https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/jun/22/one-million-and-counting-russian-casualties-hit-milestone-in-ukraine-war

Deaths are estimated to be over 200,000, which is like ten Afghanistans (or three Vietnams). Russia is going to be dealing with hundreds of thousands of badly wounded men for decades, and that's excluding all the mental issues. I wonder when the Russian people are going to get tired of all this.

Think about it, just for a while.

Assume your country would be striken with missiles for 12 days. Over two hundred civilians would have been killed. Then the attackers would want to bribe you with third party investment.

How eager would you to start negotiations with your attackers? How much would you trust them? — ssu

I was responding to your point that Trump doesn't have a plan. He does. It might be unrealistic, but the plan is to offer Iran goodies to drop their nuclear ambitions.

Would Iran trust us? Doubtful, but there is precedent for the U.S. bribing Iran to drop it's enrichment. Obama did it. What is Iran's alternative, though? They just got punished severely. They got no support from the (civilized) world and even their neighbors turned on them. Top Iranian officials now know Israel can and will take them out. Why not take the bribe the Trump Admin is offering? Isn't enrichment just not worth it at this point?

Obama at least had a plan. Trump doesn't have any plan just to wobble into the next crisis that is going to erupt and try to take center stage. — ssu

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-exploring-30-billion-civilian-nuclear-deal-iran-rcna215679

I think the Trump admin would be thrilled if Iran could be bribed into giving up their nuclear ambitions.

We live in a world of mentation and the physical is simply how consciousness appears when viewed from a certain perspective. (Kastrup) — Tom Storm

Kastrup wants to have it both ways. He says the physical world is just how consciousness looks 'from the outside'—but if everything is mind, then this supposed 'outside view' is just another mental experience. If idealism is true, then what we call the physical world isn’t really 'physical' at all—it's just how the cosmic mind dreams things up. That’s not a perspective shift—it’s a full-blown collapse of physical reality into narrative illusion.

Regarding the OP, simulation theory only makes sense if you think your conscious experiences can be reduced to a bunch of electric switches turning off and on in a certain way. To me, that sounds implausible.

Welcome to the forum. Philosophy is not really equipped to solve the problems you’ve identified. — T Clark

But things have gotten much better for a lot of people in the last thousand years. Hasn't philosophy played a large part in that?

Yet notice the crucial difference to the Middle East. Germans don't give a fuck that Alsace-Lorraine belongs to France now. And both French and Germans of today would be surprised just how some place like Alsace-Lorraine stirred up fervent jingoism in both countries in the past. — ssu

Yes, that is the crucial difference. So why does that difference exist? Is it religious fundamentalism and the rise of European secularism?

In truth, it isn't. If we mean by nations rising that they become prosperous. — ssu

I was talking more along the lines of the physical land that makes up the new nation. That had to come from someone else.

Yes, at the heart of it all is plain old fashioned antisemitism.

Yes, I get it. What I can't handle is someone (@BitconnectCarlos) suggesting that Israel has been nothing but a victim in all this. That's not true. — frank

Yeah, that's certainly not true. The rise of nations is a zero-sum bloody game. Israel can't come into existence without taking the land from someone else. There's nothing more commonplace in history than borders being redrawn after great wars. How many times has Alsace-Lorraine changed hands in the last 1,000 years? Ah, but when the Jews do it...well, we can't have that.

Hmm. So you're saying that a "self-replicating molecule" is much less mysterious than a "conscious entity"? — J

Within the framework of materialism, I think it is. I think the materialist story of life is just a story of chemistry, so there's no fundamental incoherencies. The materialist story of consciousness, otoh, goes down some pretty weird rabbit holes: eliminative materialism and mind-brain identity theory.

If we're invoking a "vanishingly remote chain of events" here, why can't we do so for consciousness as well? — J

You can, and you get Boltzmann Brains. But the issue I have with Boltzmann Brains isn't that they're fantastically unlikely. It's the story materialism tries to tell about how consciousness emerges from any kind of brain, and we're back to the issues I raised earlier: a seeming category error, no agreed upon explanation for how consciousness emerges from matter, and it seems to lead to absurdities.

"I have a feeling that the abiogenesis problem only looks different and more scientific because we've made better progress on it. There certainly used to be a Hard Problem associated with it, and it's still no picnic. I expect the same will prove true for consciousness. Chalmers didn't mean the Hard Problem of consciousness was intractable, or a sign that we necessarily weren't thinking about it correctly. He just meant that, at the moment, we don't have a good research program for answering it."

That's possible. We used to think there was some mysterious elan vital associated with life. It seems to me, that at this point in our scientific development, there should be some explanation for consciousness, some agreed upon definition for what it is, some kind of test to see if x is conscious. The consciousness theories should not be all over the place, like they are. You have panpsychists in one camp and eliminative materialists in the other and they're both taken seriously. One of those camps should have been completely disproven by now. It suggests to me that traditional scientific enquiry won't ever solve the Hard Problem. The lack of progress makes me think science won't figure out consciousness.

"But in any case, I do have a better sense of why the whole "consciousness as emergent property" claim could seem extraordinary to you, thanks."

Awesome! Good discussion.

OK, that's helpful. But don't you have to run the same argument against the idea of life emerging? — J

Do you mean the mystery of abiogenesis? That's a scientific mystery, not a philosophical one. Life reduces to chemistry, so the idea that chemicals sloshing around could give rise to a self-replicating molecule in some vanishingly remote chain of events isn't hard to swallow. There's no Hard Problem associated with it. I don't see any reductio absurdum issues.

Can you say why you think it's extraordinary? Not that it could happen -- that is certainly extraordinary -- but why you think the claim is extraordinary. — J

OK, when you unpack "consciousness emerges from matter" you get:

1. There is this non-conscious stuff, and it was created ex nihilo around 14 billion years ago in an event we still don't quite understand. And we don't know exactly what this stuff is. The model used to be that it was simply little building blocks that assembled themselves together to make up everything else, but 100 years ago, that all changed and now matter is excitations of a quantum field and we still don't know what's going on with QM. The only thing everyone can agree on is that it's very counter-intuitive.

So already we have a poorly understood theory with a something-from-nothing origin. And on top of that, we're supposed to assume that this mindless nonconscious stuff, when you assemble it a certain way and run a current through it, conscious experiences emerge from it somehow. Doesn't that sound like a category error? And how exactly does that work? How much stuff do you need? What kind of stuff? Why is electricity necessary? Is it necessary? Could you replace a working brain with a functionally equivalent system of water, pumps and valves and would the system be conscious? If you adjusted the flow of water in this system in a certain way, could you produce the pain of stubbing a toe? As Bernardo Kastrup says, if that system of water, pumps, and valves IS conscious, what about the plumbing in my house? Could that be conscious too? And if materialism has us asking, "is my toilet conscious?" aren't we in absurdity land?

The one where you don’t criticise what Trump is doing and treat him as a credible leader rather than a clown. — Punshhh

I see. So, the NYTimes is drinking the Trump Koolaid. Is that what you're claiming?

Ostensibly for power generation. — Benkei

Lol

Possibly to gain a nuclear bomb. — Benkei

Yes.

But even the latter doesn't give Israel and the US the right to bomb nuclear facilities and risk nuclear fall out. — Benkei

There hasn't been nuclear fallout, there won't be nuclear fallout. Now, do Israel and America have the right to bomb Iran? Depends. What are Iran's intentions? What are they saying? What are their plans? Death to Israel and America! Well, then. What did Iran think would happen?

It's also a totally irrelevant reply to my point that the purported existential threat Israel claims exists isn't there. — Benkei

If someone keeps threatening to annihilate you, and has a clock on display counting down the days to your annihilation, maybe your enemies will take you seriously on that?

The NYTimes has been on the cool aid since everyone kissed the ring last November. — Punshhh

Kool aid, with a k. What Kool aid are you talking about?

Yes, but now there's a UN agency, and the UN is no friend to Israel, backing up Israel's claim.

"Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, a confidential report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Saturday. In a separate report, the agency called on Tehran to urgently change course and comply with its years-long probe."

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-7f6c9962c1e4199e951559096bcf5cc0

Why is Iran doing that?

I read the NY Times, but I avoid news otherwise. I just don't want to hear about Trump. — frank

Well, he's the president. And we're attacking another country! How do you avoid it??? The NYTimes is solid, though.

Which isn't much different from what they're doing now, particularly in Israel's case. — Mr Bee

You think you're seeing regime change? We've seen America do regime change. This is not regime change. I don't think Israel is doing it either. I think they could decapitate Iran if they really wanted to, but they don't want that. Yet. Israel could be much more ruthless than they currently are.

Their best strategic move is to not to recklessly anger another nuclear power. North Korea also demonizes the Americans regularly and guess what, nobody is messing with them because they actually have a bomb. — Mr Bee

Nobody messed with N. Korea before they had the bomb. They just kind of fester there on the Korean Peninsula.

Do you think Israel would allow the current regime to acquire a bomb and stay in power?

Every illegal attack, like the two we've recently witnessed, is an argument for them to pursue a nuclear bomb as that is the only weapon that truly acts like a deterrent. That's rather obvious. — Benkei

I don't think it is obvious. Many of you here are having a very hard time putting yourselves in Israel's shoes and seeing the culpability of Iran here. If you constantly threaten the annihilation of the strongest kid on the block, and fund terrorist proxies to go after him, and you're now scheming to get your hands on a new big weapon...might the problem be you?

I think the US knew Saddam couldn't back down. After the war, Wolfowitz explained that the point was to democratize the Middle East starting with Iraq. That was supposed to basically give al Qaeda what they wanted, so no more 9-11 style attacks. — frank

That was undoubtedly part of it, but remember that almost all of the hijackers came from SA, and we haven't done a thing to them.

All that thinking is in the past now. I don't think Trump entertains any middle eastern strategy. — frank

The nonAmericans here don't understand this. They think Trump and Americans are just itching to take out Iran. Instead, we're looking at what Trump is doing like someone watching a horror movie with their hands over their face. It's worked out well enough for Trump so far, but there is zero appetite in the U.S. for another Middle East adventure. Trump's attempts at playing peace maker now are laughably transparent. He doesn't want to invade or keep bombing. He wants Iran to suck up to us so we can make money and build condos in Tehran.

The reason why they won't accept the Iranians getting a nuke is because of their government. — Mr Bee

Yes, because there's a literal clock in Tehran counting down to the prophesized destruction of Israel. Maybe stop doing stuff like that?

Iran getting rid of a nuclear deterrent will make them more vulnerable. — Mr Bee

They don't have a nuclear deterrent, that's their problem! You're arguing that Iran will think, 'if we just had nukes, we wouldn't be getting slapped around like this' but there are three objections to this:

1) The cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon has just been made prohibitively more expensive and dangerous. America and Israel aren't doing regime change, but that can easily change if Iran doesn't mend their ways. Upper echelon military and political leaders now know that their lives are expendable.

2) It's not enough to build a nuke. In order to have a credible deterrent, a nuke has to be successfully tested. So, what happens if it doesn't work right? A fizzile, in other words. Well, now Iran is truly screwed, because Israel and the U.S. really will decapitate the ruling regime and Iran has no credible deterrant.

3) Even if Iran successfully tests a nuke, what is Israel's best strategic move? Prevent Iran from getting more nukes. Regime change. And their buddy Trump will probably go along with it.

If you're Iran, isn't the best move to give up on enrichment and take your chances with diplomacy?

None of that matters to the actual reason the war started. — Mr Bee

Yes, it does. After Gulf War 1, if Iraq had been completely transparent about the end of it's WMD program and destruction of all it's WMD"s, do you think they still would have been invaded?

The US wanted to go to war with Iraq as much as the Israelis do now with Iran, because they perceive the Iranian regime itself as an existential threat.

America did not perceive Iraq to be an existential threat. Condi Rice talked about mushroom clouds, but nobody believed Iraq could end the country. If Iran got nukes, otoh, and took out Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa, could Israel come back from that? There's a case to be made that a nuclear Iran really could end Israel's existence.

I'm not seeing yet what you don't like about my sketch of an extraordinary claim. What might be an example of such a claim for you? - not necessarily about consciousness. I just want to understand better where you're coming from. — J

I think any claim that consciousness can emerge from matter is an extraordinary claim.

I believe that if Iraq had been fully cooperative with Hans Blix and his team, they could have avoided that war. Possibly not, but Iraq is also a special case because they'd already used WMD's and invaded a neighbor and played fast and loose with UN inspectors all through the 90's and then, when they wanted desperately to be believed about not having WMD's, they had no credibility and STILL wouldn't cooperate fully with Blix and his team.

There is a very good chance that the Iranians moved their stockpiles and they have probably decided that getting a nuclear weapon is the only reasonable way to get deterrence. — Mr Bee

Or they can look at their neighbors who aren't getting bombed and just abandon the nuke program.

So the regime change is a fail, the nuclear “destruction” is bullshit media propaganda, and really nothing has been accomplished beyond taking out some military leaders — who will be replaced. This was an Israeli war crime — and they sucked the US in as well. Much like the Gaza genocide (“We’re eradicating Hamas”), this is a total failure and will only make Israel less safe and their enemies more determined and numerous. — Mikie

This goes back to the question of whether Iran is rational or not. I believe they're rational. They haven't disrupted shipping, they made a pathetic face-saving attack on the U.S., and their terrorist proxies have been silent (but that could be because they've been decimated). Rational regimes respond to rewards and punishments and Iran has just been punished severely. I doubt the 85 year old Ayatollah wants to spend the rest of his life in hiding. Other top officials and generals certainly don't want to be killed in future air strikes. Israel has shown that no one is safe. They can get you with a beeper or they can get you with a plane. If you're Iran, at this point, don't you just say, "fuck it, the nuke's not worth it"?

Well, is there something it's like to be an electron? Is that an extraordinary claim? Is there something it's like to be a 3 pound meat blob in a skull? Is that an extraordinary claim? Don't get me wrong. I'm an idealist. I think the whole idea of consciousness emerging from matter (or matter being conscious) is absurd, but presumably, you don't, so...which consciousness claims do you think are NOT extraordinary? Beyond the obviously Cartesian ones. What about Dennett and the Churchlands? Are they making extraordinary claims?

So already a massive win for Iran, even if more Iranians have died. — boethius

:lol:

It appears that there is a very large difference in Solar Energy Potential between summer and winter for latitudes that are not close to the equator.

How will countries that depend on solar energy cope with this situation? — Agree-to-Disagree

They should have a reliable backstop of nuclear energy always available to shore up production shortages from renewables.

You don't think Iran looks incredibly weak and pathetic right now?

Trump extends an olive branch:
"Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system,’ and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured,"

Yes, it is a little different (and I'll avoid the lawyer jokes!). Do you think the difference consists in mastering the kinds of behaviors you name?

And yes, even a glimmer of a theory of consciousness would help us more than hours of debate. I think "implausible," minus such a theory, is still OK (the extraordinary-claim argument, above), but "impossible" or "absurd" -- no, too strong. We just don't know. — J

But I'm not so sure that LLM consciousness IS an extraordinary claim. And if it is, does panpsychism make extraordinary claims? Idealism? Materialism? Dualism? If everything about consciousness becomes an extraordinary claim (other than the fact of our own consciousness), then the term becomes meaningless. Is the existence of conscious minds other than my own an extraordinary claim?

Imagine a possible world where superintelligent conscious machine intelligences come across a human for the first time. Wouldn't they be incredulous that some three pound meatblob of neurons could produce consciousness?

Sure, that's one way to look at it. But would you say the same thing about a CD that, when you put it in a player, declared that it was "feeling good"? I guess, at a certain point, we have the right to deny things that are very implausible -- not for all time, and always with the possibility of being wrong. Yes, it's conceivable that this alleged entity feels something and is telling you the truth, but it's far more likely that it isn't, wouldn't you agree? Especially given that its whole purpose for existing is to convince humans that it is "just like them"? Sounds kinda suspicious to me . . . :smile: — J

It's a little different when the Ai can talk to you like a person, and pass the bar exam, help you with retirement planning, do your homework, be your therapist, etc. Also, how do we know it's implausible? Don't we need a working model/theory of consciousness in order to conclude that?

NBC News’ Richard Engel says the nature of the strike and the well-defended target indicate Iran’s retaliatory strike was a “symbolic attack.” Qatar was also reportedly informed ahead of the attack.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-east/live-blog/live-updates-iran-top-diplomat-meets-putin-us-braces-retaliation-rcna214428#rcrd83379

"Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan condemned Iran's attack on the Al Udeid military base in Qatar, according to statements from the countries' ministry of foreign affairs."

Ah, I see. Iran wins if they get beaten to a bloody pulp but manage to avoid complete annihilation. Right. Your claims about air supremacy are fantastical. Neither U.S. or Israel have lost a plane yet and I will be very surprised if Iran ever manages to take one down. They have no effective air defenses. And the U.S. is not doing regime change. The attacks so far have been limited and against nuclear sites. We're not trying to decapitate Iran.

If Iran "wins" this war with Israel it is a massive boost for Russia's and China's lead counter-order, further eroding US credibility. However, it's only a proxy failing, like Ukraine, and the US empire could "put it behind us". So would be a big victory for Iran, but further improve Russia and China's position as being able to credibly back opposition to the US.

However, if the US went all in on Iran and then Iran won a conflict directly with the US, that would be a fatal embarrassment to US power and technology, as well as massive damage to US stockpiles, military and domestic moral etc. — boethius

Iran is not going to militarily win against Israel and/or America. They are being bombed at will at this point. Their retaliation against Israel has some bite to it, but it's like the V2 rocket attacks against Britain at the end of WW2: strategically meaningless terror attacks. Iran's retaliation against America so far has been like the weak pawing of a cornered rabbit. Their strongest gambit would be to disrupt shipping, but then they would have the whole world against them.

The stock market is up despite all this. Oil is down. It's priced in that Iran will take it like a whipped dog.

This is Russia-China's opportunity to essentially unseat the US as the world's leading power. — boethius

How would that happen? Nothing going on in the Middle East will change the fact the U.S. military is the strongest in the world, the U.S. economy the richest in the world.

A face-saving attack not designed to do much damage or something worse? They would have to be crazy to hit back hard with Trump in the WH.