Total superstition. It could be argued that on select occasions it can be used as a heuristic , but it guarantees nothing and realistically does nothing. But even here, it's worse than a placebo, as it distorts reality and may make you think something is working when it's just stuff happening.

Welcome to Night Vale by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Cranor

The True Intellectual System of the Universe Volume I by Ralph Cudworth

The only (somewhat) intelligible formulation of "physicalism" is whatever physics says, is all there is. So we should stick to what physics says about everything.

That has the unfortunate tendency to leave out almost everything that is of importance to human beings, once we introduce much higher levels of complexity than things seen in physics. It's also important to remember that what physics says now, will not be what physics says in a few years, if the field continues growing that is.

In any case, I don't see why "physicalism" has to be associated with physics. It can be a monist claim which states that EVERYTHING is physical, including consciousness. This doesn't force physicalism to physics, it merely points out how baffling physical stuff can be.

But that's not sticking here. So whatever the debate is supposed to be about, is not of much substance, in my opinion, unless one considers eliminitavism seriously, which is hard to take as being plausible or even coherent.

No actually, revelation and empirical investigation are often at odds. One issue here is that the word "revelation" can be used in several ways, I have in mind two of them.

One meaning of the word is tied with religion, which is what I think you are hinting at. If used in this way, then we would still be using Aristotelean physics.

The other would be more ordinary usage of the word, in such a manner that you have a sudden insight into a problem you previously struggled with. How or why this happens is not at all clear, but, it doesn't signal the existence of divinity in any way.

You'd have to provide some criteria which could be applied to God alone (and not something else) which could be investigated.

If our intelligence were God given, as you say, this would have to be treated as an empirical fact about the world, but I don't see any evidence as to why this should be believed.

I think we have to assume there are things absent us, otherwise we take up radical solipsism. Nevertheless, it's still a very difficult problem to think about clearly.

:roll:

Well, I mean, replace "Russia" with "USA" and you can find very similar claims by the US concerning Iraq.

But it's clear propaganda. Of course, the US is a real super power in terms of military might and global reach, but Russia is a regional power and has the most nukes.

Chomsky has condemned this Russian war clearly and unequivocally.

That's true, "objectivity" isn't really attainable - I perhaps meant to say somewhat less propagandistic.

It's been a while since I've read the New Yorker, I'll check it out.

NPR... ehhhh, I'll pass. But still, many sources it's appreciated. :up:

I have been seeing Al-Jazeera for this reason, but you've given me a few more.

I wish I could access different channels, my country offers CNN, FOX and BBC.

The BBC has really gone downhill quality wise these last two decades or so, a real shame.

Thanks!

It's the same issue again. I have serious doubts concerning Western coverage of the war, certainly Russia has committed serious war crimes in Ukraine, but in so far as the advance to Kiev or how the Russian army is doing - I believe not too well - I'm unclear.

Of course, RT and Pravda are pure propaganda now, very easy for all to see.

Anyone here recommend a source for this?

Great post :up:

I'd only add that, so far Europe has said that they aren't planning to sanction energy coming from Russia, doesn't mean they won't some time down the line. Unlikely, but not impossible.

The issue is one of time: how long can Russia withstand the sanctions before Ukraine surrenders?

Also, this dragging on will kill more and more innocent civilians, which is morally corrupt and also very bad PR for Russia, as if they need any more.

Every single hawk right now is salivating at the prospects of selling more weapons and some in the US are even considering implementing a no-fly zone. Which can't happen, unless they want to die.

If they take Kiev, either the West escalates even more or it will have to negotiate.

Plans to send war planes to Ukraine from the US are spine chilling.

To be crystal clear, Ukrainian's are more than justified in defending themselves and are doing so very bravely.

It's just hard to say how Russia will interpret such actions - if they are carried out. They obviously simply cannot have a conventional war in Europe, they can't handle Ukraine, so...

It's somewhat difficult to find accurate info amid this mess. I assume that the reason Kiev is not yet taken has to do with its resistance, but, what whatever happened to that long Russian convoy that was supposed to arrive?

It's unclear how long Kiev will last, any info on this topic would be appreciated.

One lacks a proper vocabulary in these instances...

Bombs thrown in Russia and the US will spill to China. It will likely set off a chain reaction, in either case, the radiation and change in temperature would kill off almost everyone.

Being passive is one thing, racing towards WWIII is beyond words.

All of them are mega criminals, all of them. What a way to go…

We are lacking in leaders worldwide. These folks are insane.

Man, yes, Russia has legitimate historical grievances w/ West. This Ukraine invasion is a war crime. Both are facts. The problem that I see, is that these sanctions are going to fuck up MANY countries that have nothing to do with the war and are leaving less room for Russia to negotiate without them having to rely on nukes. That’s my worry.

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!?

US works with Poland to provide Ukraine with fighter jets: https://www.ft.com/content/2f1f0944-ceab-4042-93bd-63c2d863a75f

:up:

He's very sharp.

Was looking for this, came out two days ago, but, worth a read. He's the best one of them all, but I'm quite biased.

Chomsky's take on the issue:

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

Yes, it was fake news on my part, can't find a source. Very sorry about posting that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, the fallout of the nuclear weapon use would be what would assure most of us would die.

Anything can happen in this war though the brunt of the sanctions will be felt in a few weeks. Either the Ukraine "mission" is finished or they're going to be extremely squeezed. NATO is not going to apply a no fly zone, they know what this would entail. But if they send more troops to the Ukraine border, or close to it, it's very risky.

Save for China mostly, and perhaps India, Russia is very isolated. It's going to have to be a kind of "Cuban Missile Crisis" solution - each side can claim "victory" of some sort. If that's denied to Russia, or they can't find a way to turn the situation into a "success", then it will be very dangerous. Heck, it's already dangerous now.

Let's cross our fingers we can avoid catastrophe.

Well, given human psychology, it's simply not possible to always call or even interpret a bluff. You may get it right, say, 10 times in a row, but not always - it's not sustainable.

My view would be to get rid of all of them, we already have plenty of ways of destroying each other with good old fashion bombs.

But that's not the reality of this situation. Heck, if this war weren't being done by a nuclear power, I'm almost certain that it would not be making huge news all over. But it is, so, it's what we've got to deal with when talking about this issue.

Yes. The usual argument is well X person (or country) wouldn't want their families killed.

Sure. But then why even have nukes at all? Surely X wouldn't want some accident to happen that would kill their family.

It's irrelevant. Reading one move wrongly or confusing a bluff with something else suffices.

That's a great film.

If something good can come out of this disaster, it's that people are once again aware of the threat of nuclear war and how we could all perish with the push of a few buttons.

But - and this is important - if Russia is not given a way out, in terms of diplomatic "saving face" gesture of sorts, we could be in real trouble.

Many people (not necessarily here) often take talk of this kind to be silly or extravagant or fantasy, but it isn't, the MAD nuclear policy is still here and very dangerous.

All it takes in one mistake.

As far as I've read, they matched Russia's nuclear threat level. But cancelling drills is definitely smart, something Trump or a Republican would likely not do, given how insane the Republicans are.

What I am questioning is the extent of the sanctions. I understand there needs to be a response to aggression, but kicking Russia off all sports and getting most of the banking system of SWIFT - minus energy - is a gamble, I think.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/ukraine-on-edge-as-russia-continues-its-assault-liveblog

US postpones ballistic missile test to avoid escalation: Pentagon

“In an effort to demonstrate that we have no intention in engaging in any actions that can be misunderstood or misconstrued, the decretary of defense has directed that our Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test launch scheduled for this week to be postponed,” Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told reporters.

“We did not take this decision lightly, but instead to demonstrate that we are a responsible nuclear power.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsure if this is a PR move or not, but it's smart. It shows some glimmer of non-aggression. Not clear if these sanctions are going to end up helping or not.

It's going to be interesting to see what China ends up doing, or if stays as is.

Of course. But then the question would be whether he ought to be allowed to have his way in Ukraine to avoid nuclear war, which would be the end for everyone. I'm not saying he ought to be allowed to have his way, but this seems to be the dilemma.

If all that would be required is a guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, would that be too great a price to pay to avoid nuclear war? — Janus

Herein lies the dilemma. Some sanctions seem to justified, but having FIFA kick out Russia out of the football team is extremely ugly. There has to be a modicum of reason, you shouldn't punish everything Russia related, it will only add fuel to the fire.

Of course, if the West lets Putin take Ukraine, then it sets a nasty precedent. On the other hand, the end of the world is very, very much a worse option.

It's a delicate balance, but, I'd take it easier with the sanctions by now. If everybody plays the "strong man" politician card, we're fucked.

Should have said, thanks for sharing. Very interesting hearing non-Western perspectives, gives a more accurate picture of the situation.

Of course not. The problem is not giving room for diplomacy as these sanctions begin to cripple Russia.

It's now an issue of how quickly things play out.

I'm not so confident this nuclear threat is a bluff. It better be, but, things look complex no matter what source you look at.

Historical context can help people understand the why, but that in itself is not a justification.

The issue is if the weapons arrive in time before Ukraine is destroyed completely. Arming civilians sounds nice and brave but it sets them up to be massacred.



I've heard about this too and it's highly probable. And troops lost is part of the story, the other part are the sanctions, which are brutal.

They have to measure severity of sanctions vs. putting Russia in a position in which it sees it has no escape other than a massive escalation of this war.

Agreed.

I hope cool heads prevail.

This week might prove crucial, depending on how much more resistance Ukraine has left.

I know it's totally beyond my control - 100%. I don't think I ever been as scared for the world as now.

Maybe I'm being paranoid. But, this is really, really bad.

At this point in the situation yes, the stakes are too high.

When we are facing a situation as horrifying as this, we should try to think for a way out of this mess.

Obviously this means diplomacy. IF that works, then we can argue about history and who is or is not a maniac or who is evil or whatever.

Sure, listen I'm not going to dispute that. I don't know the history in anywhere near the level of detail as you (and others) do.

What I can say, is that the situation now is so tense and difficult, that, for the rest of the world, these facts don't matter. For some Russians, sure, though not all - as seen by the protestors in Moscow.

We are at the brink of something akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and while I maintain that this could have easily been avoided if NATO had not been expanding since the collapse of the Soviet Union, from this point on, it's about trying to see if there's any way out of this conflict that could serve in a way to save face for most involved.

Tomorrow Russia's economy will scream. I did not expect such a strong reaction from the West, and probably nor did other Russian elites, Putin included.

The way it looks to someone from the outside is, this one country is willing to bring the whole world down for some piece of land few people care about? And you just won't get enough people caring about the history, even if it helps elucidate why this is happening.

Why should someone in, say, Latin America or India care about this history?

So, I see your angle, but, by at this stage, too much is at stake.