how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? — Relativist

. That doesn't entail proving physicalism is true; it entails establishing that it is possible because it is a complete, coherent metaphysical theory. — Relativist

how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? — Relativist

The mind has non-physical properties, such as the ability to infer meaning and interpret symbols such as language and mathematics. These acts are not determined by physical causes in that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes that supposedly cause or underlie such processes in physicalist terms, without relying on the very processes of inference and reasoning which we're attempting to explain. — Wayfarer

I think we see reflections of actual reality, and that provides a basis for exploring further. You choose to believe that's hopeless. — Relativist

The coverage is ridiculous. — philosch

As far as Mr. Trump is concerned, Russia is not responsible for the war that has devastated its neighbor. Instead, he suggests that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s invasion of it. To listen to Mr. Trump talk with reporters on Tuesday about the conflict was to hear a version of reality that would be unrecognizable on the ground in Ukraine and certainly would never have been heard from any other American president of either party.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, Ukrainian leaders were at fault for the war for not agreeing to surrender territory and therefore, he suggested, they do not deserve a seat at the table for the peace talks that he has just initiated with Mr. Putin. “You should have never started it,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Ukrainian leaders who, in fact, did not start it. “You could have made a deal.”

Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, he went on: “You have a leadership now that’s allowed a war to go on that should have never even happened.” By contrast, Mr. Trump uttered not one word of reproach for Mr. Putin or for Russia. — NY Times

As far as Mr. Trump is concerned, Russia is not responsible for the war that has devastated its neighbor. Instead, he suggests that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s invasion of it. To listen to Mr. Trump talk with reporters on Tuesday about the conflict was to hear a version of reality that would be unrecognizable on the ground in Ukraine and certainly would never have been heard from any other American president of either party.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, Ukrainian leaders were at fault for the war for not agreeing to surrender territory and therefore, he suggested, they do not deserve a seat at the table for the peace talks that he has just initiated with Mr. Putin. “You should have never started it,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Ukrainian leaders who, in fact, did not start it. “You could have made a deal.”

Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, he went on: “You have a leadership now that’s allowed a war to go on that should have never even happened.” By contrast, Mr. Trump uttered not one word of reproach for Mr. Putin or for Russia. — NY Times, 19 Feb

What I'm arguing is that all such 'reductions' are themselves dependent on intellectual constructs.
— Wayfarer
our experience of sense-able reality is still dependent on the brain
— Wayfarer

So what? These don't doesn't falsify physicalism, and these don't imply alternatives are in any better position. — Relativist

the world is not simply given but is also constructed by the brain-mind. What I fault physicalism for is neglecting or failing to take into account this basic fact.
— Wayfarer
I disagree with the wording of the 1st sentence: it equivocates on "the world". There is an actual world, and then there is a concept of the world. There is some disconnect, of course. But there is also a connection: we exist within it. — Relativist

Physicalism accounts for both the actual world and it accounts for the existence of minds within it — Relativist

You could develop a metaphysical theory that includes abstract objects, but it's just another unprovable theory. — Relativist

Your theory also has shortcomings. You admitted to a huge one:

how could mind be an uncaused cause? Well, damned if I know
— Wayfarer — Relativist

we only recognize causal relationships because the mind imposes a framework of intelligibility on experience and so provides the basis on which judgements about causation are intelligible. In that sense, mind is prior to the physical explanations of phenomena, not in the temporal sense of pre-existing those phenomena, but in the ontological sense as being the ground of explanation itself. — Wayfarer

Further, you note that we don't know that we're seeing the world as it is, but that also applies to our the product of our self-reflection about the mind. — Relativist

For example, abstractions seem to exist, because we can reflect on abstractions. That doesn't establish that they necessarily exist outside our minds. This extends to all the allegedly nonphysical character of mind: it seems correct but can't be established as such. — Relativist

The "no government experience" line is meaningless for starters and is implying the auditors are not competent by inference. — philosch

Musk’s team of youngsters, as first reported by WIRED on Sunday, is Akash Bobba, 21, a student at the University of California, Berkeley; Edward Coristine, 19, a student at Northeastern University in Boston; and Ethan Shaotran, 22, who said in September he was a senior at Harvard.

The ones who actually have degrees, or at least have left college, are: Luke Farritor, 23, who attended the University of Nebraska without graduating; Gautier Cole Killian, a 24-year-old who attended McGill University; and Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old who attended Berkeley;

The group’s relative lack of experience—especially no previous positions in government work—has Democrats crying foul they were granted access to sensitive records while remaining largely in the shadows, away from public scrutiny.

All six desperately tried to cover their digital tracks recently, almost all of them deleting LinkedIn profiles, X accounts and even Facebook. — The Daily Beast

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have repeatedly affirmed Musk’s leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But according to a new court filing from the White House, the administrator of DOGE isn’t Elon Musk after all. Who is? No one knows. The White House won’t tell the public, an administration lawyer has reportedly said he had no idea, and even people who work for the US DOGE Service can’t get a straight answer.

On Monday evening, Joshua Fisher, the director of the White House Office of Administration, claimed Musk wasn’t actually in charge of the so-called department he has championed for months. Fisher issued a sworn statement in a lawsuit brought by the state of New Mexico and 13 other Democratic attorneys general accusing Musk of exercising authority beyond the scope of his role. Rather than serving as the DOGE administrator or an employee of DOGE at all, Fisher said, Musk’s formal role is “senior advisor” to the president with “no greater authority than other senior White House advisors.” This could make Musk’s authority and standing at USDS legally murky—especially as a number of lawsuits embroil the organization’s activities — Wired

It can also seen as the shrewd radical way to dismantle government bureaucracy. — ssu

I don't see how you can defend any of your metaphysical judgements. — Relativist

Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette (pictured) works at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group focused on reducing bureaucratic waste. He also happens to be blind. So when he criticized Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service in testimony on Capitol Hill last week, Musk unleashed an online attack Hedtler-Gaudette described as “surreal” in its juvenile bigotry.

First, Musk retweeted a post on X noting that the “blind director of watchdog group funded by George Soros testifies that he does not see widespread evidence of government waste” and added two laughing/crying emojis. The tweet garnered more than 21 million views, and sparked dozens of hateful messages to Hedtler-Gaudette’s account.

“He couldn’t see s--- … perfect excuse for being unable to perform your job,” one poster said. “The DEI blind guy can’t see fraud. U can’t make up this garbage,” another wrote. One person even called for posters to surface Hedtler-Gaudette’s bank account.

The episode illustrates how Musk’s unparalleled online reach has given him a powerful tool to attack individuals who criticize DOGE, with one post able to spark hundreds of blistering responses from his followers.

Last week, he amplified baseless claims about the judge who overturned Trump’s funding freeze on federal grants that named his government employee daughter. Musk has called for the dismissal of journalists who have written about DOGE, calling their actions “possibly criminal.” As he hunts for places to slash the federal bureaucracy, the billionaire has reposted the names and titles of individual government employees, insinuating they should be fired.

Digital rights experts say the situation has created an unprecedented imbalance in power. Musk’s massive online following, his ownership of a social media platform where he can dictate content moderation rules, and his position heading a government entity with access to private data, give him a unique ability to threaten those who question him and chill dissenting speech. — Washington Post

Physicalism accounts for the world at large first, and after that focuses on whether the mind can fit that paradigm. It can account for the mind, but it's not in the terms we generally apply to mental processes.
— Relativist

What you think the 'world at large' is, relies on and is dependent on a great many judgements that you will make when considering its nature. You might gesture at it as if it were obviously something completely separate from you, but the very fact of speaking about it reveals the centrality of your judgement as to what the 'world at large' is. Science as a whole is always concerned with judgements as to what is the case in particular applications, but philosophy is different, in that it considers and calls into question the nature of judgement itself, not judgement concerning this or that state of affairs. — Wayfarer

Physicalism accounts for the world at large first, and after that focuses on whether the mind can fit that paradigm. It can account for the mind, but it's not in the terms we generally apply to mental processes. — Relativist

And where is that 'external world' grounded, if not in the mind?
— Wayfarer

It's grounded In the actual world. Don't you agree one exists? — Relativist

That our minds would reflect the reality that IS, seems reasonable because we are products of that reality. — Relativist

This calls into question the grounding, but I think this can be plausibly accounted for in terms of the connection to the external world through our senses. — Relativist

In fact, what we regard as the physical world is “physical” to us precisely in the sense that it acts in opposition to our will and constrains our actions. The aspect of the universe that resists our push and demands muscular effort on our part is what we consider to be “physical”. On the other hand, since sensation and thought don’t require overcoming any physical resistance, we consider them to be outside of material reality. It is shown in the final chapter (Mind, Life and Universe) that this is an illusory dichotomy, and any complete account of the universe must allow for the existence of a nonmaterial component which accounts for its unity and complexity. — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order: How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics (p. 6)

If mind decides to raise the arm, that intent has to somehow connect to the brain to cause it to occur. This suggests that either the mind has some physical properties, or the brain has some non-physical properties. Which is it? Either way, it seems problematic. — Relativist

Meanings and logic are semantic relations, not ontological (except insofar as we make sense of things using our physical brains). — Relativist

An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon. — Relativist

how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? — Relativist

Memories are lost when brains are damaged from trauma or disease, suggesting memories are encoded in the brain. — Relativist

Life may be common throughout the Universe, and H.sapiens may not be the only example of something that can judge the world around it. In which case, being able to judge may be a natural expression of the nature of the world. — RussellA

Is it possible for a moral code to be intrinsically right, even though it may not give the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity? — RussellA

I think there are still enough votes in Congress to authorize more aid to Ukraine. — RogueAI

I am assuming that this trend is often connected to conservative thinking. — Tom Storm

And I'm saying, that your beliefs are respectable. When have I disrespected you? — Arcane Sandwich

Humans are animals after all. The human animal evolved from non-human animals. The human animal didn't appear ready-formed from nowhere. — RussellA

"Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for ‘large scale social deception,’” Musk proclaimed in an X post that has racked up more than 76,000 shares and 35 million views. “They’re a total scam. Just wow.” ...

The contract was real, but the Orwellian phrase Musk seized on to suggest a shadowy conspiracy wasn’t what it seems. A slightly closer look would have revealed that the contract, signed during President Donald Trump’s first term, was for help defending against cyberattacks — that is, combating deception, not fueling it. And it went to a separate division of the company, not the news agency.

Musk’s misinterpretation went viral, amplified by Trump as proof of corrupt ties between the “radical left” media and the “deep state.”

The Reuters brouhaha was the latest example of what is quickly becoming a familiar playbook as Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service sweeps through federal agencies for evidence of waste, fraud and corruption. However endemic federal misspending is, Musk has repeatedly misrepresented facts on X to bolster unfounded claims of wrongdoing. Like the U.S. Agency for International Development, Politico and others before it, Reuters has been cast as a villain in a narrative spun by Musk in which nefarious left-wing schemes lurk behind programs he targets for cuts — and those who stand in the way. The world’s richest man was tapped to lead the project on the premise that he would bring his private-sector business acumen to bear on bloated government budgets. But as the owner and most followed user of X, he has also wielded a social media bully pulpit and marshaled a crowd of online loyalists to disparage and discredit each agency, program and funding recipient he targets for cuts. In some cases, the truth has been collateral damage. ...

When his DOGE employees moved this month to wrest control of USAID, Musk took to X to call the organization “evil,” “criminal” and “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.” Instead of drawing on a long history of bipartisan concerns about misspending at the agency, Musk popularized false claims that USAID and other agencies were spending millions of dollars to fund the news outlet Politico, promising that the gravy train would be “deleted.” (In fact, the agencies were paying far smaller sums for subscriptions to the outlet’s “Pro” products, which provide specialized policy news to businesses and governments.) ...

With Musk using the social media platform he owns as a propaganda organ to promote his work for the Trump administration, “We’re seeing the emergence of state social media in the USA.” — Washington Post

Even if philosophical detachment doesn’t presuppose the division, does it arrive at it through some form of logical inference? — Mww

Are there good reasons, today, to burn a Quran? — flannel jesus

In TLP 6.421, does Wittgenstein write "Ethics is transcendent" or "Ethics is transcendental"?
What does Wittgenstein mean by "Ethics is transcendental"? (TLP 6.421)
Why are ethics transcendental rather than subjective or objective?
Why is conscience drawn to a transcendent source of ethics? — RussellA

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value—and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.

What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.

6.42 Hence also there can be no ethical propositions.
Propositions cannot express anything higher.

6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and æsthetics are one.)

P1 Assume that within nature there is an objective judgment of good or evil.
P2 Humans are part of nature.
P3 Each individual's judgment as to what is good or evil is particular to them and is subjective.
C1 As within nature there is an objective judgement of good and evil, yet only subjective judgments of what is good or evil within individual humans, humans are not aware of the objective judgment of good and evil. — RussellA

Evidently Wayfarer has found some sort of objective truth in the world as well as inside of his own brain. — Arcane Sandwich

In that case you will have to rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change evangelism". — Agree-to-Disagree