For me, a thing only perceives modifications of itself. — bert1

Why do you think that?

It was my understanding that for indirect realism there is a perceptual intermediary between perceiver and perceived. If there is none then the distinction between direct and indirect realism is redundant. — NOS4A2

I don't know of any version of indirect realism which claims some 'other object' in the brain is what is being perceived.

The distinction is not though redundant. As I said, it's about the degree to which the various steps of the perception process make up the properties of the object.

I suspect a direct realist would like to say there is such a thing as a tree and it's 'correct' properties might be found out by the process of perception or not (if the process isn't working well).

A moderate indirect realist would prefer to say that the 'correct' properties of the object of perception are partially a social construct. I'm incorrect about my perception to the degree I don't conform to that. But partially related to some external constraints on what those object properties can be. (this is my position, by the way).

The more extreme indirect realist would want to say that the perceived object is entirely a dynamic and continually 'being formed' construct created as a collaboration between us and it (we interact with it, form ideas about it, impose those ideas on it etc).

In none of these cases (that I know of), is it claimed that the actual object about which the perception is the subject resides in the head.

I just want to know what John is directly perceiving to the indirect realist. If John is not directly perceiving the tree, what is it that he directly perceives? — NOS4A2

Nothing. John does not 'directly' perceive anything because perception is not a direct process. In much the same way as the answer to the question "which messages do I directly receive through the telegram" would be "none - the telegram is not a direct messaging service".

Then who or what perceives the tree? — NOS4A2

A person. When we use the expression "John saw a tree" we're clearly talking about a person and a tree. We're not saying "some part of John saw some other part of John". This is obvious from our expectation of the outcome of a sentence like "John, go and cut down that tree".

I suspect that he directly perceives all of the above, and everything else within his periphery. — NOS4A2

What is 'directly' doing here? As opposed to what?

If I get a message from you, I could get it 'directly' (from you to me) or I could get it indirectly (via a third person). It is still the message I'm getting. The difference is the degree to which it may have been tampered with, the veracity...

So to claim 'directness' in the sense of 'no possibility of being tampered with', no stepwise progression, is clearly wrong. A cursory glance at the way perception works in the brain would show that.

So what does the indirect realist perceive? — NOS4A2

The tree. As I said, it's not ab out the name we give to the object. Our naming practices are necessarily public and so necessarily external. Saying "prune that tree" cannot refer to an internal mental state. It want you to prune something in the external world, not my mental state.

No indirect realist is going to say that the object of "prune that tree" is an internal representation. so arguing that way is obviously missing the point.

Yep, and evidence/arguments have been posted throughout the thread already. — jorndoe

So? Is that your threshold for considering a theory to be such that "you cannot deny it"?

That inexpert laymen have posted what they consider to be evidence on an internet forum.

The indirect realist doesn't say that something inside the man perceives something else (but then you did say you'd come to expect straw-manning, so...)

The concern between direct and indirect realism is about properties, not naming conventions. So it's not about what gets to be called 'tree', it's about whether the properties of whatever we're going to call the perception are given by the external world (directly), or via the internal world (indirectly).

It's a given that external objects are what we're naming. When I use the word 'tree' in conversation, it cannot be a private reference to some model in my head, since the word would thereby have no public meaning. But at the same time, it cannot be argued that the properties of the external object somehow make their way into my actions toward it (speech, interaction, etc) completely untouched by internal mental action on them.

As such, it seems very hard to accept direct realism other than by assuming it relates only to the object of reference. But then it seems impossible to accept indirect realism by that definition.

Likewise it seem impossible to accept indirect realism other than by seeing it in terms of the the steps taken from the external cause to the internal cause of reciprocal action. But in that sense, direct realism is nonsense.

So the argument between them seems like another rather pointless one where each side makes the other look untenable by uncharitable definition... As you have done.

The intent is crystal clear. You simply cannot deny it. — ssu

So you place your feeling of certainty above actual experts in the field. As I said, your ego really has reached an unexpected peak.

I have no interest in your assessment of the various expert views because you are not qualified to make such an assessment, and I can't think why anyone else would be either.

I am interested in your reasons for preferring one interpretation over another, but if they're "because it seems obvious to me and I never question my own sense of righteousness", then I think I've gathered about as much data on that as there is to gather.

Thanks for being so forthcoming, I guess.

I’m not arguing the case. — Wayfarer

Bollocks. You just don't want to defend your position and its pathetic. This is seriously how you see a discussion platform like this one as best used? To post articles promoting a single government agenda and then neither discuss nor defend those positions?

This is not your personal blog. This is not a newspaper. This is not your scrap book.

It's a discussion forum. If you've no interest in actually discussing anything I can't see why you're even here, let alone a mod. Is this the direction you want the site to head in, a series of news clippings in nothing but an echo-chamber of agreement?

The prospect of peace lies wholly and solely with the Kremlin. They have instigated this entire catastrophe. — Wayfarer

So the Ukrainian military action, the US weapons supply, the social media campaigns, the aid... None of that is helping to secure peace?

What is it helping to secure then?

Oh, and you know there's a reply function?

This passive-agressive "I'm not replying to you, but this is the reply anyway..." that you and @SophistiCat have lately adopted is more suited to a school playground that a serious discussion forum. Grow up.

What a dictator of Russia says and does isn't an opinion. — ssu

I've not denied anything Russia has been shown to say or do. I've denied your interpretation of what those actions indicate about intent.

more than 800 Russian soldiers, many of them witless consripts dragooned into the killing machine, being killed every day. — Wayfarer

Don't pretend to care about innocent soldiers' lives. You've been baying as loudly as anyone that Russia must be completely defeated at whatever cost.

Well. This is the cost.

If you don't like it, perhaps consider a little less flag-waiving for war and a little more public pressure for peace.

People disagree about the World being round shaped. Some say it's flat. — ssu

Are you seriously suggesting that your preferred theory of Russian geopolitics is on a par with the theory that the earth is round?

Your ego really has reached an unexpected peak.

Seems that you don't know much about post-soviet era history of Russo-Ukrainian relations. Russia wanted to have Ukraine under it's influence, even if it was actually neutral, as actually the country was in the 1990's and the 2000's, before the current war. — ssu

Christ, you're incorrigible aren't you.

What Russia wanted is not a fact of history, it's an opinion. This isn't up for debate, you're just completely wrong. Not a single historian in the world would claim that a nation's intentions are facts of history.

Facts of history are matters like such and such a battle took place on such and such a date, or that some law was passed by some Parliament or other. These are matters which people might forget, or get wrong.

Opinions about intent are not facts. No one is 'forgetting', no one is 'misunderstanding'.

People are disagreeing.

It's a concept which seems to be rapidly in danger of becoming extinct.


I like a quote from Shashi Tharoor, talking about the success of Indian democracy...

In a diverse plural democracy like India, you don't really have to agree on everything all the time, so long as you agree on the ground rules of how you will disagree.

Deciding that everyone who disagrees is a conspiracy nut, an ideologue, in the pay of the opposition, beneath response, mistaken, or fails to understand is not a healthy set of ground rules. It's just quasi-religious dogmatism.

Why were they doing these things? — javi2541997

Because everyone who follows the rules is part of a cool, happy group who do fun stuff together. You wouldn't want to be left out of their gang would you?

All the doctors and nurses opposed to community masking and mandatory vaccines were boringly grumbling into their coffees in the break room. Losers.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. — NOS4A2

I wasn't particularly anticipating you would.

Willing is an action performed by a thing — NOS4A2

It's not a question of the type of thing it is, it's the fact that the existence of such an 'action' is evidenced by nothing more than that you feel like you have such a thing (or in this case, feel like you've done such a thing).

If you're prepared to accept nothing more than the way something feels to you as evidence for its existence, then one who 'feels like' they have a natural right has precisely the same quality of evidence for its existence.

One can search among his possessions and never find anything of the sort. Everything about my supposed rights depends entirely on the will of those who offered them to me — NOS4A2

I'm not a fan of natural rights, but this argument is ludicrous. One can no less easily "search among his possessions" and find no such thing as his 'will' either.

If you're going to invoke a punishingly strict materialism with regard to vague human concepts, you can't introduce in the same breath 'the will'. I mean, where's that among my possessions?

One thing though that makes it easier to buy the Russia theory is that the risk threshold is much lower for Russia than for any other plausible actor — SophistiCat

So...

They have little to lose, since their relationships with Europe are at their lowest point since the Bolshevik revolution cold war. — SophistiCat

European diplomats privately admit transatlantic relations are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, including during the 2003 Iraq War — https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/05/06/trump-has-irrevocably-changed-american-relations-with-europe-and-biden-probably-can-t-fix-it-pub-81739

And..

they will just deny everything, like they always do, not caring at all whether they are believed. — SophistiCat

the scope and the scale of such operations have been enormous — https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/pitfalls-us-covert-operations#

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093

the reasons, arguments and agenda of the politicians and the military are. — ssu

No, they very clearly aren't. The arguments and agenda of the politicians and the military are empirically demonstrable. The reasons are private and a matter on which you and I may equally speculate.

Absolutely stomach-churning stuff.

I'm glad some people seem to have finally had their "Hans, are we the baddies?" moment. — Tzeentch

Yeah, though as you said before, mostly conspicuous silence. The scientists who engineered the programme admit it was a "dystopian" experiment and what we mostly get from the so-called 'progressives' is studious self-gagging.

You can read the UK's version here.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

It's quite disturbing.

Worse, for NHS staff, the advised wording for communicating to children was "normality can only return, for you and others, with your vaccination.” from https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Vaccination%20do%20and%20donts%20by%20audience%20cohorts.pdf

Even the sage members regretted it...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/

“In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.

“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”

I have not! Give me some pointers (not on reading, on explanatory frameworks for consciousness). — Agent Smith

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=theories%20of%20consciousness

All I'm saying is there's at least some kinda theory/hypothesis to, at a minimum, attempt an explanation. None exist for consciousness. — Agent Smith

Have you tried reading?

The mechanism of taste can be reduced to chemistry i.e. there's a theory (agonist-receptor) which can be used — Agent Smith

No there isn't. Taste cannot be reduced to chemistry. It requires a complicated and imperfectly understood neural network, a complex and evolving language, and a culture in which to embed both those things. Take either away and there'd be no such thing as taste.

Petty much exactly the same is true of consciousness.

... isn't up to you to decide on others' behalf. :grin: — jorndoe

Well, if you want to have a conversation about something else, then I suggest you you do so by posting something independently. Replying to my posts to make unrelated points seems a bit eccentric at best.

Ordinarily, people, including children, would mask up in public social settings, not at home for example (bubble), while learning more. — jorndoe

Why? Why would the default be to mask first, check later? And how exactly do you propose people learn more when doctors and health professionals presenting the alternative position are banned from public discourse?

and there was "child abuse" screamery (which it isn't, but evokes other things), — jorndoe

Indeed. But "they did it too" is hardly a grown up defense for reprehensible behaviour is it?

Hmm So that's what you made out of EricH's comments. — jorndoe

Yep. He referred to the first slightest criticism of the CDC as "vitriol". Not sure what else to make of that.

Yeah sure, you know better what Finns and Swedes think. :roll: — ssu

No. Do you need me to get the diagrams out again?

1 + 1 is 2 definitionally, so people who think it's 3 are wrong.

The earth can be empirically shown to be spherical by methods performatively agreed upon by everyone. People who think it's flat are wrong.

Physical laws of electromagnetism are agreed on by virtually all experts in the field. People who disagree are wrong.

The internal motives and beliefs of the entire population of Sweden and Finland is neither empirically demonstrable, nor agreed upon by all experts in the field. People who have a different opinion to you are not wrong. They disagree.

Of course in your logic you forget what and why that changed, just like why Sweden left it's foreign policy stance that had been the same since Napoleons times. — ssu

Go on. "Some time has elapsed therefore everything's changed" is not much of an argument.

forgetting disagreeing totally [about] the motivation and agenda of the European countries themselves. — ssu

Fixed that for you.



So can you explain for us why the US pushed to the point of diplomatic crisis against Nordstream2, if they had so little to gain?

A bit of fun? A sudden passion for the well-being of Qatar?

Sure, but the important thing here is to remember this is not about us trying to work out who sabotaged the pipeline. We're just not in a position to do that. We have a miniscule portion of the evidence available and are all woefully inexpert regarding the geopolitical analysis required to assess motive here.

The point is entirely about opposing this new fad of trying to present all opposition to US foreign policy as deranged conspiracy theory.

If we can no longer hold power to account we're screwed.

I don't care if there's only a tangential scrap of evidence that the US did it. I will still amplify that narrative above any that exculpate the US so that the government remain as terrified of their populace as possible. They should feel as though they're walking on thin glass, not a red carpet.

I don't know if there was/is any perfect plan. — EricH

Here's an idea for one.

If a situation is a...

complex situation with many moving parts - and any action you take will have some secondary effects — EricH

...perhaps don't make all other approaches illegal, sack people who disagree, ban the discussion of alternative directions, take away travel, work, family visting, and the outdoors from people who disagree, steal finances from dissenting campaign groups, and whip up an almost pathological hatred of anyone who doesn't follow your dictats...


Just an idea of how a grown-up version of government might act in the face of huge uncertainty.

Sure.

Now apply exactly the same level of exculpatory analysis to the theory that Russia did it.

1. Europe was already on course to wean itself from Russian gas long before the explosions.
2. None of the extra purchases necessitated by the shift were not going to Russia, for obvious economic and logistical reasons.
3. Only two of the Nord Stream lines were ever in operation, and the explosions left one line intact (one of the Nord Stream 2 lines, which Russia lobbied for and US opposed). The supply was not constrained by this action, because European pipelines were already underutilized, and Nord Stream was not operating at all.

Plus...

4. It's Russia's fucking pipeline and they could have just turned off the supply.
5. Less stable supplies through the Baltic actually favour Ukraine - that being the whole point of the crisis between Germany and the US over the pipeline in the first place.
6. Putin has, unlike Biden, never threatened to "end" the pipeline by unspecified means.

But somehow the exact same analysis doesn't seem to stir the same sycophantic bootlicking when directed against America's competition.

Some more serious analysis...

Minor? Weaning Europe of Russian gas in favour of North American gas is not minor in my book. It's tens of billions of dollars in value per year. — Benkei

I don't believe it's a huge risk, either.

Previous US interventions on foreign assets have included drone strikes, overt threats, seizure, and actual invasion of sovereign territory. None of which so much as dented their hegemony. The barest shred of plausible deniability is all that's required. Much, much worse has been done with impunity in the past.

But more to the point, either Russia are a threat which oughtn't be provoked or they're not. Either both the suspicion of sabotage and anti-Russian intervention in Ukraine are a huge risk, or neither is. I can't see the argument for one being huge and the other not. It's not like Putin is a gentleman who'll only be offended by legitimate grievances. So it's about his capacity to retaliate in both cases.

With Ukraine it's "Biden needn't worry about provoking Russia, they'll never dare attack NATO".

With the pipeline it's "Biden would never provoke Russia, it's too risky"

This is pretty much sums up the state our critical facilities have reached now.

We're discussing the peer-reviewed results from one of the most respected scientific establishments in the world.

But the view which prevails is based on "something tells me", and blind faith in a provably industry-biased government institution.

As a US citizen, what irks me is the vitriol that people hurl at the CDC for simply doing the best they could to keep everyone healthy and alive in a confusing rapidly evolving situation. — EricH

Why on earth would you think that? What is it about the history of government institutions that could possibly have given you the impression that they are ever just "doing the best they could to keep everyone healthy"?

Is it, perhaps, the major funding they receive from pharmaceutical and other industries?

https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

Or is it the effect of that industry pressure on their policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/17/cdc-accused-opioid-guidelines-drug-industry-pressure

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/301432-the-cdc-is-being-being-influenced-by-corporate-and-political/


Or is it the revolving door employment opportunities the CDC offers?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/27/fda-biopharama-revolving-door-study/ (FDA primarily, but talks about wider government body practices).

The US is still in the grip of an opioid crisis which has killed around 100,000. Nearly half the population is obese, and life expectancy is going down.

I cannot make sense of your blind obsequience.

If you want some background on Seymour Hersh that isn't just @SophistiCat's apologist smearing, there's a good summary in the London Review of Books when his biography came out.

Here... https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n18/jackson-lears/i-figured-what-the-heck

Without his indefatigable reporting, we would know even less than we do about the crimes committed by the US national security state over the last fifty years. While most of his peers in the press have been faithfully transcribing what are effectively official lies, Hersh has repeatedly challenged them, revealing scandalous government conduct that would otherwise have been kept secret

...but of course, now he's officially a conspiracy nut we have to pretend that he's suffered some kind of weird mental breakdown coincident with all the other prizewinning journalists who've recently had similar mental issues...

This type of explosive "investigation" based on a single anonymous source (who may or may not exist, for all we know) has become his modus operandi. — SophistiCat

Yeah, imagine investigative journalists being allowed to use a single anonymous source to break open an explosive story...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/watergate-50th-anniversary/?clsrd

Where would that leave the poor government?

Of course, none of it matters to the useful idiots who will swallow any yarn if it's too good not to be true. — SophistiCat

For example the yarn that anyone critical of US foreign policy has "gone off the rails".

Of perhaps it would be easier to simply list all the hard hitting investigative journalists strongly opposed to US foreign policy who are still treated with respect...

There's... um...

And that list isn't even exhaustive. I could have added another dozen at least - good, well respected journalists, experts, political commentators...

It's such a lazy, anti-intellectual trope to just lob these labels at dissent. I thought we'd done with that after McCarthy, but here it is again, this time promoted by liberals as much as anyone.

It's essentially a replay of the covid pandemic. — Tzeentch

Yep, I slipped Paul Thacker into my list there too. I could have added Pete Doshi, John Ioannidis,... Some of the most respected minds in public health research and journalism victim to the crackdown on dissent.

I think much of what we see happening over Ukraine discourse comes out of Covid-era policies.

This is the denial phase. The phase is prior to the last one, quiet shame. — Tzeentch

Some shame at least would be something. I suppose restitution is too much to ask.

Can we notice any kind of trend here?

Seymour Hersh - multi-award-winning journalist, famous for breaking the CIA internal spying stories, the Abu Graib stories.. Now, apparently a conspiracy nut.

Glen Greenwald - another award-winning investigative journalist, famous for breaking the Snowden story... Now apparently also a conspiracy nut.

Robert Shreer - won eight awards for outstanding journalism. Now also a conspiracy nut.

Chris Hedges - received the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism in 2002. Now also apparently a conspiracy nut.

Paul Thacker - received the 2021 British Journalism Award for Specialist Journalism for a series of articles in The BMJ investigating undisclosed financial interests among medical experts advising the US and UK governments on vaccines. Dismissed by Facebook as 'misinformation'.

Jeffrey Sachs - named one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by Time. He was also named one of the "500 Most Influential People in the Field of Foreign Policy" by the World Affairs Councils of America. Adviser to the UN. Winner of too many awards to list here. Now apparently a conspiracy nut too.

It's surprising the number of journalists and commentators who suddenly become 'conspiracy theorists' despite award-winning respected careers, almost immediately after criticising mainstream pro-US narratives... There must be some kind of epidemic, poor things.