I do disagree. By virtue of physics, a woman cannot make a man want to do anything, let alone possess her.

Is this projection, or does some poll or study suggest any of this is true?

I also heard it described as an anti-child grooming law. I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

And?

Material processes can never explain consciousness. They lack the vital element, namely consciousness itself.

Only the hypostatizing tendency of human thinking, strengthened by the desire to explain one’s experiences, can explain consciousness as some other existential “element”. It can be no other way—in thinking about our experiences we have no choice but to work abstractly, arresting our experiences in mid-career, holding them static in order to describe them, incurring in us the danger of misapprehending these snapshots as stable and enduring things. We are unable to observe a vast quantity of what occurs within us, so we fill the gaps.

“Consciousness” could only ever refer to the human being taken in abstracto. But one look from a different point of view, that is, a view not tainted by a limited, first-person periphery, can better explain what occurs in the shadows of our experiences.

“Biological research labs”. Russia claims they are bio-weapons labs; America claims they are bio-defence labs. One way or another, I’m sure American tax-payers love finding out they are funding this.

Victoria Nuland, who once handed out cookies to Maidan protesters, tells us all about them.

We are more than brains. To see just how much more than a brain you are you could subtract the average weight of a human brain from your total weight.

I know enough biology. The body is the “source of consciousness”. The brain is only one of many integral parts to a conscious or unconscious organism.

Yeah, but how do you explain the difference between someone being knocked out and someone being awake? Where is the difference? You might point the person's behavior, but I can act like I'm knocked out so how do you tell the difference between someone acting like they are knocked out and someone who is actually knocked out? And how would the person that goes from being awake, to knocked out to awake again describe the difference, and would there be a discrepancy between the two descriptions (yours and theirs), and if so why? If we can act, or lie with our actions, then there must be some difference between our behaviors and what we are presently aware (conscious) of.

One can tell if someone is unconscious if they are unresponsive. The man acting unconscious is still conscious. He wouldn’t be able to act if he was unconscious, though he may deceive us.

I agree with everything except the notion that consciousness is a silly concept. How do you explain dreams, or the fact that I can act in some way that is contrary to my present knowledge?

I don’t think the fact of being conscious is silly, but the notion of “consciousness” is. By adding the suffix “ness” to the adjective “conscious” we fashion a thing out of a descriptive term, which in my mind is an error in philosophical discussions. This is true of terms such as “awareness”, “happiness”, “whiteness”. Descriptive terms serve to describe things, but they aren’t themselves things, substances, or forces, and they shouldn’t be treated as such in any careful language.

When speaking about and analyzing things that exist, the human organism exists. This human organism is what we study and analyze to better understand his activity. “Consciousness”, however, doesn’t exist, and we should abandon the term.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too.

This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.

The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

Of course it comes from the brain. Ever seen a person get knocked out by hitting their head? How do you think that happens? Barring all the massive evidence at this point in scientific discovery, where does it come from then? I have a claim of where consciousness comes from, and have the entirety of neuroscience to back me up. What's your alternative?

I’ve seen people knocked out, but never a brain knocked out. People are far more than brains.

When speaking of qualities or states of a human being, such as consciousness, happiness, sleepiness, etc. we are discussing qualities and states of the organism in its entirety, such as it exists. Since disembodied brains can neither function nor exist on their own—without blood, oxygen, the skeleton, flesh—it’s silly to say a brain can produce a quality that only an entire organism can display.

“Consciousness” is a silly concept, anyways. Nothing called “consciousness” moves from one area to another, so saying that it “comes from” the brain is nonsensical. Neither is it “produced” by the brain, as if the brain was a qualia factory.

Neuroscience should stick to describing how the brain functions, and that’s it. Brain function is a limited aspect of “consciousness”, because it’s a limited aspect of biology. Only the field of biology in general can describe consciousness.

I do agree with your point that brains don't operate in isolation, but the brain is particularly significant where consciousness is concerned. Do you think, for the present discussion, it matters whether we talk about the brain producing consciousness (leaving out the mention of the rest of the body, the appropriate living environment, etc.)?

Philosophically speaking, I think it does. I think consciousness is a flawed concept to begin with, but to leave out the rest of the body in its manifestation is an error, a kind of materialist, brain-body dualism we ought to avoid.

Nothing called “consciousness” comes from the brain. What comes from brains are chemical and electrical signals, all of which require the rest of the body to understand and utilize them. Second, if “consciousness” is the state of being conscious, the being in that state is invariably more than a brain. Brains are not conscious, are not in a state of being conscious, and therefor do not produce consciousness.

My own reservations towards solidarity is that a “common interest” isn’t a sufficient substitute for individual interests. Rather, it attempts to put one interest above all others. It doesn’t take into account pluralism or dissent and often forbids it. Perhaps worse, it assumes human beings should find affinity with those who they would never find affinity with under any other circumstance, so long as they hold the same interest in their heart. Harvey Weinstein participated in the Woman’s March, for instance, in an act of “solidarity” with the other participants.

The fact remains: one can practice amicable relations and work with others without any solidarity.

So, the toe, and not the brain, produces consciousness?

The conscious being itself produces “consciousness”. These are the things that are or are not conscious. Brains and nervous systems are only parts of these beings. Since a brain by itself (maybe in a jar) cannot produce consciousness, it cannot be said that a brain produces consciousness, because to do so would leave out a variety of other things that contribute.

What would consciousness be like without the rest of the endocrine system, or heart, or lungs, for example? There wouldn’t be any.

We often treat actions with noun phrases. Even the word “action” or “process” are nouns, but not persons, places or things. Maybe this confuses us—it confuses me. However in every scenario the thing is the one performing the action, and we can only observe the action by observing the thing. This is because the thing and the action are the same.

So it is with thought, I think. The physicalist can only measure the thing and it’s movements. Man and his thought are one and the same, at least until it is reified through some form of expression or other.

It’s definitely a form of collective punishment. Some big video game producers are even removing Russian sports teams from their games, just to show how silly it’s getting, and dangerous indeed. Virtue-signalling into tyranny. Where I live Russian students are unable to access their funds because of state sanctions, and a Russian Orthodox Church was vandalized with red paint. What’s next?

I’m all for neuroscience, but any thing that can be described as conscious are invariably more than brains and nervous systems. One can point to a conscious man’s toe and still be pointing to the source of “consciousness”, which is the conscious being itself.

With the mind, however, I haven't heard of any measurements done on thoughts: how much does a thought weigh? what is the concentration of a thought? Quantitave analysis of thinking seems impossible as the conceptual framework thereof is N/A.

How much does a jog weigh? When a man goes for his morning jog he’s not reaching for something like he would a morning cup of coffee. He’s just using a noun to describe a period of time that he’ll be jogging.

“Thoughts” are of the same nature. You’re just describing a period of time that you spent thinking.

“Mind” is simply another word for the body. It’s about as physicalist as you can get.

Can you explain what deal was reached?

I can’t, only that it came out exactly like Nuland wanted. In the end, it all hinged on Biden’s final word. So it’s not odd to me that all this reached a fever’s pitch as soon as he and Nuland are back in power.

What is true is that Victoria Nuland and the US state department helped organize the government. In regards to Tahnybok, she said this:

“ I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

After influencing a deal “Yats” did indeed become leader, and a few Svoboda members ended up occupying positions such as deputy prime minister and prosecutor general.

It’s no surprise that Biden installed Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary for Political Affairs last year, all before the current hubbub kicked off again.

Upon a little reading, it’s not so ludicrous and insane to say far-right Ideological forces are a motivating factor in the war and in Ukrainian politics. It’s good that politics has largely kept the far-right movements out of power, but it is only through capitulation with the Ukrainian state that they haven’t seized it through brute force. These groups are given near impunity from the law.

Their unpopularity in politics means little when looking at their their activities outside of politics. One former Azov commander now serving in their political wing, the National Corps, said “Politics are in the background”. According to him, the war is more important to them than politics, for now. At any rate, it’s not like they have disappeared in the last 8 years. Their strength and sacrifice will gain them political favor in the future.

This is to say nothing of their activity in Ukraine’s military. One recent report described Azov-linked factions have high-ranking military officials in their ranks. Their aim is to build the Armed Forces on a foundation with a “reliable ideological backbone”.

Putin is wrong and his propaganda obvious, and we should reject it. But in doing so we should not legitimize these groups and dismiss their power and influence.

I remember watching Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” a few years back. It tries to explain the start of the war, I think, from a pro-Russian perspective, or at least an anti-American one. It’s all Kremlin propaganda—Stone has been in Putin’s sphere for years—but I think it is insight into the Russian point of view, complete with interviews with Yanukovich and Putin himself.

When considering the human body, its activities, and what it expresses, nothing called a “thought” can be found there. There are no sentences or images in the body, no such object or set of objects measurable in the sensible world, and no expression not already covered by better terms.

It is a useful term, though, in matters of folk psychology. It’s not a feature of grammar but people will point to a number of clauses or sentences and call that a “thought” with little objection. Some biological activity may occur and someone could say “I had a thought”, and we understand what she means. But there is nothing called a “thought” on the plane of existence.

Ukraine does have a far-right problem, and has for some time. That’s why the argument that because Zelensky is Jewish there is no such problem is silly. It’s true that Zelensky isn’t a neo-Nazi, but not true that the government has rid itself of such elements. The Azov battalion, a far-right militia, had Jewish members. Their role in the government during the previous election was enough to draw the concern of the G7. Their current role is enough to inspire far-right mercenaries to join the battle against Russia. My point is, it isn’t only Russian propaganda saying this.

"We are now deploying the NATO response force for the first time in the context of collective defense," Stoltenberg told a news conference on February 25 following a virtual NATO summit.

https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-combat-ready-force-eastern-states-russia/31723732.html

Wild

Yes, I don’t get the Nazi angle. But upon briefly looking into it, Russia and pro-Russia forces have been using antifascist rhetoric and evoking the word “genocide” against the “Orange Junta” since Poroshenko. Here’s a good article on it. Putin using the same rhetoric (among many other things left unreported) to justify his advance could be the direct result of this species of belief and propaganda.

The Azov Battalion was incorporated into the national guard of Ukraine, though. The UN has accused them of atrocity and war crime in the past. I wouldn’t say the Ukrainian government are neo-Nazis, but such elements are present and currently fighting against the Russians. Even NBC recently filmed them training old ladies and other locals.

The man claims he’s invading Ukraine to stop a genocide, and I’m not allowed to ask if there is evidence for it? Utterly unhinged.

I was asking for evidence for Putin’s claim, so you can keep you conspiracy theories to yourself.

Yeah, the airport is required to create an “air bridge” in order to bring in more troops. What I don’t understand is why they’d let CNN film them, potentially compromising the operation.

The costs of such a maneuver are so dire that one wonders the point of it. If I try to put myself in Putin’s shoes, the only reason I would take such a risk—militarily, economically, politically—was to stop a genocide. I just cannot fathom it.

Either Putin has went looney or he is convinced a genocide is occurring, like he says. Is there any evidence for his genocide claim?

I don’t know why but this video of Russian soldiers allowing CNN to film them is odd.

Any concpet of will that associates it with control and cause is inherently dualistic in the sense of separating subject from world.

But then we look and find out that there is no dualism, that the subject is also the object, and seek other ways to explain it.

I think it's true, in a sense. The "general will" of Rousseau, and other collectivist musings, such as in Hegel and Fichte, could be read as justifying mass war and state power. I believe it is collectivism more so than romanticism that caused this, but collectivism could be said to be a product of romanticism.

‘Control’, ‘under the direction’, ‘cause’. Not sure if any of these terms get at the new ways psychologists are thinking about human agency. Perhaps if we substitute ‘reciprocal causality’ and brain body-environment loops for simple one way control and direction we can get closer to what thinking and willing consists in.

It would seem to me your proposed terms suggest a dualism of some sort, which is perhaps the problem to begin with. I would argue that repurposing dualism under more modern terms would only confuse the issue further.

I am not sure if we are but I would like to know.

How does a thought come into our consciousness? Are we being creative and thoughtful or is our brain feeding us ideas or something else?

What is the process of rumination?

I do feel somewhat in control of my thoughts in the mental or conscious landscape. I feel like I am monitoring my inner life and trying to exert control and making choices.

Assuming that something is the cause of thoughts, and that that something is therefor responsible for them, it goes to follow that each of us are responsible for our thoughts. One's thoughts come from nowhere else; they begin and end nowhere else; they are controlled by nothing else. Even the seemingly arbitrary activities, like the manifestation of thoughts, are wholly controlled by and under the direction of this same being.

Our upholders of democracy and freedom. :snicker:

Next you’ll tell us about The End of History and the Last Man.

Why do you complain about the self-evident truth, and insist that it's somehow "wrong"? What qualifies as a "crime" is what the government dictates is a crime. Isn't that self-evident to you? And that dictation must be allowed to change with an evolving society. Or do you think that the original laws, those of Draco or something like that, should persist unchanged, forever and ever, dictated to never be allowed to change?

I think you have things backward. To make a "charter" which forces the government to adhere in a fixed way, to some dictate which would cripple its capacity to "invent crimes" is what is tyrannical. In reality, the government needs to be able to "invent crimes" faster than the criminals can act them out. But as you correctly indicate, giving a government the power which it needs, to properly govern an evolving society, is fraught with disagreement, therefore very problematic. And it's a problem which obviously has not been solved.

It’s evident to me that laws can be either just or unjust, right or wrong. There is no human right the government has not violated. The government murders, steals from, and enslaves human beings, all of which would subject you or I to swift punishment, and rightfully so.

Defining the limits of the state is not tyranny, at least in theory, but a check on arbitrary power and the monopoly of violence. The expansion of this power should be crippled at every instance, and in my opinion, removed entirely.

Unfortunately, Canada’s charter of rights and freedoms has served only as a small hurdle to its tyranny. Rather than outright prohibit people from freedom of movement, it forces the airlines to enforce rigid restrictions, and travellers to undergo harsh quarantine measures at their own expense. Rather than enforce its discriminatory policies against those who refuse Pfizer vaccines, it forces the private citizen to do it. Rather than freeze and steal the contents of someone’s bank account, it forces the banks to do it. It gets around violating its own charter by forcing those who are not beholden to it to do it for them.

The defining feature of bigotry is that it is intolerant. Even the unreasonable can tolerate another’s thoughts and words.

A public objection is just words, and they do not necessarily lead to this or that action. It doesn’t lead to people getting fired from their job any more than it leads to people not getting fired from their job. The contradiction arises when you believe correlation implies causation.