Dickheads can still be right sometimes.

I am pretty disturbed by the sheer number of defenses of a terrorist attack targeting civilians throughout the thread. — AmadeusD

Who has defended Hamas actions?

It is absolutely NOT a very big if. Did you look at the studies on hive mind / consciousness of a hive of bees? Scientists now believe a hive of bees IS a singular, intelligent consciousness, not just the imitation of one. So if bees -- not touching, separate creatures, no physical connection, no mass brain -- give rise by being in same group, same hive, to an intelligent, conscious hive mind, how the heck do you claim it is a big "if" to suggest the VERY SAME THING happens to people? — ken2esq

OK, this is an argument from analogy, which is interesting. The difficulty is, how similar do two things have to be to make the argument convincing? Are we similar enough to bees? Is there a default position in arguments from analogy; do we favour similarity and validity, or dissimilarity and invalidity?

For example: If you hit a human with a hammer it makes a noise because it feels pain. Interestingly (or not) if you hit a rock with a hammer is also makes a noise. Can we conclude that the rock also feels pain, by analogy with the human?

Watch the video at the top on collective intelligence — ken2esq

This is an example of what not to do in a group you have only just joined. Demand they do what you say.

Ken, chill out. We're people, not receptacles for you to dump your ideas in. Meet us half way. This is a society. Take an interest in us first, then we might take an interest in you. You're lucky to have got the engagement you have in this thread.

Some people here are even panpsychists who may be naturally sympathetic to your views. There's one guy on here who thinks that any randomly defined object has its own unitary consciousness, say three and a half marbles in a jar of 100, because he thinks it solves the combination problem. He is tolerated because he has arguments, despite being insane. You are clearly less insane and you may even be right, but you haven't shown why yet.

The solution to a might-is-right free for all is to have global rule of law, no?

This is all a bit context-free isn't it?

It is a true statement that one ought not kick puppies for fun — Banno

Why is it wrong to do that?

Explain how that works. Hamas attacks and you pick up the phone and call their leadership and you discuss how they ought stop raping concert goers?

Are you under any illusion that had Israel not responded as they did that the Hamas attack would not have ended? — Hanover

The attacks won't stop until Israel ceases to exist in its current form it seems to me. And it shouldn't exist in its current form. It's a colony isn't it? And not just an imposition of political power, but also a displacement of existing established population. Military action by Israel is just going to create more terrorists, no? A political solution is the only serious option. In terms of the phone call, informing whatever leadership Palestine has of Israel's intention to dismantle their colony and then actually doing it might help stop the violence, if it is believed.

If you say it doesn't, again I ask, what does? — Hanover

A political solution.

In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives? — schopenhauer1

But 'going on with their lives' isn't an innocent desire to live peacefully. It is colonising another country.

I have evidence of a secret network of Hamas tunnels under GB News headquarters.

So Hamas gets to commit civilian atrocities, but when Israel starts bombing them while they hide behind human shields, — RogueAI

Would it change your view if instead Hamas was hiding in Israel using civilians as human shields there? Should the IDF kill its own citizens to get at Hamas?

What if Hamas was hiding in New York?

As part of the process of signing up to this forum, we should all sign a document saying "I confess I'm a pretentious twat and I pretend to believe what I don't believe because I am weak and self-deceiving." Then we can all move on and do some philosophy.

Haven't read that one.

Bertrand Russell "Problems of philosophy" is a nice short intro. It's old but philosophy doesn't change much so it doesn't matter.

Also academic papers are much better than books on the whole

One option is to stay on this forum and engage with topics you find interesting. There's room here for a wide range of knowledge. And when you get stuck in a bit of jargon you can look it up. I've progressed a lot on here. And I've seen others grow hugely.

Do not go to the elves for advice

Our consciousness is at the very least especially unique, because it is causal. I think it's causal. — flannel jesus

I think it is causal too, but not just in humans. One way to solve the problem of overdetermination (psychological causes compete with physical causes as the explanation for human behaviour) is to suggest that all causation is fundamentally psychological. But I think you are right to point out the problem of when to introduce consciousness-as-cause, as this is as much as an issue for panpsychists as anyone else. A thoroughgoing panpsychist might take the line that if matter was not conscious, it wouldn't do anything. All the behaviour we see around us in the physical world is only doing what it is doing because of how it feels.

okay well panpsychism still requires some emergence to get to human consciousness — flannel jesus

Sure, I'm not criticising the concept of emergence in all contexts, just in the context of the move from non-conscious systems to conscious ones.

Can you articulate the alternative to emergence here? — flannel jesus

Either panpsychism or eliminativism I think. Those plus emergence are mutually exhaustive of the possibilities it seems to me.

There is a big difference however, in that instances of emergence are observed all over the place, whereas omniscient minds existing for no reason aren't. — wonderer1

But sometimes (not always) the appeal to emergence is just as much of a non-explanation as appealing to a notion of God. In both cases, we need convincing details.

It's not reasonable to say "I think consciousness emerges from brain activity but I don't know how"? — flannel jesus

Somewhat, yes. I'd want to know why someone thinks consciousness emerges from brain activity. The usual answer is that changes in brain activity result in changes in experience. It's also hard to make sense of the claim. If consciousness just is brain activity it seems odd to say it emerges from that brain activity. If it isn't brain activity, what exactly is it and how does it connect with the brain activity?

Same with god-did-it. I want details. Why do you think that? What is God and why is it an explanation that out-competes other explanations?

The fact you call the idea of emergence a "ad hoc gap filler" is profoundly ignorant. — Restitutor

Well some times emergence-of-the-gaps is used a bit like a God-of-the-gaps. Of course, lots of instances of novel properties emerging from systems is entirely reasonable and comprehensible. But sometimes people come pretty close to saying "emergence-did-it" without offering convincing details, most obviously when arguing that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity.

What is the fundamental difference between information processed by a mechanical computer and a brain? How can there be a fundamental difference in what is happening if all we are is mechanistic?
What is the implication of this for the idea that computers are just too mechanical to be, conscious, to love, to generate or understand meaning, to have a self or to have free will? How would changing notions of consciousness, meaning, morality, free will and self to make them fit with bodies as mechanical as any robot change these psychologically important notions? — Restitutor

You have a strong mechanistic intuition, which is fair enough. So we take that as axiomatic, which is as good a starting point as any. So what happens when we come across a concept that doesn't easily fit the model? Do we change the concept or the model? We should try both, no? And see which is more fruitful? What if the concept seems just as axiomatic as the model?

Wow, I bet Wayfarer has never heard any of that. You must have really opened his eyes. He should be grateful.

Yeah looks like it. EDIT: Netanyahu's pretty much explicitly saying it

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. — RogueAI

That's the critical assumption.

we — RogueAI

Yeah, that's the issue. Who is the deciding 'we'? The colonial West? It seems to me that the nearest entity with a valid claim to being 'we' is the United Nations. A world government with a proper court would be the best thing, first to establish rights of ownership, and if they are evaluated to be equal, then maybe the other considerations you raise might be considered. I have no real idea what the procvess and law would be. The UN and the ICJ is the next best thing we have, no? The UN have already expressed their view of the situation.

I should get a job writing history books.

I think wounds can be kept open much longer now. Record keeping is better. We have old maps. Victory is not as absolute as it used to be, perhaps. The dispossessed can go on social media and go on and on about it, the UN has guys in flak jackets and microphones interviewing them under the noses of the possessors, whereas hundreds of years ago they would have just been locked in the Tower of London and forgotten, or every last one of them massacred. Is that right? Or am I making shit up again?

We now call Iraq and Syria and Lebanon a real "entity" even though they are in no way native to the people's of that region. I am trying to broaden the view to some extent to how history works, and it is not in the moral justice way you seem to think. — schopenhauer1

Sure, I get that eventually borders that were once new become old, generations die and the new order becomes the old status quo, and attempting to put back borders the way they were hundreds, or thousands, of years ago is impractical. But the Israeli occupation of Palestine is live, now. The wound is fresh, the borders are fluid, moral justice can readily meaningfully apply.

You're taking away a point I am not making. Rather, it's the grievance game that has to stop. You are encouraging it rather than thinking of solutions to it. — schopenhauer1

I just don't think it's a tit-for-tat grievance game. Or maybe it is between Hamas and Right-wing Israelis, but not between the Palestinian Territories and Israel. The basic concept of tit-for-tat is that both sides are equally at fault, or near-equal. Where that is the case, one side just has to take the last hit and say 'Enough! I won't retaliate'. But the situation is hopelessly lop-sided. The Palestinians, or even Hamas, are not in a position to say 'Enough! Stop!' because Israel will just carry on colonising anyway. Colonising is an act of aggression, just as much as the rockets. It is the powerful side that must say 'Enough! We won't retaliate." Not doubt Hamas would continue with the rockets but only a Palestinian state can stop that.

Sure, but the rape and pillage hasn't stopped yet, it's not in the past. We stopped raping and pillaging the natives when they had nothing left to take. The Palestinians still have some rubble, a couple of sticks and a frying pan, and hope. We can't stop yet.

Did you not get the edited version? — schopenhauer1

Got it now, thanks. We shouldn't give land that isn't ours away to anyone, psychopathic colonists or gay-bashers alike.

We should have created Israel in some corner of the UK. Nice fertile soil. Not too hot. Tolerant and friendly locals. Way better than the Middle East, the East Midlands. At least that would have been ours to give away.

I think his point was at indignation does one choose? — schopenhauer1

Did you type that right? I can't make sense of it.

Until the Arab countries stop dehumanizing women and minorities, they should be treated as inferior to other, more equitable, nations. — RogueAI

That's a different issue isn't it? Or can we set Israel on any country that is worse than it on these terms? Get them to colonise China perhaps. Now there's a thought.

But we should reward land to people who would treat women and LGBTQ people like dirt? — RogueAI

No, but their land is not ours to give them is it? It's theirs.

It's like a successful marriage. Any marriage that lasts is successful, never mind if the couple exist only for the pleasure of seeing the other suffer.

A marriage that ends amicably is a failed marriage.