And you'd be like, "a real tree is not a BiV tree." But of course you'd be assuming that the tree you were pointing to was not a BiV tree. And that's the problem. There's no reason that you, the scientist, are not also a brain in a vat. The semantic externalism argument against BiV only goes through by assuming not BiV. — NotAristotle

It’s a real tree given what “real tree” means in my language.

The point still stands that if semantic externalism is true then none of the words in the brain’s language can refer to the vat.

Of course you could just deny semantic externalism, as I do.

The assumption that the body only keeps the brain alive and does not factor into phenomenal experience is a materialist form of dualism that ought to be dismissed as nonsense. — NOS4A2

If you prefer, consider instead a body in a vat. It’s the same principle. This person never sees trees, only “hallucinations”, but if the causal theory of reference is true then none of the words in its language can refer to (real) trees.

Given the causal theory of reference, the word “A” can only refer to some object B if that objects stands in a particular causal relationship to the word, e.g I see a B and intentionally coin the word “A” to refer to it.

I am a scientist and I have a human brain in a vat. The brain is conscious, much like me, except its experiences are elicited by a computer directly stimulating the sensory areas of the brain.

None of the words in this brain’s language can refer to the vat because the vat does not stand in the particular causal relationship that is required for it be the referent of a word. Every word in this brain’s language refers only to some feature of its artificial experiences. Even if it has a language that superficially resembles English, what it means by “brain in a vat” isn’t what I mean by “brain in a vat”. What it means by “brain in a vat” is what I mean by “simulated brain in a simulated vat”, and given that it isn’t a simulated brain in a simulated vat, the sentence “I am a brain in a vat” in its language is false.

But he assumes that we are not BiV in proving it. — NotAristotle

He starts by defending semantic externalism, then by trying to show that if semantic externalism is true then we cannot be brains in a vat, and so concludes that we are not brains in a vat.

His paper is an attempt to show that if semantic externalism is true then we cannot be brains in a vat, so it doesn’t make sense to claim that it’s question begging. You can argue that his reasoning isn’t valid, but that’s not that it begs the question.

What specifically is question-begging? The argument as I understand it is:

1. If metaphysical realism is true then we could be brains in a vat
2. If semantic externalism is true then we cannot be brains in a vat
3. Semantic externalism is true
4. Therefore metaphysical realism is false

It isn’t obvious to me that the conclusion is contained in one of the premises.

Doesn't semantic externalism require some kind of distinguishability? — NotAristotle

Semantic externalism is a consequence of the causal theory of reference. Words can only refer to things if these things have had some relevant causal affect on the development and use of these words.

If Neo is in the Matrix and there is a tree outside the Matrix then none of Neo's words can refer to this tree. What the word "tree" means and refers to for him isn't what the word "tree" means and refers to for those of us living outside the Matrix.

Given that if metaphysical realism is true then something like us living in the Matrix is possible, Putnam's argument is that metaphysical realism and semantic externalism are incompatible, and because he believes that semantic externalism is true he concludes that metaphysical realism is false.

It's been a bad couple of days for Trump.

Prosecutors: Trump Mar-a-Lago security aide flipped after changing lawyers

A Trump employee who monitored security cameras at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate abruptly retracted his earlier grand jury testimony and implicated Trump and others in obstruction of justice just after switching from an attorney paid for by a Trump political action committee to a lawyer from the federal defender’s office in Washington, prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday.

Georgia’s fake electors acted at Trump’s direction, indicted ex-GOP chair says

David Shafer, former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and one of the 19 defendants in the Georgia election interference case, claimed in a court filing that he and the other Republican electors who tried to falsely certify Donald Trump as the winner in Georgia were acting at the former president's behest.

Meadows told special counsel he could not recall Trump ever declassifying Mar-a-Lago docs

Appearing to contradict former President Donald Trump's primary public defense in the classified documents case, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has told special counsel Jack Smith's investigators that he could not recall Trump ever ordering, or even discussing, declassifying broad sets of classified materials before leaving the White House, nor was he aware of any "standing order" from Trump authorizing the automatic declassification of materials taken out of the Oval Office, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification necessitates the truth of the belief then the Gettier problem is no longer possible. — PL Olcott

The purpose of the Gettier problem is to show the limitation of the traditional JTB definition of knowledge.

If you define knowledge as something like certain true belief, as you seem to, then it would be immune to Gettier problems, but as a consequence much of what we think of as knowledge isn’t actually knowledge, and that might be an untenable consequence.

It's not clear.

Ass'n of Am. Physicians Surgeons v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

The anti-nepotism statute, moreover, may well bar appointment only to paid positions in government. See 5 U.S.C. § 3110(c). Thus, even if it would prevent the President from putting his spouse on the federal payroll, it does not preclude his spouse from aiding the President in the performance of his duties.

Although the Court didn't outright say that it is allowed, they seemed open to it.

Also there's 3 U.S. Code § 105 which says:

Subject to the provisons  of paragraph (2) of this subsection, the President is authorized to appoint and fix the pay of employees in the White House Office without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the Government service.

So it seems that the White House is an exception to the "Executive agencies" mentioned in 5 U.S. Code § 3110.

The wording suggests that they can be employed as volunteers just not as paid employees. If section b meant they can't be employed under any circumstances then there would be no need for section c.

The nepotism I was referring to happened in the 2016-2020 time frame when President Trump hired Jared and Ivanka in defiance of the anti-nepotism statute 5 U.S. Code § 3110. — GRWelsh

That statute only says that they can't be paid for the work, and I believe they weren't.

Are these the same indictments published before the grand jury got a chance to decide whether to indict him or not? Yes, yes they are. — NOS4A2

Not exactly. This case information file was posted and then removed. It seems to be an error given that the case number on it (23SC188945) is apparently unrelated to Trump.

My guess is that someone mistyped the case number and so when case 23SC188945 had its information posted it included the Trump file by mistake.

Another farce, almost like everyone is infected with the same disease, rendering their sense of justice impotent.

Or a simple mistake that does nothing to exonerate Trump from the crimes he is alleged to have committed.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909543/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf

At all times relevant to this Count of the Indictment, the Defendants, as well as others not
named as defendants, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia, and elsewhere. Defendants Donald John Trump, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, John Charles Eastman, Mark Randall Meadows, Kenneth John Chesebro, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Jenna Lynn Ellis, Ray Stallings Smith III, Robert David Cheeley, Michael A. Roman, David James Shafer, Shawn Micah Tresher Still, Stephen Cliffgard Lee, Harrison William Prescott Floyd, Trevian C. Kutti, Sidney Katherine Powell, Cathleen Alston Latham, Scott Graham Hall, Misty Hampton, unindicted co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, constituted criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-lawyers-challenge-limits-evidence-sharing-prosecutors-warn-threats-2023-08-11/

Federal prosecutors revealed on Friday that they intend to soon release to Trump's defense team 11.6 million pages and records of evidence, in addition to a hard drive containing images extracted from electronic devices.

That's a lot of evidence.

I don’t know how that number could be real :chin:

I said it didn’t seem like much of a crime — NOS4A2

Meaning he only broke the law a little? Or that the laws he broke shouldn’t be laws at all?

Either way it isn't a fallacy to appeal to the law when discussing whether or not Trump broke the law.

Yeah, I am aware they are illegal according to law and will be prosecuted by lawyers. According to law it was once legal to own human beings. That's why its a fallacy to appeal to law, and you're consistently guilty of it. — NOS4A2

It's a fallacy to appeal to the law when arguing over whether or not someone broke the law?

What are you smoking?

??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury? — EricH

I was being sarcastic as a passive-aggressive jab at NOS4A2's defence of Trump.

Bannon will likely testify that Trump had a scheme in place to claim the election was stolen if he was losing. That Trump, Bannon, Stone, etc. all talked about it and went forward with it. Wouldn't you agree that would be very damning? What do you think a jury would think of such testimony? — RogueAI

Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime.

There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity. — NOS4A2

That you know of. They know more than you. They believe they have evidence, hence the indictment.

No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. — NOS4A2

That's precisely what the prosecution will try to do in court. They believe they have the evidence to do so, hence the indictment.

You seem to be suggesting that they must prove to the public their case before the trial even starts? That's not how the legal system works. You're putting the cart before the horse.

"Creator," in my context, means perceived "close simulation of 'creator of the universe.'" — ucarr

How is it a simulation of the creator of the universe?

This state of affairs will lead logically to an ever, upwardly-evolving teleology that, after enough time, will resemble a cosmic teleology that can, with reason, be called a creator. — ucarr

Not sure what you mean by "a creator" here. It certainly can't mean "the creator of the universe".

On December 6, the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 called the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee to ensure that the plan was in motion. During the call, CoConspirator 2 told the Chairwoman that it was important for the RNC to help the Defendant's Campaign gather electors in targeted states, and falsely represented to her that such electors' votes would be used only if ongoing litigation in one of the states changed the results in the Defendant's favor. After the RNC Chairwoman consulted the Campaign and heard that work on gathering electors was underway, she called and reported this information to the Defendant, who responded approvingly.

...

On [December 14], at the direction of the Defendant and Co-Conspirator 1, fraudulent
electors convened sham proceedings in the seven targeted states to cast fraudulent electoral ballots in favor of the Defendant. In some states, in order to satisfy legal requirements set forth for legitimate electors under state law, state officials were enlisted to provide the fraudulent electors access to state capitol buildings so that they could gather and vote there. In many cases, however, as Co-Conspirator 5 had predicted in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, the fraudulent electors were unable to satisfy the legal requirements.

Nonetheless, as directed in the Fraudulent Elector Instructions, shortly after the fraudulent electors met on December 14, the targeted states' fraudulent elector certificates were mailed to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and others. The Defendant and co-conspirators ultimately used the certificates of these fraudulent electors to deceitfully target the government function, and did so contrary to how fraudulent electors were told they would be used.

...

That evening, at 6:26 p.m., the RNC Chairwoman forwarded to the Defendant, through his executive assistant, an email titled, "Electors Recap - Final," which represented that in "Six Contested States"—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— the Defendant's electors had voted in parallel to Biden's electors. The Defendant's executive assistant responded, "It's in front of him!"

I'm not going to quote all 45 pages for you. Read it yourself. The above was simply an example of them having evidence of a criminal conspiracy of which Trump was a party.

What it’s doing is criminalizing Trump’s beliefs and his legal counsel, so now the first amendment is thrown under the bus. — NOS4A2

They're not criminalising his beliefs and legal counsel. His conspiracy to use fraudulent electors is a crime:

The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states ... attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.

The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. — NOS4A2

Some of the evidence is described in the indictment. For example:

On December 13, the Defendant asked the Senior Campaign Advisor for an update on "what was going on" with the elector plan and directed him to "put out [a] statement on electors." As a result, Co-Conspirator 1 directed the Senior Campaign Advisor to join a conference call with him, Co-Conspirator 6, and others. When the Senior Campaign Advisor related these developments in text messages to the Deputy Campaign Manager, a Senior Advisor to the Defendant, and a Campaign staffer, the Deputy Campaign Manager responded, "Here's the thing the way this has morphed it's a crazy play so I don't know who wants to put their name on it." The Senior Advisor wrote, "Certifying illegal votes." In turn, the participants in the group text message refused to have a statement regarding electors attributed to their names because none of them could "stand by it."

The actual evidence itself will be presented at trial.

The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:

a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.

b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.

c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

d. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.

e. After it became public on the afternoon of January 6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd— including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results— violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.

Are you saying that he didn't do these things or that these things aren't crimes?

Now we’re on the road to criminalizing political speech because a man dared to doubt the results of an election. — NOS4A2

These are the actual laws he's alleged to have broken:

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to defraud the United States

18 U.S. Code § 1512(k) - Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding

18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) - Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

He's not being prosecuted for doubting the results of the election. He's being prosecuted for conspiring to overturn the results of the election.

To quote Bill Barr from here:

"As the indictment says, they're not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better.

"But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy," he added. "All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy."

You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. — NOS4A2

You do not know that Relativist does not know that Trump knowingly made false claims. You know you don't know because you in fact cannot read minds.

More fake word crimes — NOS4A2

What does this mean? That he didn’t commit the crimes he’s been indicted for or that the criminal statutes cited in the indictment don’t exist?

Indictment

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Conspiracy Against Rights

Whereas https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/trump-indictment-justice-department.html

When Donald J. Trump responded to his latest indictment by promising to appoint a special prosecutor if he’s re-elected to “go after” President Biden and his family, he signaled that a second Trump term would fully jettison the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence.

“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., on Tuesday night after his arraignment earlier that day in Miami. “I will totally obliterate the Deep State.”

Such a hypocrite.

It will be interesting to see what this latest indictment is for. — NOS4A2

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/special-counsels-target-letter-trump-2020-election-probe-cites-three-f-rcna95096

The letter that former President Donald Trump received from special counsel Jack Smith informing him that he is a target of the federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election mentions three federal statutes related to the deprivation of rights, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and tampering with a witness.

This indictement is the Big One. All the others are serious, for sure, but even being charged with attempting to prevent the transition of power must be seen as enormously consequential. I mean, really, how could someone under indictment for trying to subvert the Presidential election realistically run for President? 2024 is going to be one hell of a year in US politics. — Wayfarer

I'd say Georgia is more important. If Trump wins the next election then he's obviously going to pardon himself. Or if another Republican wins then they might pardon him.

Trump says he expects indictment in 2020 election probe

Former US President Donald Trump has said he expects to be arrested by a federal investigation into the January 6 riot at the Capitol and efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

...

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump claimed that he had been sent a letter "stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation, and giving me a very short 4 days to report to the Grand Jury, which almost always means an Arrest and Indictment."

So the case consists of an accusation by an unknown source, of unknown reliability. Fox News has reported:

“Sources said the Burisma executive appears to be at a "very, very high level" of the company. One source familiar suggested the confidential source could be referring to the head of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, but said the name of the Burisma executive is redacted in the document.” — Relativist

GOP had evidence disproving Biden bribery claims in 2019, top Democrat says

But according to a transcript of an interview with Mr Zlochevsky which Giuliani associate Lev Parnas provided to Congress during the first impeachment of Mr Trump, the Burisma founder said years ago that his company never had any contact with the elder Mr Biden.

In his letter, Mr Raskin wrote that the Ukrainian executive “explicitly and unequivocally denied” the allegations of bribery. He said Mr Zlochevsky also “denied (1) that anyone at Burisma had “any contacts” with then former Vice President Biden or his representatives while Hunter Biden served on the Burisma board, and (2) that former Vice President Biden or his staff “in any way” assisted Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma”.

‘Whistleblower’ who accused Bidens of corruption is charged with arms trafficking and violating Iran sanctions

A “whistleblower” who has repeatedly accused the Bidens of corruption has been charged by the Justice Department with arms trafficking, acting as a foreign agent for China and violating Iran sanctions.

Gal Luft, who is a citizen of both the United States and Israel, is accused of paying a former adviser to Donald Trump on behalf of principals in China in 2016 without registering as a foreign agent.

Prosecutors say that Mr Luft pushed the former government employee, who is not named, to push policies that were favourable to China.

They also allege that he set up meetings between officials of Iran and a Chinese energy company to discuss oil deals, which would violate US sanctions.

They also alleged that Mr Luft “conspired with others and attempted to broker illicit arms transactions with, among others, certain Chinese individuals and entities” by working as a middleman to find both buyers and sellers for “certain weapons and other materials” in violation of the US Arms Control Act.

Clearly this is just Biden getting revenge.

I appreciate the reply but I’ve run out of motivation and am going to end my involvement with this. I wouldn’t change my bet, so I’m a committed halfer. I don’t think any number of analogies are going to convince me to change my bet in that specific case.

If a die rolls a 6 then Sleeping Beauty is woken six times otherwise she is woken once. When woken what is her credence that the die rolled a 6?

Halfers have to say $1\over6$ and thirders have to say $6\over11$.

Before she is first put to sleep she is to bet on whether or not the die will roll a 6 – paid out at the end of the experiment – and each time she is woken she is allowed to change her bet.

If she bets according to her credence then both halfers and thirders have to say that before she is first put to sleep she will bet that the die will not roll a 6.

Thirders then have to say that when woken she will change her bet and bet that the die did roll a 6.

Are thirders willing to commit to their position and change their bet?

No, the prior probability that she will be woken on Tuesday, and the coin landed Heads, is 1/4. — JeffJo

The rules of the experiment say that she won’t be woken on Tuesday if the coin lands heads. That means that the prior probability that she will be woken on Tuesday and the coin lands heads is 0.

P(Heads, woken on Tuesday) = P(Heads) × P(woken on Tuesday|Heads) = 1/2 × 0 = 0.

Just look at how you calculated the probability of waking up in my experiment. It’s the same reasoning.