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.

Is there any country that would tolerate a pacifistic leader after such an attack? — RogueAI

I don't know. Is there? I hope so.

'Ethnic cleansing' seems more apt than genocide. But ethnic cleansing may be a form of it. From
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml:

Ethnic Cleansing
Background

United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR).
UN Photo/John Isaac
Ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law. The term surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to come from a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression “etničko čišćenje”. However, the precise roots of the term or who started using it and why are still uncertain.

The expression “ethnic cleansing” has been used in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and has been acknowledged in judgments and indictments of the ICTY, although it did not constitute one of the counts for prosecution. A definition was never provided.

Definition
As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.” — United Nations

That's a risk any country takes when going to war, but what would you recommend Israel do? Suppose you were president of Israel. What would your response have been to the attacks? Suppose you were the American president after 9/11. Would you have gone after Al Queda? Also, suppose Israel adopted a pacifist strategy and gave in to Hamas's demands. Would Hamas and all the other Muslim terrorist organizations stop trying to kill Jews? I doubt it. — RogueAI

My response would have been to improve watching the Gaza border. Then, and not as a response Hamas, express some embarrassment for being the beneficiaries of British giving land away that wasn't theirs, but probably stopping short of promising to dismantle the state of Israel. I'd relocate settlers back within Israel's borders. I'd comply with agreements and expedite a two state solution as rapidly as possible. Or something like that. Basically ignore Hamas as much as possible. None of this is giving in to Hamas pressure. It's doing the right thing regardless of Hamas. But I doubt i'd get elected on this manifesto.

What we need is a world government with courts and a police force. Then the Palestinians and colonists can both make their submissions to the court and the matter decided on accordance with law.

I didn't really mean it that way. I meant unintentionally by pissing people off. Nevertheless Hamas is useful as an excuse to continue colonisation. Conflict is in the coloniser's interests.

Israel is creating Hamas, not destroying it

I agree with you on that. I think if that were a serious possibility I might fight to oppose it. But that's not an anti-immigration stance. That's an anti theocracy stance, which might, at some theoretical point in the future, entail a limited anti-immigration policy, if immigration was remotely likely to result in a theocracy. I'm not sure we're in serious disagreement.

Why shouldn't a nation want to keep it's national identity and protect it from large waves of immigrants hostile to that identity? — flannel jesus

Well it can if it wants, I just don't like it I suppose. I don't really like national identities, except as objects of mockery. But I take your point that there is a valid analogy to be made, but it's obscured by the extremity of current circumstances.

Palestinians wanted to cut off Jews right to immigrate to the region before it was ever describable as "illegal colonization". They were willing to live side by side with the Jews who were already there, but they absolutely didn't want more Jews coming in. — flannel jesus

Oh is that right? Oh well, in that case the Palestinians are racist bastards as well then, just like the rest of us.

The Swede is, arguably, racist, or at least immoral, or perhaps just ignorant (from a lefty perspective). Whereas a Palestinian who objects to illegal colonisation isn't. It may be that the Palesitian, in peace time, with no illegal colonisation, would be fine with Jewish immigrants, and welcome them, if they came lawfully, asked permission, and didn't terrorise the local neighbourhood. There's a huge difference. Are we talking at cross purposes? I hope I'm following you. I'm trying to do an assignment at the same time so I may have got in a muddle.

EDIT: So I guess I'm saying that the leftie wankers are actually being consistent in denouncing the Swede and being sympathetic to Palestinisans wanting the foreign Israeli invaders to fuck off back home.

The British should have invited everyone to Blighty. Build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land, as it were.

The influx of Jews that populated Israel from the 20s to the 70s were in no small part refugees. — flannel jesus

Sure, but they didn't seek permission from palestinians did they? (I have no idea if they did or not). It sounds like the good ol' Brits handed out permission for them to settle in other people's land. Is that what happened? I'm not a historian. Neither the original refugees, their descendants, nor current colonisers seem overly embarrassed about it. Or perhaps those who were embarrassed moved out of Palestinian lands, leaving just those who felt entitled to stay. I love making up history. Fuck books.

Interesting point. What about this difference: Israeli settlers are neither economic migrants nor refugees asking permission for asylum. They are colonists. Migrants and refugees seek permission (except those who don't i guess).

I've seen a few YouTube video on the guys with the black clothes and ringlets etc who say Israel shouldn't exist. They seem really nice and rational. It's the bloodthirsty lot that worries me.

Not really to me, no. Questions can contain false hidden assumptions, be leading, be rhetorical, be impossible to answer coherently etc. But only answers can be incorrect. Questions are not claims about anything.

I don't think the calculus would be that cynical that they actually think it's in their interest but anything that's an obstacle to a two-state solution is not necessarily a bad thing in Likud's book (until of course when it is, like now). — Benkei

Yes, that sounds plausible.

What should the Allies have done then to relieve pressure on the Russians? — RogueAI

Something else

We need world structures so such disputes can be resolved by a court

As if raping someone on Saturday is excused on Sunday because he tells us he's done. — Hanover

I wasn't suggesting any excuse, just questioning the rationale of self defence.

The way to kill an idea is to call it geocentrism or something.

But Israel was more or less safe the day after Hamas' attack wasn't it? Bombing Gaza won't get hostages back, presumably. Israel is now watching the fence. Threat over, no? More or less? Sure there would still be some rockets as always, but there is now anyway.

The problem with the dog analogy is that you can kill a dog and end the threat. You can't kill an idea while there are people left to believe it.