The sign of commitment is subsequent behavior, not a clear conscience. I could distinguish sincere and insincere commitment, and say that the intentional state we call belief requires sincere commitment. I am unsure precisely how to define sincere commitment. Using behavior as a criterion is pretty clear-cut. Suggestions? — Dfpolis

But you can't identify from the behaviour what the belief is that it is a sign of. If I want a drink and head to the end of the road, you might think that indicates a belief that the pub is at the end of the road. But I might be going to end of the road hoping someone there will tell me where the pub's gone. I might be going to eliminate a tiny remaining doubt that the pub has, in fact, been turned into a car park. I might go to the end of the road because I'm nervous of taking the short cut to where the pub actually is...

In your example, lying about the crowd size is 'acting as if it were bigger'. It's acting entirely consistently with two other beliefs. 1) the crowd size was smaller, and 2) if I say it was bigger nonetheless, some people might believe me and I might be more popular. It Trump believed (1) and (2), he would act as he did. His 'commitment' to those two beliefs would be demonstrated in his claiming "the crowds were the biggest".

What do you mean 'no basis'? Trump said it. That's basis for someone who trusts Trump. — Isaac

I mean no basis in reality, of course. — Dfpolis

Trump is a part of reality. we all gain the vast majority of our information about the world from other people. I live in England, I wasn't at the rally. So my information about it comes entirely from other sources and so is dependant entirely on who I trust. It's perfectly rational to construct a system of beliefs where one cannot trust the media representations, the Democrats, the 'fact-checkers', but one can trust Trump. I mean, I wouldn't personally advise doing so, but there's nothing in such a belief system which is contrary to that same person's knowledge.

You call the awareness of their state "believing." I find that confusing because people also believe things they have no knowledge of. — Dfpolis

That's begging the question.

if you are going to do something that rationally requires p to be true, I call that committing to the truth of p -- and we agree that people do that knowing that p is false. — Dfpolis

Nothing in the actions you describe requires p to be true. Trump does not require it to be true that his crowd size was biggest in order to say that his crowd size was biggest. He can lie, and knowingly lie, for political advantage. He's not committing to be it being true, he's committing to it being false and acting to cover up that fact.

The action of the object on the sensing subject effects the changes described. — Dfpolis

No. The information from assumed external states effects the changes described. All external states. The entirely of the heterogeneous soup of data states that the hypothesise as being external to our system. No 'objects' are defined prior to our defining them.

We identify organic unities because it was evolutionarily advantageous to do so. If it were not, we might well model the world differently. — Dfpolis

I don't think the evidence supports this model either. Very different groups of people have different rules of distinction. Take colour, for example. There are several different ways of dividing up colour responses in different culture. the evidence seems, rather, to point in the direction of language and culture being at least substantially, if not mainly, responsible for the 'dividing up' of our sensory inputs into objects.

their activation is the result of the sun's action on, the sun's dynamic presence in, the sensing subject. — Dfpolis

This would be to privilege one neural response above others. without begging the question, you've no grounds on which to do that. All we have is some sensory arousal. that sensory arousal causes a set of subsequent neural activity, some of which results in identifiable behaviour (like saying the word "sun"), others result in less identifiable behaviour, but that which we can identify with neural probing (like activating neural cluster previously strongly associated with beach balls). None of these responses is the 'real' one (with others being merely peripheral). Only our culturally embedded values can determine such a thing. Scientifically, they're all just equally valid responses of a system to stimuli.

I think we still need to be careful in identifying the experience as (as opposed to associating it with) a tree. As Paul M. Churchland notes, no neural structures correspond to propositional attitudes ("Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes," — Dfpolis

Exactly. And no neural structures correspond with 'tree' either (or at least not consistently). for a representationalist account we need consistent neural clusters to be associated with the objects of language, and they're just not.

I am speaking of the normal perception of an existing sense object. I am not discussing pathological conditions. — Dfpolis

It's not 'pathological'. We hallucinate, for example, the content of a scene which is behind our punctum caecum. We hallucinate a stable scene despite regular changes in the angle of perception. We hallucinate dimensionality from flat images. We hallucinate colour changes where we expect them to be (not where they actually are). We also hallucinate the absence of unexpected objects despite the photons from them clearly hitting our retinas. There's nothing pathological about hallucination, it's how we see. we 'hallucinate' the scene we expect to be there and then we organise our saccades to test that hypothesis, only discarding it if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary.

The real tragedy is that if only Russia would have had leaders that accepted that the empire was lost and the states given independence weren't coming back, it would have all the tools to continue with the "modern" approach to imperialism. — ssu

I don't see how that's a 'tragedy'. In terms of lives lost, impoverished and enslaved, the US's approach to 'modern' imperialism takes a far greater toll on human well-being than Russia's version. Very widely spread out wars, though devastating at the time, are not a patch on economic oppression for causing loss of life, no matter what Hollywood has to say on the matter. Air pollution kills more people in a few weeks than the war has so far. The West's 'imperialist' habit of offloading it pollution, labour, waste, and extraction costs to its modern 'colonies' kills whole orders of magnitude more people than Russia's border skirmishes.

Why do you think the West has so little support from it's 'colonies' opposing Russia. Most see the whole thing as two warring bullies - if not actively seeing Russia as the smaller party.

And as far as...

Sweden and Finland would have never joined NATO and the EU would have continued to disarm itself. — ssu

... We're hurtling toward global war not because of Russia's petty border disputes. We're hurtling towards global war because hawks see an opportunity to profiteer from crisis and it seems to take so little now to convince gullible idiots to cheer-lead the whole process.

But you already know all this, we've been through it a dozen times and you've clearly no interest in actually examining the foundational assumptions which underlie your position, so, absent of a more interesting conversation...

Donald Trump in his claims that he had the largest crowd at his inauguration and that he won the 2020 election. — Dfpolis

What makes you think he committed to that? He said it. He probably lied.

all who chose to believe him, knowing that there was no basis for doing so other than their own desire that it be so. — Dfpolis

What do you mean 'no basis'? Trump said it. That's basis for someone who trusts Trump.

People who know, but will not believe, that they have insufficient funds to buy what they want, and act on this commitment by buying it because they want it. — Dfpolis

Again, this doesn't mean they believe they have sufficient funds, it just means they're going to do it anyway. They might believe they'll get away with it, they might believe some money will come their way, they might believe they're going to win the lottery. Without actually asking you just come across a really arrogant, assuming you know what's going on in other people's minds.

information is conveyed to the visual association cortex for integration with prior experience. — Dfpolis

Apart from the clear involvement of priors in the primary visual cortex, I don't have any objection to your description, but nowhere in it does the object even make an appearance. So far we have photons and then either electrical or chemical activity in a complex set of feedback loops. "the Tree" hasn't even got in there yet, nor will it until much after the visual cortex has finished with the processing. In fact, nothing we could call "the Tree" arrives in the whole process until at least the inferotemporal cortex near the end of the ventral stream.Until that point, the photons from beside the tree and the photons from the tree are processed exactly the same way, no distinction is made.

And even in the inferotemporal cortex we have inputs from the A36 region are unrelated to the visual information and associate more strongly with language centres, emotional states and memory.

The idea that objects are recognised as a result of some unique 'signal' sent from them is not supported by the science on the matter.

without the action of the object, none of the consequent changes of neural state, which are our visual representation of the object, would exist. — Dfpolis

This is also untrue. Hallucinations are an obvious example of objects having the appropriate neural state associated with their presence being created, without their actually being there.

I had in mind people losing their jobs and even careers. The new jobs are often lower paid, lower status, somewhere else and so on. It is serious. It may still be worth it, but it needs good, sympathetic management, which doesn't usually seem to be provided - not even by those who profit from the change. — Ludwig V

Yes, definitely. It depends though what kind of changes are associated with a drop in wages. There's very little evidence to show an association between excess income and well-being, so we only need focus really on necessities. I agree that this is often not even covered by some changes envisaged, but I'm really talking here about a more low impact lifestyle which I don't see as being intrinsically problematic in terms of well-being. There doesn't seem to be any strong connection.

Tell me about it. It seems to be part of the left-wing personality that compromise in the name of solidarity is regarded as betrayal. — Ludwig V

That's exactly it. Which suggests tribalism, rather than human well-being, is the more prominent driving force.

I think we should agree that Russia is imperialistic in it's actions? — ssu

Insofar as all major powers are imperialist in their actions, possibly. Not uniquely so, nor even very high on the list.

The definitions describe the extension of power. Arguments have been made that the invasion was an attempt to retain power (in a region Russia previously had power over) against foreign imperialism (extending America's power).

So one could say that Russia is defending its current sphere of influence (its current 'empire').

Or one could say that Russia was acting in a traditionally imperialist manner, but in doing so acts no differently to other major powers.

What is not plausible is that Russia is acting in a uniquely imperialist manner and so uniquely needs stopping.

And you should accept the definition that dictionaries give for the word imperialism, for starters. :wink: — ssu

imperialism, State policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. — https://www.britannica.com/summary/imperialism

And you should accept the definition that dictionaries give for the word imperialism, for starters. — ssu

imperialism
noun [ U ]
politics often disapproving
uk
/ɪmˈpɪə.ri.ə.lɪ.zəm/ us
/ɪmˈpɪr.i.ə.lɪ.zəm/
a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to get power over them:
the age of imperialism
a situation in which one country has a lot of power or influence over others, especially in political and economic matters: — https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/imperialism

And you should accept the definition that dictionaries give for the word imperialism, for starters. — ssu

Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

And you should accept the definition that dictionaries give for the word imperialism, for starters — ssu

Literally the first hit on Google...

imperialism

noun The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations. — https://www.wordnik.com/words/imperialism

There are many examples of people committing to what they want to be true, rather than what they know to be true — Dfpolis

Let's have a few then...

our neural representation of an object is its action on us — Dfpolis

How does that work? Take me through the neurological processes you envisage bringing this about. Let's say you see a tree. We have some photons hitting the retina...what then?

what's the relevance? — jorndoe

To you, nothing. I can't see how a thorough understanding of of how modern international power is exerted could help your project here.

I just assume that some people are reading along who are interested in the crisis, it's origins, its resolution... For those, like yourself, just interested in making sure everyone is absolutely certain you know who the bad guy is, I can't see it helping at all. You just carry on...

Wise words. — Tom Storm

Thanks. Used to be pretty standard fare on the left. But then so did opposition to corporate profiteering, so I suppose I'm something of a dying breed...

you don't mention a third category, issues that are foreseeable but not foreseen. For whatever reason. — Ludwig V

Ah...The infamous known unknowns.

people may prefer kicking the can down the road to the inevitably disruptive process of re-design. — Ludwig V

I think people are told that, but it's bollocks.

Think if your average joe's life - college, university, early career climbing the promotion ladder... we're talking about something like 30-40 hours per week of hard work dedicated to nothing more than just getting food, shelter, warmth etc. That's some 30--40 thousand hours. Just a flat screen TV might represent some 100 hours of solid hard work at some menial task to afford.

The 'disruption' is a bogeyman. We're a species happy to put in 100 hours of menial labour to have Keanu Reeve's face slightly bigger on the lounge wall.

We're told the status quo is too fragile to be disturbed. It's repeated often enough to make it one of the most compelling narratives of our time. We've had our moments where people challenged that, but now the idea is back with a vengeance. Aspirational politics has lost to "We'd love to change but I'm afraid our hands are tied" centrists.

Power structures can fall apart because of internal disunity. They need their own support to remain united. — Ludwig V

Absolutely. And this affects all levels of organisation, form the protest group to the Hedge Fund board. It's a pretty damning indictment of modern protest movements that they can't even make any headway against corporations that are themselves as wracked with infighting as ever. It's not as if we face a united shield-wall of profiteering ideologues. They're a divided, back-stabbing shambles. It's pathetic that the left can't even muster enough solidarity to make a dent.

In a way, sustainability enforces itself. Unsustainable activity can't last forever. When the crash comes, there is turmoil and after a while, we start again. Maybe we avoid some of the mistakes that caused the crash. We will certainly make some new ones. — Ludwig V

That's true, but foreseeable impacts are still part of the knowledge-base on which we build. If I invent a machine which I can tell will explode after six uses, I go back to the drawing board, it needs refinement. I don't put it into productions and say "well, it works for the first five, we'll improve on it later".

So a technology for which we can see we'll run out of the main fuel, or run out of capacity to hold the waste product, is a technology that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board.

Un-foreseeable lack of sustainability is obviously going to be part of any technological innovation in a complex world, but we're dealing, in the most part, with completely foreseeable issues.

Equality is a different matter. It may well be ideal, but I suspect that the best we can expect is tolerable inequality. "Tolerable" requires the power elite in a political system to recognize when they need to bend with the wind of popular discontent. — Ludwig V

Yes, I think that's right. Some inequality is inevitable. I'm not sure that the power elite are the problem though. No elite has that much power, in real terms. It's not hard to overthrow a government. Populations outnumber them by factors of thousands to one at least, not even the bristling armaments of the US can counter that ratio. Likewise with corporations. It's easy to bring Amazon to its knees. Just stop buying stuff from it.

It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide.

NATO can't colonize (like land grab), it's a defense pact among member countries, not a country. Countries may or may not apply for NATO membership. — jorndoe

Best example of it being Russia's attack on Ukraine. :smirk: — ssu

Again, literally any reading on the nature of international power written after the fucking stone age will show you that no, agents willingly taking a choice does not exhaust the experience of power and no, an land invasion to take territory is not a very good example of modern imperialism,

Read Nye. Read Lukes. Read any modern analysis of international power. It is neither exhausted by, no even exemplified by, military invasion.

But of course, I forget, those are experts are you're here to 'learn' from your fellow posters (except me, or boethius, or tzeentch, or manuel, or...anyone who disagrees with you it seems)

Still waiting on that list of stuff you've learned by the way. 460 pages now of this educational exchange you claim we're in. so far you've given me one chart (which you said was wrong in the same post).

It's a simple question. If you're here to learn, what have you learnt?

your irony doesn’t apply to me — neomac

It wasn't meant for you.

The problem is intellectual dishonesty. Some are pushed to such dishonesty by their intellectual self-esteem, others more by their urge to fix the world. Like in your case. That’s why I didn’t accuse you to just spread propaganda, but to talk and argue as the worst propaganda. — neomac

A reiteration of your opinion is irrelevant to the argument. You paint all opposition as propaganda and fail to see your own biases. It's either monumentally naive or messianic. You're not some kind of zen master rationalist, no matter how much you'd love to see yourself that way. You're an ordinary human - biased, culturally embedded, and cognitively as limited as any human. Your hypothalamus steals control from your prefrontal cortex under stress the same as the rest of us. In short, you are biased, you succumb to the same cognitive failings, you defend beliefs on the basis of how well established they are, your assessment of truth is embedded in a narrative which itself is unexamined...just like everybody else.

The difference with you, and a few others of similar ilk, is that part of that unexamined narrative is the idea that there is no unexamined narrative. When it's pushed (if it's pushed hard enough) it reaches this brick wall where there's no part in the story, there's no role. It's what you do then... that's the interesting bit.

which of the 2 Substack articles do you want me to rely on? — neomac

We're not talking about your reliance. You're free to do what you want. we're talking about the effect of having mainstream media in the thrall of governments and corporate interests. That's what this is about. Hersh's articles went against those interests and as such is was summarily either ignored or smeared. That treatment is a danger to freedom of thought because the implied authority of the mainstream media amplifies their voice. As such, if that voice is captured by minority interests, it harms debate - it skews public discourse in favour of those minorities artificially. Since independent journalists are manifold and (as you say) present a wide range of opinions with a low centre of authority, the issue is one-way. A handful of companies own virtually all mainstream media, and can be shown to directly influence it. That's the issue here.

it’s matter of you deciding to bring here in this forum the worst propaganda style of arguing that anybody can easily find on partisan posts of popular social networks. You could be more rationally compelling just by removing all paraphernalia of the worst propaganda without distorting the content of what you want to express (including criticising the government), if there is any substance to it, of course. Unless this goes against your militant compulsion. — neomac

Yeah, this is just an incredibly weak 'dispassionate rationalist' trope. Firstly, it's bollocks on its face. I've written plenty of dispassionate, well-sourced, rational arguments without a trace of 'militancy'. It makes fuck all difference. They are ignored, insulted or dismissed in equal measure with my most polemic rants. It's a common myth. I challenge you to find a single example from this thread, or any other, where a calm dispassionate expression of strongly anti-mainstream views has been met with respectful considered responses. It simply doesn't happen, because people are frightened of being challenged, whether that's a choleric fanatic or a Jain monk. Take a look at a figure like Jordan Peterson. Unpopular opinions (many of which I strongly disagree with), delivered always in a calm rational manner. Has it helped? Not in the slightest. He's as vilified as any load-mouthed preacher.

Never heard of the battles against fake news and conspiracies involving social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube? — neomac

The existence of battles indicates a belief in the state you describe. It doesn't prove the truth of it.

ultimately all evil comes exclusively/predominantly/primarily from one single root (the US) and for one single motivational factor (it’s all about money for a bunch of American plutocrats). — neomac

So, the dozen or more times that I and others here have repeated the notion that we argue against those agencies over which we have some responsibility...they've just fallen on deaf ears? You didn't understand them? Or, more likely, they just don't fit you preferred narrative, so you just ignore them.

we are left with the doubt that either such mainstream news outlets are overly constraining at the expense of the investigative value of Hersh’s article (as Hersh suggests) or Hersh wants to be free to take greater risks at the expense of the investigative value of his article — neomac

Again, in your limited world-view, we are left with only those two options, yes. But not in the view of others. You are, again, confusing your personal belief system with the actual truth. Hersh simply doubts their integrity. You can't because it just doesn't fit the role they play in the story you have.

that some editorial fact-checking for reputational and legal reasons are common practice for investigative journalism. And that if the journalist can self-publish, he is more free to take greater risks (e.g. by taking one anonymous source or leak as enough reliable by only his own judgement). — neomac

..without a shred of evidence to that effect. Where is your evidence that editorial fact-checking limits single anonymous sources? https://fair.org/home/anonymous-sources-are-newsworthy-when-they-talk-to-nyt-not-seymour-hersh/ https://fair.org/home/journalisms-dark-matter/

Again, you just assume, because it's part of your foundational narrative - it's unexamined.

it’s not hard to offer a plausible argument to support the idea that Hersh could have published in some American mainstream outlet — neomac

...which is not that same as claiming it is a true claim which cannot be rationally challenged.

What’s harder to offer is a plausible argument to support the idea that, given very specific circumstances, Hersh was unable to publish his article other than by self-publishing on Substack or equivalent: — neomac

He didn't trust the mainstream media. It's not complicated. Mainstream media are owned by corporate interests who influence editorial policy. Hersh wanted to avoid that influence. you may not agree, that's normal, rational adults disagree sometimes. What's abnormal is you claiming that your opinion is literally the only rational view to hold and everyone else is dishonest. And you don't even get that that's weird.

f one wants to self-publish, then he is expected to be the only one paying the consequences of potential legal/economic/political/reputational issues, if not even risking life. For that reason, he is more free to take greater risks by self-publishing, if he wishes so, than by publishing with a more risk-averse publisher. — neomac

You haven' given any reason why the publisher is more 'risk-averse'. You haven't given any reason why being the one who takes the brunt makes one 'more free'. A journalist writing for a newspaper can write an incendiary piece, be protected by the huge legal team and deep pockets of his paper, whilst his editor, if he's even fired, will walk out with a huge pension fund and a golden handshake. What exactly is the comparable risk you're imagining?

I can as arbitrarily attribute to you the belief that “mainstream media must be wrong, because people not on the mainstream media are right because the people not on the mainstream media say so”) — neomac

You can't because I'm not arguing that the mainstream media are wrong.

This is horrific. We are just dying to race to oblivion, there is no end in sight.

The more this goes on, the bigger the risks of someone making a mistake, which we barely have any margin for. — Manuel

It's the fanaticism that scares me, there seems to be some connection between 'divine purpose' and Armageddon, like the Branch Davidian cult - we all go to hell so that they can ascend to heaven.

I'm imagining the equivalent of hard-coded hacks. And though it's conceivable that the models can be altered to remove such obvious discriminatory bias, less inflammatory biases, such as fundamentally different ways of describing perception or even basic assumptions about society, will presumably continue to proliferate. — Jamal

Yeah. As I understand it, the policy gradient optimisation algorithm is still automated with rewards, but the rewards are not (as they might be in simple transactions) final outcomes, they are graded responses - graded by humans.

So the AI is learning what's appropriate based on the assessment of its trainers, but no-one's particularly interested in what criteria the trainers themselves are using to determine 'appropriateness'.

There's a paper, still in pre-print, which tested a few of these biases. One that stood out for me was the answers to the question "Which country does Kunashir Island [contested territory] belong to?" differed depending on which language the question was asked in - with biases obviously favouring the language of the nation with the claim.

I think they'll be many more because at the end of the day, if you eliminate humans in reward designation, the reinforcement learning has nothing to go on, but you bring humans back in, you'll run into problems of implicit bias in the subset (language, education, wealth...).

Just things like an English language bias (the web) has implicit cultural biases.

Apparently...

https://theintercept.com/2022/12/08/openai-chatgpt-ai-bias-ethics/

When asked to find a way to determine “which air travelers present a security risk,” ChatGPT outlined code for calculating an individual’s “risk score,” which would increase if the traveler is Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan, or North Korean (or has merely visited those places).

Something scholars of law and technology talk about a lot is the ‘veneer of objectivity’ — a decision that might be scrutinized sharply if made by a human gains a sense of legitimacy once it is automated,” she said. If a human told you Ali Mohammad sounds scarier than John Smith, you might tell him he’s racist. “There’s always a risk that this kind of output might be seen as more ‘objective’ because it’s rendered by a machine."

Interesting to that all the NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border, are all post-colonial countries — boagie

?
Finland or the Baltic States, or Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Crotia etc. have not had colonies. — ssu

"NATO countries wanting access to Russia's border"

Not, NATO countries on Russia's border.

The point is simply one about the varied nature of modern imperialism. It's no longer just about hard power, you need to update your models of international power. Try reading anything written after 1989.

The desire for a savior is strong. Once found everything is formed and reformed in order to conform to that image. It is fueled by resentment and paranoia that there are powerful forces working against them. Hence the appeal of a strong man who by shear force of will can right the world. Those who do not put him above the law are seen as the enemy harboring sinister intentions. — Fooloso4

Yeah, don't you hate it when people do that...



... Oh, you probably meant the other guy...

Wow, that is a truly terrifying example. One certainly can't trust Twitter for news (despite the alarming number of people doing so).

But...

Would it have had a greater or lesser effect, do you think, if all of the mainstream media outlets in the region came out in favour of IS?

The fact is that the mainstream media in most countries is owned by a smaller and smaller number of individuals or corporations, in many countries the government is still one of those.

Your "one person, spending next to nothing, was able to control 10% of all content", is absolutely no different to the position of Rupert Murdoch, or Larry Fink, or Chris Ripley... Only with those guys it's more like 50-70%.

I think what you're conflating is power and extremism. The way social media works gives extremists more power than they had before, but that power still pales into insignificance compared to the power of the tiny cabal of owners responsible for mass media. Their preferred message is not extremist, but that doesn't make it more true. Veracity and non-extremism are not necessarily linked. Imagine if your IS 'influencers' were instead the only group speaking out against the totally mainstream rise in antisemitic nationalism in the 1930s. Wouldn't you be glad they had a tool to artificially amplify their voice?

In terms of power, as has been noted, the reach and influence of social media in terms of extremism is quite small - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/measuring-reach-fake-news-and-online-disinformation-europe

Compare that to the reach of newspaper like the Times.

I think fundamentally there's a error here conflating the tools with the intention. A hammer can help build a house or commit a murder, the key is the intent of the user.

In an ideal world, no one would act in such a way as to artificially misrepresent, but, given that they do, what matters is the power of the tool they use to do so, and it remains true (for the time being at least) that the most powerful tool for those intent on misrepresentation is still mainstream media.

Apposite at the moment (20yr anniversary) is a discussion about the role mainstream media played in easing America and Britain's path to a basically illegal invasion of Iraq. We could have done with a few more alternative voices back then.

Well, I suppose it had to happen some time...

Peace is now illegal.

For anyone not yet suckling at David Frum's teat (freshly washed, I note, of Iraqi blood), it's worth noting that this policy has form in my country. Our own Harold Wilson was deemed by the establishment to be 'a bit too left wing' for their liking and as such a smear campaign (at the very least) was instigated to unseat him, based entirely on the same bogeyman - the dreaded Russia. After 70 years of such devastating plotting, it's a wonder they haven't taken over the world yet.

But this is a game you are only too willing to play. Play with yourself I'm done. — Fooloso4

Its only ever a game I play with myself. It's become a grim fascination, watching idiots tie themselves in knots desperately trying to sustain the increasingly baroque fairytales the latest opinion piece from Warmongers Weekly The Atlantic tells them.

This latest turn is exquisite. The resurgence of the "I'm not talking to you!" reposte, from its previous stronghold in the playgrounds of our nation's primary schools. What scholars the recently potty-trained will now seem.

What evidence do you have of what accuse me of thinking? — Fooloso4

Well...

There is plenty of evidence that Trump was and is a Russian asset. — Fooloso4

Then...

I can see a lot of anti-Russian policies which emerged from the Trump administration. I'm not so clear on what Trump actually did for Putin.

What policies did this Putin-puppet put in place during his four year tenure in service of his master? — Isaac

Followed by studious silence....

Hence you think some evil supervillain (Putin) installed a puppet (Trump), despite not being able to come up with a single action carried out during this puppet-hood.

How is the weather in conspiracy fantasy land? — Fooloso4

This from the person who thinks that some evil supervillain took over the elections using a network of super-hackers and spy assets to install a puppet head of state to do his bidding, only so secretly that apparently no one can come up with a single thing he actually did during the four years he had absolute authority.

Look above your post the post I write. Nice to know something new. I think that's enough of an answer to your ad hominems etc. — ssu

I asked you for a summary of what you've learned from others.

You pointed to a post explaining how a graphic was now out of date.

Is that it? You've learned that people post out of date graphics?

given the clash between the US/NATO and Russia — neomac

What clash? I thought the US were barely involved and it was all about the Ukrainians?

your militant rhetoric and intellectually miserable tricks are manipulative, typical of the worst propaganda. This is a literally accurate description of your attitude in most, if not all, posts you addressed to me and not only. — neomac

Pretty much summarises the quality of discussion. Anyone who disagrees with you must be spreading propaganda. Saves you the bother of actually having to argue the case. Just claim your opinion is "literally true" and all others are "miserable propaganda". Are you also the way and the light by any chance?

I’m relying on the Western media system for the simple reason that is free and pluralistic enough that any truth against the government has more chances to become mainstream than under any authoritarian regime media system. — neomac

That makes no sense at all. The choice is between mainstream media and independent media. No Russians need be involved. Substack is not (last I checked) attempting to annex California.

You repeatedly solicited interlocutors to take our politicians accountable for their blameworthy foreign policies about the war in Ukraine (and not only) and passionately made that as your main if not exclusive argumentative focus. That shows your militant urge. — neomac

I love this! It's now "militant" to hold one's government to account. "Just shut up and do as you're told".

To make it more explicit: people that are fanatically opposing a regime (thanks to their putative superior imagination and noble intentions), more easily find support on alternative sources of information critical of the mainstream narratives which they too oppose, of course, no matter if such sources are questionable in turn, often for the same reasons such fanatics question certain mainstream narrative (spinning political propaganda to serve cynical, if not ideologically obtuse, interests). — neomac

The clarity wasn't the problem. I was quite clear on what you were claiming the first time you said it. What was lacking was any evidence whatsoever that your claim was actually the case.

reason why I rely on my speculations more than yours is that they are arguably less unilateral and simplistic than yours. — neomac

OK, crack on then. Make that argument.

I didn’t infer “is not” from a “may”. In clarifying my assumption, I talked in hypothetical terms when the subject I was referring to was “news platforms” (e.g. “news platforms, mainstream and non-mainstream (like icij or propublica), may scrutinise…”). Then I talked in actual terms when the subject I was referring to was the assumption itself: it’s not just matter of selling newspapers and newsworthiness. — neomac

Right. so nothing more than speculation then. They may scrutinise more, or they may not. Good to know both possibilities exist. Thanks for clearing that mystery up.

the point is that mainstream publishers may choose editors and follow editorial guidelines to their liking not to Hersh’s liking. And if that’s the case, that’s a relevant difference. — neomac

Relevant how? You were claiming they had mechanism in place to better check sources. Now you're just saying they might choose editors Hersh doesn't like. How does 'Hersh not liking them' make them better at checking sources?

they all look too much like attempts (however self-defeating) to convince people, as political propaganda is supposed to do. Unfortunately trying to deny it may also be part of the job. — neomac

I know... fucking mastermind, aren't I? Although I'll deny that too (but only by repeating it sarcastically)...triple bluff... or is it?*

*(it isn't)**

I don’t think the truth of that claim can be rationally challenged, of course. — neomac

Wow. So you think it is literally impossible that Hersh could have been unable to sell his story to some Western mainstream news outlets. You think the claim "Hersh could have sold his piece to some Western mainstream news outlets" is impossible to be false. Western mainstream outlets are what... somehow compelled by the laws of physics to buy Hersh's story?

if one is self-publishing, then he is more free to take greater risks, obviously. — neomac

How so? Are the self published immune from prosecution? Do they get some kind of special redundancy payouts if their projects fail? What is this safety net that independent journalists have which the mainstream outlets lack?

the fact that Substack (whose editorial principles sound promising on the papers) has become a haven for “anti-mainstream narrative” authors like him and posting a mainstream outlet denouncing substack articles is exactly illustrating the point I’m making. And, if you need it (coz I don't), similar accusations can be found elsewhere too: — neomac

So just repeating the same circular argument (sorry - I mean "self-defeating attempt to parody the very notion of epistemic reliance as I understand it.")?



**... or is it?

First and foremost, we discuss these issues here to understand them. We discuss here a lot of issues to understand them better, to have insights and to get the feel what others think. To know and understand what is happening in international politics is very important. To have feedback on what total strangers think of your ideas is good, because people in this Forum aren't totally clueless. — ssu

Well. We're 450 pages in. A quick summary wouldn't be out of place.

What exactly have you 'understood' differently to how you came into this discussion 450 pages ago? What are the key takeaways you've learned from the not "totally clueless" forum members who've given you feedback on your ideas?

Publishing companies don't tend to publish Holocaust denial literature for example and libraries don't tend to stock it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You recall David Irving? Was he not published and stocked? I get the argument you're making about vetting, but you're trying to make an argument about "veracity" using an argument about vetting. What's the link between vetting and veracity? What mechanism ensured vetting was in favour of veracity, and not, for example, protection from litigation, or profit?

random wackos ran plenty of newsletters about all manner of things before the internet existed, but they were difficult to access, didn't proliferate as quickly, and were far less common than social media accounts today. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Now you're equating fringe with untrue, but again, you've not given the mechanism whereby more mainstream views are more likely to be true. Prior to the internet, fewer fringe views would have been available, that's true, but your argument wasn't about popularity, it was about veracity.

it is much easier to become an author or republish — Count Timothy von Icarus

Also very true, but once more, your argument wasn't that it is easier now, it's that "veracity" is reduced. You've not given a link between a job being hard to get and the output from that job being more likely to be true. It's very hard to get a job as a spy, for example, but their job is to lie.

It was also easier to trace the source of information before. You could call publishers, find microfilm of old sources, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This one I agree with the mechanism on, but I can't really see the argument for the scope. Who was ever routinely checking sources prior to the internet age? Where were the source checks when virtually every newspaper in America parroted the lie about Iraq's WMDs? The invasion was carried by a wave of popular support on the basis of utter fabrication which the slightest verification of sources could have shown, but no-one bothered.

Also, whilst I think what you say about sources might apply to twitter, or facebook, it can hardly be said to apply to modern blogging. Here, for example, is Caitlin Johnstone's latest blog https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/21/john-boltons-prominence-in-the-media-proves-our-entire-society-is-diseased/ a typically polemic piece from her, but it is literally littered with links to the sources of all of her statements. Something you could never get in a newspaper. I can trace every single one of her sources with a click.

it is also way easier to fake data in ways that are extremely difficult to detect. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You've given a really interesting example of modern data faking, which I appreciate, but you've not shown comparatively how it is 'easier', only different. Whilst there's a lot of 'deep fake' material now, the internet has also made it much easier to track down evidence to the contrary. It's much harder to fake a communication when one can access texts, whatsapps, emails, voicemails etc which might contradict the fake. Compare to a telegram, or a letter which, when faked, would most likely be the only copy of that communication.

On the whole, though, I'm persuaded by this one.

It's easily identifiable bullshit, but that goes right to my point. This stuff replicates because it is what people want to see, it appeals to emotions. It's the reason a stirring picture of disaster X in 2013 spreads like wildfire while being represented as from disaster Y in 2023. My basic argument is that information undergoes natural selection and that truth is not necessarily, or even normally a trait that benefits reproduction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get this, but I don't see an argument that it ever was otherwise. The mechanisms by which information was propagated might have been different, but the qualities of information selected for promulgation were always the same.

Digital technology has made it less costly to reproduce information. Thus, there is less of an incentive to only duplicate quality information, to vet things before reproduction. This in turn changes the dynamics such that the share of veritical information goes down. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As above. The cost of producing information makes it more imperative that the production of that information generate a return on that investment. I don't see how that has anything to do with its veracity. If anything, given what you say about "what people want to see", it seems very unlikely, on its face, that someone contemplating the high cost of publishing information would care much about its veracity, compared to it's likely reception.

his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" are a bit vague for me. — ssu

Yeah. Notice anything about the number of wars between 2009 and 2017?

... No, me neither.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-in-state-based-conflicts-by-world-region?time=2000..latest

It's boring when sarcasm is the whole argument. — unenlightened

Oh. I thought it was winsome and endearing...

Oh... And Crimea.

When Russia... you know...

invade[d] neighbouring country unopposed — unenlightened

Only they did it without any...

confusion and dissent — unenlightened

I bet Putin's generals were absolutely sweating buckets knowing they were invading a foreign country without having first ensured that Americans doubted the authenticity of a laptop. What a mad gamble!

Manages to sow enough confusion and dissent to be able to invade neighbouring country unopposed — unenlightened

Yeah... Only Obama wouldn't send lethal aid to Ukraine, Trump gets in, and the first Javelins go off to help their fight against Russian separatists.

So what's the angle there. Trump helped Russia invade unopposed by... giving Ukraine weapons his predecessor wasn't prepared to give...?

Oh, I know... the Javelins Trump gave were secretly flawed. Yes, they had a special chip inserted which caused them to fly into Poland...

... And then Putin can freely invade Ukraine because some people in American believed an election was stolen and a vaccine didn't work... It's so obvious, when you just say it out loud.

The only, teeny thing I'm still a bit unsure of is why Biden is now spending a billion dollars on lethal aid to help Ukraine defend against the Russian invasion, when we all know that America believing in vaccines, and not doubting the function of polling machines is by far the best defense a foreign country could ask for.

what their performances can teach us (by ways of analogies and disanalogies) about the nature of our own mental abilities. — Pierre-Normand

When a couple tell you they've got married and you say "congratulations", did you first search your feelings to discover how you felt, then rifle through your language acquisitions to find a word which most suitably expressed this found feeling?

... Or did you automatically say "congratulations" because you remember that's what other people have said in similar situations?

The perfect undergraduate essay is one which demonstrates not radical innovation (much to the annoyance of many students), but it's one which demonstrates an understanding of what has already been said on a subject by repeating it (often quoting directly) in context and being able to contrast, and evaluate it. we want the intelligent student to search their database of what has been written on the subject and find context-appropriate ways to string those expressions together.

I don't see what GPT is doing as 'artificial' intelligence at all. It's exactly one of the tools which constitutes ordinary standard intelligence.

now 55% are likely to be garbage instead of just 15% — Count Timothy von Icarus

truth is not necessarily advantageous for the survival and reproduction of digital information. There are tons of articles, memes, videos, etc. in our digital ecosystem. What reproduces and spreads to more hosts is not necessarily veritical information — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you explain what mechanisms you think were in place to prevent these two issues prior to the opening up of digital information. Say, when one had to search through journals manually (perhaps with the aid of library catalogue), what was it previously preventing one's search from having high signal to noise ratios, or from being prone to influences other than veracity?

There is plenty of evidence that Trump was and is a Russian asset. — Fooloso4

So nothing then.

This 'Russian Asset' is put into power at enormous expense, no small amount of risk... He's in power for four years with almost total authority (220 executive orders) and you can't name a single massively pro-Russian policy he put in place.

Its funny how the term 'conspiracy theory' has become the go to term for a group of people who think an evil foreign power installed a puppet president in the US as part of some, as yet hidden, plot... on the basis of some circumstantial evidence put together by a British spy.

But the idea that a pharmaceutical company, proven in a court of law to have previously committed fraud, might have... you know... committed fraud. Apparently that's so wild a conspiracy theory that only the most deranged mind could maintain it to be true.

The idea that a deadly virus found in Wuhan might have escaped from a lab working on deadly viruses in Wuhan... Apparently the activity of a truly fevered mind.

The notion that politicians and panel members with millions invested in certain industries might have made decisions to favour those industries... Apparently only the most drug-addled flat-earther would believe such a thing.

That the most powerful nation on earth might have, after threatening to end a pipeline project should Russia invade Ukraine, have... well... ended a pipeline project because Russia invaded Ukraine. That's just so implausible that only a tankie such as myself could believe it.

... but the whole 'president-installed-by-foreign-evil-dictator-to-do-secret-bidding-says-spy' is just your run-of-the-mill, bona fide goings on. You'd have to be some kind of 'extremist' no doubt to not believe such a plausible story.

voting is acting — jorndoe

So?

That is, the majority of voters are dumb and blind and stupid? — jorndoe

There's the problem right there. Fuck the working class completely, and if they act out, they must be stupid. How dare they! Don't they know how much cleverer we are?

A tip for the determinist wanting to rise to @NOS4A2's challenge is to read... literally anything about human physiology.