S. actions. Western accommodation would have only sped up the process. It’s incoherent for Walt to claim that liberal illusions caused the Russia crisis while also arguing that regional powers naturally seek control over their neighborhood. The rise in tensions would be expected unless Washington abandoned all interest in the region.

    What national interest do realists think Putin is defending by escalating this crisis? What is the existential threat he faces that justifies war and tens of thousands of casualties? Even if NATO is a worry, it’s hard to credibly portray it an as immediate danger, especially since Russia’s concerns center on an expansion that hasn’t happened and doesn’t look likely to happen. If you argue that Putin is merely reacting to Western pressures and his reaction is understandable and expected, you are also arguing that his decision to wage war is justified on realist grounds. Which is, sorry to say, a questionable way to explain a war of choice, fabricated and pursued for reasons unknown.


    What Russia is trying to accomplish with this sudden burst of hysterics is still an open question. Everyone here is taking their rhetoric at face value, but that could be a mistake. Perhaps the entire (un)diplomatic theater is to serve as a casus belli when their blatantly unacceptable demands are not met. Aggressors from Napoleon to Hitler have used such sudden ultimatums as a pretext for an invasion. Russia's very visible preparations could be the real thing, and not just a big stick that they are waving to gain leverage in negotiations.

    I guess we'll find out within the next few weeks.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The two main candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004

    That was 2004; a lot has happened since then, like the "Orange Revolution" that happened right after that 2004 vote. 2014 was a watershed year. If there was any ambivalence or indifference towards Ukrainian statehood before, post-2014 the mood is very different. And yes, that varies by region, but the overall shift is massive.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The Ukraine is a nation split right down the middle in terms of the views and cultural make up of the people. Crimea is/was basically made up of Russian speaking pro Russian people and the eastern half of Ukraine is basically the same.

    If they just let people vote maybe the war would finally end. Instead it has been another ongoing proxy war between Russia and US.
    I like sushi

    They did let people vote in Ukraine. Guess what? Pro-Russia candidates were given the boot. Since that unpleasantness over Crimea and the ongoing war in Donbass, Ukrainians' attitudes have shifted significantly, and not in Russia's favor.

    In Russia the annexation of Crimea was hugely popular (although the initial euphoria is now gone, displaced by other concerns). A large proportion of the population views Ukraine as either an enemy or a wayward child that needs to be brought to heel.

    There is plenty of sense in Russia’s view that the US has been steadily encroaching on Russian territory.I like sushi

    Just how far do you think Russia's territory stretches? Or do you mean something like Lebensraum? If we are talking about actual Russian borders, with or without Crimea, there hasn't been any encroachment since WWII. Russia, on the other hand, has been encroaching on its neighbors since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It occupies or effectively controls parts of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
  • Why was my post on Free Will taken down?
    Probably because the opening post was too bare of thought. Also, there's been a shitload of threads on free will (as on any philosophy forum).
  • What's the big mystery about time?
    I like the not-really-definition of physical time proposed by Zinkernagel:

    The time-clock relation: There is a logical (or conceptually necessary) relation between ‘time’ and ‘a physical process which can function as a clock (or a core of a clock)’ in the sense that we cannot – in a well-defined way – use either of these concepts without referring to (or presupposing) the other.On the physical basis of cosmic time

    (See the chapter "The meaning of time" in the paper for a good discussion.)
  • What's the big mystery about time?
    Here is another example. You want to skate on a lake and inquire if the ice is thick enough. Other skaters tell you that the ice becomes thinner towards the center of the lake. What this means is that the part of the frozen surface of the lake that is in the immediate vicinity of whoever is skating on it (and hence affords support to that person) is thinner when the skater is nearer to the center of the lake.Pierre-Normand

    So, if someone wanted to state it more precisely, they might say that the ice thickness changes with the distance from the center. In ordinary speech we rarely have to resort to such precisifications, because the meaning can be inferred from the context, but in scientific writing it is more common. For example (from a random paper): "a screening that changes both with charge carrier doping level Q and temperature T."

    This argument that you are having over the ordinary meaning of the word change is bizarre. What it clearly shows though is that change as a definition of time is of no use. The specific meaning of change in this context is change-over-time, which of course cannot be understood without already understanding what time is.
  • The existence of ethics
    I thought I would butt in here to clarify some things. Would you agree with the following? Our ability to act ethically with others evolves as a function of cultural development. To use an analogy, not too long ago it was assumed that animals had no emotions or cognition and did not feel pain. It s hard to act ‘ethically’ toward a creature when you dont see them as having any of these capabilities. Another example : we used to think that infants were a blooming, buzzing confusion. Now we know that they have all sorts of perceptual and recognition skills, including being able to empathize with others. Again, without such an appreciation of the infant’s perspective, ethical treatment of them is limited. I would argue the entire history of culture involves the growth of insights into how others unlike ourselves think and feel.Joshs

    A day-old infant has very limited cognition skills. So, by your logic, ethical treatment of very young infants should likewise be limited.

    Reductive ethics is scary.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    One could call a percept a "quale", but Chomsky doesn't. A percept means a moment of experience, such as you reading this sentence as you currently are. Or looking at the window and seeing green grass, or hearing a car zoom by, etc.

    I'm unclear why this is confusing, outside of the terminology itself. It's been overwhelmingly taken for granted up until the 20th century, when it suddenly became a problem to a small group of people.
    Manuel

    percept is usually understood as the product of mind's interpretation of sensory stimuli, the awareness of an object or event, such as grass outside your window or a car zooming by. This is distinct from the stimulus or the raw sense data (if that's a thing). And it is again distinct from the "what-it-is-likeness" of experience, which is what Nagel, Searle, Chalmers, etc. put forward as the phenomenal experience, or qualia, the thing outside the reach of physical accounting (unless we wave our hands and invoke something like "panpsychism"). (If all this seems confusing, then I've made my point.) Chomsky doesn't engage with any of this. He mentions the "hard problem," but he doesn't actually talk about it. Whatever his "mysteries" are (he never clearly and consistently articulates what they are), they aren't that.

    I thought the whole argument was meant to show that experience isn't necessary for a human being to exist as they do. But I also do not see the force to this argument, nor understand the attention given to it.Manuel

    Well, what the argument means to show is that phenomenal experience (which p-z's hypothetically lack) cannot be accounted for by materialism/physicalism as presently understood, and therefore materialism/physicalism is false/incomplete. (How it does that is what I don't quite understand.) Again, Chomsky doesn't engage with any of that. As far as he is concerned, materialism has been dead since at least Newton, but not for any reasons having to do with the "hard problem." For his definition of physicalism he picks that horn of Hempel's dilemma which anchors it to present-day physics, and he associates materialism specifically with pre-Newtonian natural philosophy, thus defining it into irrelevance.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    Sure. No problem. I don't agree with Strawson's panpsychism either, though he's pretty clear with the terms "experiential" and "non-experiential".Manuel

    I don't find terms like "qualia" or "experiential" all that clear myself, and I haven't seen where Srawson added anything useful in that regard (but I've only seen his "Realistic Monism"). I've read a couple of papers that try for a more critical analysis of these concepts (including one by Stoljar), but the matter remains murky in my mind.

    (Chomsky doesn't say much about the subject in this essay, except perhaps where he brings up Mary's Room puzzle. But here, as elsewhere, he just writes down some notes and quotes, adds that he disagrees with some influential analyses of the problem, and leaves it at that. The relevance of this discussion to the rest of the essay is unclear.)

    Panpsychism is just glorified magical thinking, in my opinion. It's not the exoticism of the concept that bothers me, but its explanatory nullity.

    The zombie argument isn't particularly convincing, I don't think, I mean, we essentially have very similar examples in people who sleepwalk, or so it seems to me.Manuel

    I just don't understand the argument, i.e. what it is that conceivability actually implies and why we should care.

    People who sleepwalk are not examples of P-zombies, because they don't behave like conscious people in all outward respects.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    Yes, Stoljar is interesting, but I've mainly focused on Strawson. So I can say less about him than others.Manuel

    Read Stoljar's precis - that didn't help much... Probably because I am still having difficulties with qualia ("experiential truths") and the zombie argument ("conceivability argument"). Stawson & panpsychism don't interest me, to be honest.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    Here is Stoljar's precis of his book Ignorance and Imagination, which Chomsky appears to endorse. Will read that later.
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    Thanks for the explanation, but to understand how this ties in with the present context, I would need to have a deeper understanding of the topic, and I cannot commit to that at the moment.

    Why? Because I am not taking your side against Dennett?
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    I didn't see much of a consistent agenda behind these rambling notes; I think people read into them whatever prejudices they happen to hold already: about materialism, philosophy of mind, Chomsky himself...
  • Chomsky's Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden? Reading Group
    I've read the rest of the essay, and frankly I am still not sure what to think of it. That is, the impression that I got after reading about a third of it is still the same: these look like notes on things that Chomsky has read, written down without any plan, flow-of-consciousness style. The themes that he mainly deals with are: (1) 18th century natural philosophers and their struggles with reconceptualizing the physical world in light of Newtonian physics; (2) the mind-body problem as though of by those 18th century philosophers, especially Priestly, plus a few later philosophers, mainly Russell, Strawson Jr. and Stoljar in the end, with some notes of his own concerning language.

    The essay is by no means a survey of the themes that it touches on. Compare, for instance, Chomsky's notes on physicalism with Stoljar's SEP article on the same: you will find the latter far more comprehensive and objective. Nor did I find much in the way of an original insight. Chomsky indicates where his sympathies lie: reductive physicalism, monism, opposing Strawson panpsychism and endorsing Stoljar's physicalism, but doesn't add much of his own. I couldn't make much of the brief note on language tucked in at the end, but that's because I have no familiarity with linguistics and Chomsky's work.

    Where I encountered difficulty (other than the brief discussion of language) was in the end, in notes on Stoljar, but this could be best remedied by reading Stoljar himself.
  • The existence of ethics
    This answer seeks to smuggle a specific position on metaethics into the very definition of the subject matterSophistiCat

    And this specific position is?hypericin

    This:

    What it is is a codification, elaboration, ossification, (and in some cases, perversion),of innate concepts and feelings of fairness and justice that are inborn in most of us, and in most social species.hypericin

    This doesn't just tell us what the subject of ethics is, but states a thesis about what ethics is (emphasis in the original). This thesis may be right or wrong - I am not going to argue about it here - but it can't be right or wrong by definition - that would be cheating.
  • Steve Keen, Economics, the environment and thermodynamics.
    No, it isn't. That's not were Keen went.Banno

    This is because economists made their own predictions of damages, using three spurious methods: assuming that about 90% of GDP will be unaffected by climate change, because it happens indoors; using the relationship between temperature and GDP today as a proxy for the impact of global warming over time; and using surveys that diluted extreme warnings from scientists with optimistic expectations from economists.Keen

    So, you are saying that Keen's points have nothing to do with elementary thermodynamics, and that smug rant at the beginning of the video was just a strained metaphor? OK. I'll take your word on the soundness of his criticisms, as economics is not my forte.