You're not going to get that -- welcome to the Middle East. You are never going to get your request here. To think that anyone can come from outside to set all the facts and all the history straight is white man savior syndrome. — BitconnectCarlos

Ha, ha, this is hilarious, and so true. I plead guilty to white man savior syndrome myself. However, I blame that all on the Jews. :-) It was you guys who invented the Catholicism that saturated my youth, thus imposing the white man savior meme on what was once, long ago, an innocent young mind.

And so, like any young punk anywhere, we white men Christian saviors are coming down off the cross to yell at our parents, the Jews, and "teach" you things that you already knew many many years before we were born. Yes, personally I'm an old white man, but culturally, I'm just a formerly Catholic young punk. I might have to dye my hair green to make this clear.

My personal background is irrelevant to the argument forwarded. — Benkei

But it has everything to do with the credibility of the source. You want everyone to take your concern seriously, but you decline to provide evidence which would demonstrate that concern. You also decline to admit there is no such evidence, which increasingly seems likely. So, it's reasonable to conclude, you aren't concerned, nor are you honest. And so the question arises, why should we read and respond to propaganda posted by what appears to be an unreliable source?

You assume my goal is to bash one side — Benkei

That's overwhelming obvious to everyone, except to you.

Even if it was an accurate personal attack it is still irrelevant — Benkei

If we don't actually care that much about the innocents, that's irrelevant to an outrage based conservation about those innocents? If it's true that we don't really care, then wouldn't it add additional clarity to honestly brand this conversation as a form of casual entertainment? Isn't adding additional clarity kinda what philosophy is supposed to be about?

I agree that a claim that we don't care is debatable, which is why I keep asking for evidence to the contrary.

I've tried to explain the relevance. If we are locked in a repetitive pattern of addictive conflict behavior in political threads here on this forum, that at least raises the question of whether the same phenomena is at play in the MiddleEast. Here's why. We're human. So are they.

To the degree participants are fighting because they enjoy fighting, then any solution we might cook up is not likely to be very helpful. If true, it would add clarity to know that. If false, it would add clarity to know that too.

There is an entity and an environment, and said entity prioritizes itself in some manner over the environment, and intelligence is this capacity to store information and change future behavior in similar circumstances based upon said information. — Moliere

Good description, thanks. Yes, the usual understanding of intelligence is entity based.

The bacteria, upon re-encountering a threat it has met before, will recognize it and defend itself, and this is all pretty well understood in physical terms. — Moliere

Yes, and the interesting bit here, imho, is that we are discussing bacteria. They have no brain, no nervous system. And yet, they learned how to do CRISPR type operations maybe a billion years before a Nobel Prize winning scientist. And so we might claim that intelligence existed long before the evolution of higher life forms.

Does it make sense to say intelligence without their being an agent? — Mystic

This is a good question. I agree that I'm am likely bending the word "intelligence" beyond it's agreed upon meaning. I could say, "Luke, trust The Force!", but that's already taken. :-)

We are entering a quicksand swamp here, because nouns are specifically designed to create a conceptual division, and I'm attempting to refer to a single unified reality. I believe this problem has been discussed for thousands of years in the field of religion, and Wayfarer would likely be our best source on that history.

When a claim is made, like most, I prefer to understand what the evidence for that claim might be. — Tom Storm

The evidence I'm attempting to offer is that we have often seen division where it doesn't actually exist. Space and time, two words, one thing. Energy and matter, two words, one thing. Mind and body, two words, one thing. This proves nothing, it just raises interesting questions like...

Life and death. Two words. One thing?

Intelligence and matter. Two words. One thing?

Key to such an analysis (imho) is the nature of how our minds work.

My claim would be that the mind works by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts (ie. nouns). This is the source of our genius, as we can now re-arrange the conceptual parts in our minds to form new visions of reality which don't yet exist in the real world. That is, we can be creative.

The price tag for this awesome power is that this process generates distortion by imposing a pattern of division on reality. We tend to mistake the pattern for the reality. And, this process of division tends to make us somewhat insane, because this division process creates the human experience of being divided from reality.

Life eats, shits, reproduces, dies. There are different functions a particular organism must perform or fulfill in order to be counted as life. — Moliere

Yes, that's what life does. The question being asked here is, what is the source of these functions? Particularly for example, in the case of primitive life forms such as bacteria.

We could answer evolution is the source, which is agreeable here. But that just kicks the can down the road. Now we have to ask, what is the source of evolution's intelligent-like behavior?

Evolution may be a good example to focus on, because evolution isn't a creature or a life form. Evolution, like the laws of physics, is very real, and yet doesn't exist in the sense of having weight, mass, location etc. Evolution is not a "thing". And yet, evolution performs a function that we would label as highly intelligent, if we were the authors of evolution.

One way to explain this could be to propose that intelligence, like the laws of physics, is embedded in the nature of reality.

Which means, seeking out counter-factuals, things and people which will oppose your ideas. The only way to make them stand up to criticism is to have them criticised and to take criticism seriously. — Wayfarer

Well, here am I, on a philosophy forum, where "here's what's wrong with that" is the cultural norm. :-)

As we've discussed, I did precisely what you've suggested on Doudna's (leading gene editing expert) Facebook page. I specifically and politely suggested to them that they use my challenges as practice for refining their own case, and vice versa. They politely declined, and then erased all my posts. That is, they are scientists, not philosophers. This is completely normal routine human behavior, and scientists are human too. I've been booted, banned and ignored on more science sites than I can count.

Philosophy forums are a rare phenomena. The vast majority of human communities are tribes, especially online. Effective challenges to the group consensus of any tribe have to be somehow removed because they threaten the glue that holds the tribe together.

Experts are the least likely to accept any new insight, because they have a huge investment in the status quo. They particularly can not afford to be observed publicly learning anything from non-experts. If it could be convincingly shown that gene editing is an existential threat, what is Doudna supposed to do? Turn in her Phd, give back the Nobel, and become a carpenter?

Setting all that aside, the larger point is that the knowledge explosion is perhaps best seen as a force of nature. We aren't driving it, we're riding it. This claim seems relevant to this thread because if intelligence is embedded in the fabric of reality as is being proposed here, arguing with it's evolution might be equivalent to trying to argue with the laws physics.

(Or, if they did they just would have made everyone sick.) — Wayfarer

Yes, I didn't want to alarm everyone, but that's the next step if they aren't given the @#$^%^ award, and they mean, right now!!!

Because they couldn’t have turned up at the award ceremony? — Wayfarer

Oh, what a bad little biologist you're turning out to be. :-) Bacteria coat every surface everywhere, except in very carefully sanitized situations. Betty and Bob Bacteria are crawling all over the podium at the Nobel ceremony, patiently waiting for the Committee to recognize them as the original inventors of CRISPR. :-)

Actually, it’s amazing that there isn’t more of an outcry about it. — Wayfarer

Agreed. My theory is that gene editing still too abstract a topic. When there's a donkey in the zoo with four heads, when we can see it instead of just think about it, the cultural ground may shift. Or maybe not. The "science clergy" as I've taken to calling them, have a pretty firm grip on the throne of authority. And, that's because they can deliver a great many goodies, as they will using gene editing too.

I think if you read up on it, you’re in a good position to be a ‘citizen activist’ about this subject, and it sure needs attention. — Wayfarer

Well, to be honest, I've largely lost faith in the audience, and discuss these things mostly because I'm addicted to thinking and typing. To put it another way, the knowledge explosion is a force of nature, a phenomena perhaps beyond the control of human beings, like a hurricane if you will, or a comet. It's going to do whatever it's going to do, and we're just along for the ride. And, at age 69, I'm at that point where I have one foot out the door, so to speak. This is my current list of excuses, to be updated as necessary. :-)

Right! But understand how this would be treated if you proposed it in, say, postgrad biology. — Wayfarer

Yes, I hear you, I entirely agree this is speculation which I'm unable to prove. I'm attempting to make a logical case, based on previous misunderstandings regarding where we saw two things that were really one. I can't prove the point, but maybe I can demonstrate that further speculation is warranted?

Also, you’re not talking ‘phenomena’. Phenomena are ‘what appears’. If ‘intelligence’ is something ‘behind’ everything, something that causes, then by definition, it’s not phenomena - it’s what causes phenomena. That’s a distinction that needs to be made. — Wayfarer

To engage the point, if matter=intelligence, and intelligence=matter, then the phenomena I'm describing does appear, in the form of matter, or perhaps just life.

I'm not proposing intelligence as something behind everything, such as is often done with the God concept.

1) I'm proposing intelligence _IS_ everything.

2) And, that the divisions we perceive between "things" is an illusion generated by the way our minds work.

Thanks for your ongoing participation. It's obvious you've been exploring topics like this for a long time, so it's fun to hear from you.

Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc2, establishes the equivalence of matter and energy, but where does ‘intelligence’ fit into that? — Wayfarer

It may not, I'm obviously speculating in every direction, and unable to prove anything.

What interests me is the way our minds impose a pattern of division on reality. So for example, we saw a division between energy and matter (thus the two nouns) that doesn't really exist. We saw a division between space and time, which apparently also doesn't exist. Mind and body may be another example. There may be countless examples. And so, one wonders if an apparent division between intelligence and life, or intelligence and matter, is yet another form of illusion.

In current theory, intelligence is a product of living beings — Wayfarer

That's what I'm questioning. Are living things the television station, the source of intelligence? Or the television set, the receiver of intelligence?

The typical conception is that natural selection rewarded intelligence and so primitive life evolved in to advanced life, as defined by the phenomena of intelligence. But then we have bacteria, which are performing complex data management operations which seem reasonably labeled intelligent. As we've discussed, Jennifer Doudna learned how to make CRISPR from bacteria. Why didn't they get the Nobel instead of her?? :-)

But the clear and present danger to life and safety is clearly the Israeli state, which has been running a regime of terror for decades now. — StreetlightX

Ok, what I'm asking us to explore, and I agree none of us can predict the future...

If the "reign of terror" were to end, what would replace it?

One Palestinian state? Two? Then what?

Or, if Israel made all those living in Gaza and the West Bank full citizens of Israel, does that really solve anything? Or would the conflict continue in some other form, perhaps including the kind of political violence now rearing it's head in the currently existing Israel?

I don't really have a point, I'm just wondering if any re-arrangement of the chairs will stop those determined to live in conflict from doing so.

More on cloning - scary article from The New Atlantis — Wayfarer

Thanks, I had vague knowledge of that, but it's good to see an article which spells it out in more detail. My prediction is that at some point there will be a tidal wave of public opposition to gene editing. It's too abstract for the common guy and gal to engage now, but as example, if/when somebody produces some bizarre creature which we can observe in a more concrete manner, it's going to trigger something primal in the human psyche. Looks like science is rushing in that direction as fast as it can.

In Purpose and Desire, Turner pursues his argument that homeostasis demands “at least rudimentary forms of cognition and intentionality,” the ability to recognize and purposefully respond to environmental conditions.

Yes, well, the bacteria example seems to illustrate this claim pretty well. I still find that fascinating.

The question of whether what we call intelligence also inhabits non-life reality is an interesting one. Your post might help us divide this theory in to life vs. non-life.

If intelligence is not something different than matter, the way space is not different than time, then we could propose all of reality is made of this phenomena, whatever one wants to call it.

Your question describes universal "Intelligence" as-if it is something "out there in Nature", like Energy — Gnomon

You're mention of energy seems very useful, thank you for that. Here's why...

I've been suggesting that what we call intelligence, and matter, may be not two things but one. That is, two different words for the same thing. United in reality, divided conceptually.

Isn't this the case with energy and matter? Isn't matter just one of the expressions of energy?

Not sure about any of this, but I'd never thought of the relevance of energy/matter to this discussion, so thanks.

Space/time may be another example. We have two different words "space" and "time" because we've long assumed these to be two different phenomena, thus we created two different nouns. If I understand Einstein at all, he seems to be saying that space and time are really the same thing, and the difference we perceive between them is an illusion created by our minds. Well, that last part might be me and not Einstein, not sure.

Your inability to keep on topic is no one's problem but yours. Further posts to that effect will be deleted. — StreetlightX

Yes, I understand, the discussion has to be tightly controlled to prevent the inclusion of any analysis which is inconvenient to your position. Ok, I don't object, I'm not going to fight anyone for control of a thread as silly as this one.

To stop evictions in Palestinian neighbourhoods.
To stop teargassing Islamic holy sites.
To stop practising apartheid on Arabs in Israeli controlled territory. — StreetlightX

So you're suggesting that Israel retain control over the West Bank and Gaza, but lighten up on that control? Do I understand that correctly, or have I misunderstood? Apartheid-lite?

My understanding is that the Palestinians want their own state. Do you support that goal? If yes, how do you imagine that working out?

Hamas wants Jews to leave the Middle East so that all of Palestine would then be
controlled by Arabs. Do you support that goal? If yes, how do you imagine that working out?

What I mean is, if Palestinians got exactly what they want, would they then be in a better situation than they are now? Or would they instead be trading one oppressor for another?

I don't claim to know, but my best guess, based on the readily available evidence from all over the Arab world is that a Palestinian state would be yet another repressive Arab dictatorship. If Palestinians are seeking that experience, it seems it is already readily available in a variety of near by countries, Syria for example.

Nothing to add, I see, but an attempt at character assassination — Benkei

If my post was indeed just an inaccurate personal attack, then it should be easy to prove that by linking to your Syria threads. If such threads exist, then I'm wrong about my evaluation of your behavior here, and will be happy to say so.

The Assad regime is off-topic — Baden

The point of that sidebar was to investigate the degree to which any of us are actually interested in the welfare of innocent Arab victims. If the evidence reveals we're not actually interested (as I suggest) then this thread can be seen as an exercise in the pursuit of conflict for the sake of conflict. If true, it's possible this psychological phenomena has some relevance to what's been unfolding in the Middle East. My guess is that the MidEast conflict is some mix of a sincere dispute over competing claims, and a feedback loop of conflict addiction, just as we typically see in political threads on any forum.

Imho, declaring the Assad regime off topic, while clearly being a right belonging to the mods, is really just an attempt to sweep under the rug the reality that we don't really care that much about innocent Arab victims. As I keep saying, this could be proven wrong with links to existing Syria threads which display outrage in proportion to the crimes unfolding there. Should such threads exist, that would be good news which I would welcome.

Please show me an example, and explain in what ways it is flawed. — counterpunch

I already did that by demonstrating that scientists too are capable of making questionable decisions.

Scientists are people. People tend to be FUBAR.

I'm not a teenage girl! — counterpunch

You're not??? Really? Rats!! Look at all this time I've wasted! No smilies for you!

Returning to the topic, what do members think would have been an appropriate response to rockets launched in to Israel by Hamas?

Israel could lift the blockade of Gaza. But given that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that would most likely lead to the further arming of Hamas, and further warfare, which would further endanger innocents on all sides.

Israel could surrender to Hamas and end the state of Israel. This would most likely lead to a civll war between Hamas and the PLO, and the establishment of yet another repressive Arab dictatorship, not really such a promising prospect for the innocents.

Israel could ignore the incoming rockets, thus removing any deterrence to future attacks, most likely resulting in more attacks and more innocent victims.

Israel could invade Gaza again and go door to door in search of Hamas fighters. Lots and lots of innocent victims here no matter how it is handled.

It was your use of the words wanker and nitwit — Mystic

Ah, so those are proper English words, such as in merry old England land? I didn't know. I thought they were nitwit wanker nerd words, which is why I selected them to be included in my very own posts.

Intelligence is the capacity to be in the present. The more you are in the past or are in the future, the less intelligent you are. Intelligence is the capacity to be here-now, to be in this moment and nowhere else. Then you are awake. — Bhagwan-Awe

I'm quite familiar with this perspective, and the experience too, and do agree with you. This is why I was questioning above whether philosophy is an adequate tool for exploring whatever unity may exist in the real world.

Philosophy doesn't actually focus on the real world, but rather on our thoughts about the real world.

From what you've said I can see I don't need to explain this to you.

What part of what I quoted do you think is false? — Benkei

As stated above, I think your declared interest in the welfare of Palestinians is false, a forum pose, whose primary purpose is the enhancement of your relationship with yourself.

I could be wrong, and one way to demonstrate that would be to show us the threads you've started which express extensive outrage at the Assad regime, which has oppressed, tortured and killed innocent Arabs with far more unjust ferocity than anything Israel has done.

If you truly do care about the fate of innocents, and are truly logical, you will be directing most of your outrage at those who are doing the most killing of innocents, and the most deliberate killing of innocents. When I see you doing that, I'll begin to take you seriously. Until then, have fun with all the clever little quipy thingies.

If not entertaining your fantasies is dodging then I happily indulge. — StreetlightX

What? What? WHAT? You're ending the confrontation??? That is so rude! Have you no compassion for the conflict addictions of your fellow members??? HELP! I've been made collateral damage of this person's common sense!!!!!

Not sure why I have to answer questions about it. — StreetlightX

You don't. You are free to dodge and weave as you see fit. No argument there. Your posts are your posts.

This is a thread about Israeli violence. — StreetlightX

This is a thread about whatever posters decide to discuss.

To be complemented with the acknowledgement that children in Gaza live in hell on earth — StreetlightX

Ok, so Israel surrenders to Hamas, ends the state of Israel, and packs up and leaves the Middle East.

What do you imagine happens next?

What I imagine is an inevitable civil war between Hamas and the PLO, resulting in yet another repressive Arab dictatorship, which you will be happy to ignore.

Show me your thread where you spew snarky venom at Assad for weeks, and then I'll happily join you in challenging Israel, which if you were paying attention you might have noticed I've already done rather rudely above.

Are you English? — Mystic

I am deeply offended that you would attempt to label me as the citizen of a former colonial power. How dare you!!! This means WAR!!!

To answer your question...

No, I'm American. A proud citizen of a shining city on a hill built from genocide and slavery.

Why, why, why would I be English??? They can't even speak the language correctly. :-)

Let us please keep in mind that the UN is a community of all the nations on Earth, quite a few of whom are led by ruthless dictatorships. The UN is a good idea, but it's not a holy church handing down morally superior sermons from on high.

Science is not many things! It is however, an increasingly coherent and valid understanding of reality, — counterpunch

That is the problem which I am attempting to describe. :-) Seriously, the fact that science works so well is what presents the existential threat.

The nuclear bomb was developed because the US feared Germany would develop it first. Not because scientists thought it would be a spiffing idea. — counterpunch

This is a common, and flawed, defense. The nuclear bomb was developed because a group of scientists, the only people capable of creating the bomb, willingly decided to build a bomb. I'm not trying to demonize these people. I'm just pointing out that scientists are human, and capable of questionable decisions, just like the rest of us.

but saying it's not possible to regulate technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, is false. — counterpunch

So you don't accept that scientists are human beings? :-) Are they incapable of error in your opinion?

Please recall. A scientific understanding of reality is led by scientists. And scientists are human beings. And human beings are significantly FUBAR.

Well, political threads at least seem to have a pretty consistent pattern of rapidly devolving in to patterns of personal conflict. And most of us know that is going to happen before we join the thread. So, there's that...

I'm really not trying to change the subject to forums. I'm wondering whether at least some of the conflict in the Middle East and beyond exists because there is part of us that enjoys conflict.

You've surely noticed how incredibly popular victim claims are, not just in the Middle East, but pretty much through out the human experience.

Imagine that the United States offered every Israeli and Palestinian U.S. citizenship and a billion dollars in moving expenses if they left the Middle East and came to America. That wouldn't solve the problem, right? Lots of people in both camps would choose to stay and continue the conflict, right?

Just as we are doing here. Voluntarily engaging in what can only be described as pointless conflict. Conflict for the sake of conflict.

Not me though. Cause I'm WAAAAAY better than all you little fucking nitwits! C'mon, c'mon, don't be a sissy, put'em up you wankers!!!!! :-)

Hi there!

Defeating involuntary aging, death and suffering may take centuries. Yet as far as I can tell, the project is scientifically and sociologically viable – just dauntingly ambitious. — David Pearce

Is it rational to seek to eliminate death in the absence of any proof that life is better than death?

It seems nature has made a firm decision that death is an important part of reality. Every single creature ever born has died. And we are smart enough to over rule nature on this point?

Why do we engage in such rhetorical violence on forums? There can only be one answer. Because we enjoy it.

I would surely agree it's far more complicated in the real world. But I wonder to what degree enjoyment of conflict plays a role. But, just like here I suppose, if such enjoyment exists, no one is likely to admit it.

So, maybe we could try to elevate the conversation a bit? Here's my try...

When I first saw this thread I immediately decided to have none of it, as I know from long experience how political threads typically go.

But then a day or two later I thought, it can't hurt to take a look.

And then I thought of some "insanely clever" remarks which would promote me as some kind of insightful person, at the expense of others I was thinking weren't so insightful.

And so it went, bit by bit, as I was sucked slowly but steadily in to the rhetorical violence unfolding here.

The point here is that violence, all flavors of it, seem to have a tangible appeal to many of us, and engaging in the combat can be quite addictive.

I wonder if the Middle East is a lot like threads like this? Once the pattern of calling each other fucking nitwits begins, it sucks us in, grabs a hold of our egos, and it can be hard to escape the grip.

Wait, hang on a second, I gotta reload my rhetorical rocket launcher.....

Only it's not simple, because your conclusion is a need to "dethrone the science clergy" whatever that means. — counterpunch

The term "science clergy" is admittedly vague. It's really more of a trolling word designed to stimulate conversation. The fact that I have to explain what the phrase means reveals it's limitations.

I don't mean science is a religion. I mean we have a tendency to relate to science much as we used to relate to religion. You know, science as a "one true way" and so on.

Whereas, to my mind, your Pandora's Box argument, speaks eloquently for the science based regulation of technology. i.e. making decisions about which technologies to apply on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality - rather than, religious political and economic ideology. — counterpunch

Ok, but science is not a machine. It's run by human beings. And so declaring management "science based" does not automatically remove that management from the kinds of emotional agendas which rightly concern you.

As example, quite a few scientists willingly volunteered to develop the atomic bomb, even though at least some of them were clear minded enough to understand that doing so would present an existential threat to civilization. They weren't evil, they were just human. They were born to do science, they had a natural talent for science, they wished to use their talents just as anyone would, and so they placed
their personal self interest above the interest of civilization, while rationalizing this choice by various methods. That is, they acted like human beings.

Slapping "science based" on the regulation process doesn't remove the human element, because scientists too have religious, political and economic agendas which they pursue, just like everybody else.

That is philosophical analysis. — Wayfarer

Yes, and it's possible to use philosophical analysis to identify cases where philosophy may not be the most effective tool for the job.