You can click on a posters name, then click on "comments" and get their most recent comments, scroll down and you can click more and then a number will appear in the URL of what comment to start at, which you can then change to jump around. — boethius

I see, thanks for the tip. Easy though it was, the clandestine game of "why don't you find out what I think by some trial of research", seemed ridiculous compared to "I don't think the Ukrainians should fight", or "I do think the Ukrainians should fight, but I haven't said as much yet". Either of which would have been more fluent.

But then the idea is clearly not fluency, the idea is to avoid having to address the salient points you've made by miring the conversation in some pedantic irrelevancy. We see it too often.

Rather than asking @boethius to trawl through 300 pages of posts to find an exact quote to cover the very obvious support you show for continued war, perhaps you could help progress past this unnecessary sticking point by simply telling us if you don't think the Ukrainians should fight. Then we'll know, @boethius can correct the misunderstanding and we can all move on.

Elections require votes in order to fulfill their purpose. — praxis

We have regular elections in our country. I've not voted in any of them. They don't seem to have needed my vote. They seem to be carrying on undiminished by the lack. So what am I missing? Is my lack of vote having an unseen impact that will render elections beyond saving in another 50 years?

Selfishly failing to contribute to a cooperative effort is freeloading. — praxis

You've still failed to lay out any way at all by which voting contributes to the cooperative effort of democracy.

In situation 1, I vote. In situation 2 I don't vote.

How is the cooperative effort of democracy less well off in situation 2? What harm has it suffered, what facility or property does it now lack?

Stop this. — fdrake

Fair enough.

I've no clear idea whether or not those terms pick out things that existed in their entirety prior to being picked out. If so, then those things were part of what made up 14th Century human cells. If not, then they were not. — creativesoul

So something existing is sufficient criteria for it being part of a cell?

Don’t we need to include the concept of ‘x’ itself as what is involved in naming.? — Joshs

Possibly, but X here simply stands for something and the spaces between them stand for some boundary. I don't doubt you could make an argument that both concept (an external world matrix, and 'boundaries') are constructed concepts, but I haven't seen the evidence for that. All I've seen indicates that such fundamental concepts are present in very young babies and so seem likely to be hard-wired.

Doesn’t the use of a word involve an activity, a set of causal interactive performances that give that word its pragmatic sense? — Joshs

I agree, yes. I think the differences between us might be the foundation on which this activity acts. You might have it have nk foundation at all, I believe there are physical and biological building blocks from which these senses are constructed.

We can’t then say the x’s existed prior to our naming of them as a jabberwocky , because the meaning of ‘x’ points to a specific way of causally interacting with aspects of the world. — Joshs

As I say, I can see how you might theorise that, but the evidence I've seen seems to contradict it.

I'm having trouble following you — praxis

It's painfully simple.

1. You kept claiming that if we value something we take part in it. I gave you counterexamples, it's evident we can value something we don't take part in.

2. You shifted ground to say we don't neglect that which we value, I agreed.

I'm now waiting for your argument that my voting is necessary, or even useful, for the maintenance of democracy (the thing I value).

"14th century humans had cells."

That's my answer. — creativesoul

Good. Now what about the phagocytised or excreted proteins in the cell vacuole. Were they part of what makes up these 14th C cells or not? If you gave an intelligent 14th C citizen a microscope and showed him the cell, told him they were called "cells", what would he make of the phagocytised or excreted proteins in the cell vacuole?

Are you serious? — creativesoul

Yes.

If you live in a democracy, benefit from and value that democracy, and you're able to participate in the voting process without an unreasonable burden but choose not to, then in my opinion you're freeloading to some degree. — praxis

Yes, I gathered that much. I was hoping to find out why, but if you'd rather just restate your original opinion, then you crack on. Not sure you need me to help though.

Do you live in a democracy? and if so, do you value and benefit from living in that democracy? — praxis

I've already answered that. Yes, and yes. What's any of this got to do with voting?

Even though an individual is able and has the time they choose not to participate in a cooperative group effort that they value and benefit from. — praxis

So you're assuming I value and benefit from voting? On what grounds?

What's any of that got to do with voting?

since they did, and did so long before the term was coined, it only follows that human experience existed in its entirety prior to the term "experience". — creativesoul

Not at all.

Take my example of 'cells'. We didn't have cell theory back in the 14th century. So did the people back then have cells?

But seriously, if fire service was structured more like democratic elections where there was an expectation of public participation, something like all able adults in a particular age range train and make themselves able to serve for brief periods or whatever, then the curtain of responsibility would fall over a wider swath of the community and not just career firefighters — praxis

This just seems tautologous. You appear to be saying that because there's an expectation we take part, we have s responsibility to take part.

The question the OP asks bid ought there be such an expectation in the first place.

we do, on the other hand, select from a range of options what constitutes each phenomenon, which is the purview of the productive imagination, so there is a selection process in there. — Mww

That's actually what I meant. Clumsy writing on my part which I can only put down to an attempt to use 'philosophy' terms!

Each property of any object has its own boundary/limitation, the totality of them determining te phenomenon as such, and from that, how the object is to be named.

Something like that? — Mww

Maybe not the totality though. There may be properties which are just of no interest to us at all, and so play no part in determining an object. But in general, yes, that's the picture I have.

I think a major sticking point between Old Guys and New Guys is.....where are phenomena to be found, in the complete picture. — Mww

Now, I'd have to understand properly what you mean by 'phenomena' to answer that...

Because for all practical intents and purposes the state owns its citizens. The citizens are subjects of the state. — baker

Yep. That's the answer I'd go for. Conscription is about the aims of the state, not the population.

Then what exactly is your objection to the democratic system of political parties and the process of electing them via popular vote? — baker

Nothing.

If your point is that voters should require qualification in order to vote, that’s beside the point. Though if that’s at all a viable idea it expresses a concern for democracy in that there’s the intent to improve it. — praxis

Nope. The point is simply that you value your local fire service but you do not take part in it. You're glad it's there, but you don't feel the need to train as a fireman and join in.

One can value the fact that democracy is there without needing to join in.

governments often resort conscription once another nation starts to attack and bomb them and their citizens. For example, that's what Ukraine did. — Olivier5

What's that got to do with the OP? I don't think anyone is wondering whether governments resort to conscription, nor what circumstances they might do so in. Did you read anyone asking either of those questions?

The OP opens with...

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine imposed a general mobilization of all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 60, and banned them from leaving the country. — _db

So how could you possibly read that and think the thread was about whether and when a government might use conscription?

But perhaps your point is that you don't actually want to live in a democracy? — baker

No. I'm fairly certain I'd rather live in a democracy than any of the other available options.

My argument is essentially that we generally don’t neglect what we value. — praxis

Do you value your fire service?

Do you take part in your fire service?

If you don't like the current parties available, start your own. Of you don't like the constitutional system, take action. — baker

I could.

Neither of which are voting.

People do understand the threat if the cities they live in are bombed. — ssu

Then conscription is unnecessary. People will voluntarily join the army if they understand the need.

The idea that any state can force people to take up arms when they don't want to, simply will not happen. — ssu

So why did Ukraine instigate conscription. It can't force its citizens to fight, you say, so the only real fighters it's going to get are free volunteers. What's with all the laws then? A joke?

Perhaps you should give a historical example where the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms to advance this discussion. — ssu

Conscription. The whole point of the argument is that there is no other.

If you're seriously going to advance the argument that every conscript actually wants to fight then we've nothing more to say. I'm not discussing with such blatant nonsense.

That which is a mere something, is phenomenon; that which is named, is conception, which may or may not be given from phenomenon, but is so necessarily with respect to real objects. — Mww

The point I was making was one of selection, or filtering. We select from among a range of options which phenomena, to use (possibly abuse) your terminology, we are to make a concept.

Boundaries are the easiest example (but not the only). The boundary separating tree from not-tree is real, a phenomena we sense, but it is not the only available real boundary. We could have drawn a boundary between the solids and the liquids, named one one thing and one another. We didn't. We looked at the boundary created by the biological systems and used them. Thus, those systems (and their physical parts) are 'tree', and anything else is 'not tree'. But it needn't have been that way. There are other boundaries we could have chosen.

Hence, our naming practices (here choosing which boundary to use) determine, to a degree, what a tree is and what it isn't.

Hence if Ukraine is facing one of the largest armed forces in the World, it is quite rational for it to rely on conscription (as it has done in peacetime). Especially now as it is obviously fighting for it's existence. — ssu

Just putting the word 'hence' at the beginning of a proposition doesn't magically turn it into a valid conclusion.

You've listed reasons why a conscript army might be useful at deterring a foreign threat. No one is questioning how useful a volunteer/conscript army is to the state. The question is about why the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms.

If your answer to that question is "because the state will find it useful", then it is power structures being defended.

This position is precisely what I was responding to: a government can obviously do far worse than conscription: it can bomb folks. — Olivier5

1. Where did I make the claim that a government cannot do worse things than conscripting people?

2. How is being bombed worse then being shot/tortured?

3. What has any of this got to do with the grounds on which s government conscripts (you know, the actual topic)?

Motivation, the will to fight, is quite essential if a conscript/reservist army is effective or not — ssu

Very interesting in a thread about whether conscripted armies are effective. Why don't you start one if you'd like to discuss the issue?

This thread wasn't started by you — ssu

Yep...

when a country imposes conscription on its citizens, it begs the question, for whose interests is the country acting? Is the country mobilizing to save its citizens, or is it mobilizing to save the existing power structure? — _db

Where in that are you reading the question "what factors determine how effective a conscript army is?"

Look. Below are five Xs...

X X X X X

I'm going to say those middle three Xs are ' a jabberwocky', that's just what a jabberwocky is.

Now, did those three Xs exist prior to my naming them? Yes.

Could I have included the two Xs either side in my definition of 'a jabberwocky'? Yes, clearly I could have, but I didn't.

Could someone else come along and say 'a jabberwocky' is actually the first four Xs? Yes, obviously they could.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the existence of the three, four, or five Xs involved in what we're variously calling 'a jabberwocky'.

You asked for something worse than conscription, that a government can do. — Olivier5

No I didn't.

So, just so I understand this...

Are you really objecting to anyone claiming that humans had experience prior to language use? — creativesoul

No.

Isaac will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I don't think that's what he means. At least that is not what we've been discussing, which is the various ways of defining experience, not whether it exists without language. — Janus

That's it, yes.

Those and many other experiences existed in their entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices. — creativesoul

No. Something existed prior to our naming practices. Our naming practices determined which of the possible boundaries we are going to make significant.

It's like saying a cell exists prior to our naming it. It doesn't. A collection of proteins, lipids and carbohydrates exists, all moving around in a constant state of flux. What constitutes 'the cell' is determined entirely by convention, by the naming practice. We say 'the cell' includes the vacuole, but excludes the interior of the protein channel. It includes the mitochondrial DNA, but excludes viral RNA. We decided all this in naming 'the cell'. All the stuff existed prior to our naming, but the fact about what was 'the cell' and what wasn't 'the cell' didn't exist prior to our naming it.

He also tempts me to think he's a bot in his apparent failure to assimilate and respond to criticism. — Pie

Ha! I think AI has moved on. It takes a human to be quite so dogmatic!

Taxation is not an impositions at all, it's the government collecting its legal property. — Isaac


Nope — Olivier5

Are you suggesting that the government is taking property not legally belong to it?

I thought of a more costly non-choice imposition a government can make on free, innocent adults: bomb them, like the Russians are doing to the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

So bombing is justified? That sounds a little sociopathic to me. I don't think you're going to get much sympathy for such a view.

According to you, the content of that toddler's experience depends upon how we define the word "experience".

That cannot be right. — creativesoul

Of course it can. The contents of my house depend on how I define 'house' (does it include the porch, the outhouse, the shed...?). It seems quite normal to say that our definitions determine the content of those defined concepts.

When dichotomies are used as a means to divide everything up into stuff that fits into one or the other, then the inevitable result is a failure to be able to properly account for that which is both — creativesoul

Fortunate then that the account of active inference does not seek to deicide "everything" up into one or other camp, but merely some things. Otherwise it would indeed fall foul of your concerns.

There are no such things in those accounts. — creativesoul

Perception.

Excellent and succinct parody, which'll probably leave no scratch (I speak from recent experience.) — Pie

Thanks, though I suspect the far greater parody is being played on us by @Bartricks himself, who'll reveal, on his 6,000th post, that his contributions were all a work of performance art lampooning the self-assurance of cult religion... It's very deep.

One need not participate in their childs upbringing, particularly if there are no laws restricking irresponsible neglect of that kind. — praxis

So your argument is that because some things require involvement, democracy does?

Please, please never consider the raising of your children and the instructions on an oven-ready chicken at the same time. "Hang on, chicken needs baking in the oven for 2 hours, so that means..."

It is because you are wed to a false worldview- one not endorsed by reason, but convention — Bartricks

No. I double checked the label (the one which, of course, is attached to all our thoughts) and it said 'intuition', not 'convention'.

Not quite fully satisfied though (because I knew I was speaking to an Actual Philosopher) I checked the small print telling us where our beliefs come from (which again, as us experts know, is attached to all our beliefs), and it said 'made in Reason'.

So yeah, I've done my due diligence. Definitely an Intuition, and definitely From Reason.

Have you double-checked yours? Because your belief that extended things ought to be infinitely divisible sounds a bit like a Convention to me. You know you have to turn the beliefs upside to see the label properly, right?

I've said again and again: Governments don't decide if people are willing to fight for them or not. — ssu

So? What's that got to do with conscription?

If you just want to keep a record of random things you think, I suggest a diary might be a better format for you.

This is a discussion forum. The topic is the ground on which a government has a right to conscript.

If you haven't got anything to say on that topic, maybe just focus on other threads?

Even the poorest pay the VAT tax though. — Olivier5

Taxation is not an impositions at all, it's the government collecting its legal property.

Besides which, unless you're arguing that VAT payment risks death and torture, all this is pointless.