Missile attack on Ukrainian grain. Flight to safety on the currency market. :grimace:

Germans, French and Italians - yes, the spell of the inexplicable infatuation with Russia seems to lift. — Jabberwock

Isn't Germany basically the leader? Excuse my ignorance.

The Dutch are obviously vengeful. — Jabberwock

Why are they vengeful?

Eastern Europeans, of course, had the doubtful pleasure of interacting with Russia for the past few centuries, so they are aware of the 'problem'. They scrambled to be in NATO, against the objections of the West, as they were painfully aware that sooner or later Russia will turn to them again. — Jabberwock

So this is something I don't quite understand. Has Russia always sort of been "hollowed out" as a kleptocracy? Is this the way their culture is normally? Or is this an aberration?

You could say the US is at fault because they talked the Ukrainians into giving up their nuclear weapons after the Cold War. If they had nukes, this wouldn't be happening.

I was reading an article that said Europeans are presently becoming more hawkish about Russia than the US is, which is probably as it should be. Putin is their problem more than an American one, right?

:up:

My guess is that the missiles or rockets they use simply don’t pack the punch to demolish such large structures. Yes, it would need demolition charges at precise points to get part of the bridge to splash into the water. — ssu

They need James Bond to snorkel over there and blow that shit up.

:up:

Seems that the Ukrainians attacked the Kerch bridge again. — ssu

Why don't they sneak in and attach bombs to the columns? Boom!

And if we would be discussing war that was in Afghanistan or the war still continuing in Yemen etc, suddenly we would have a lot to agree with. — ssu

Of course. :up:

Common sense, being one. — Tzeentch

Possibly :lol:

I thnk there’s a lot of good answers here ↪Jabberwock of just why it is odd to cling on to these kind of fringe ideas about why the war is still going on. — ssu

People have their reasons for believing things that seem really weird to the rest of us.

The far right, the lunatic fringe, the tea party, crypto-fascists, etc. hate all that stuff--from social security onward to Obama Care. It's all burrs up their butts. — BC

The elderly are a powerful voting bloc though. Some elderly people are turning to Obamacare to bridge them till medicare kicks in at 65.

I asked Baden. He said you need to watch this video.

:up:

The forces of capital (government, corporations, etc.) bore down hard on the left that existed before WWII. The parties were infiltrated, subjected to prosecution, massive negative propaganda, and so on. By the time the FBI's Cointelpro program was made public, the job was pretty much finished, — BC

It wasn't just that. The left had no answer to stagflation other than to centralize control of the economy. Neither the US nor the UK we're ready for that solution. The right, on the other hand solved the problem robustly.

The 'slow approach' to socialism doesn't work. The door to change only opens every now and then. It has to get bad enough that there really is a revolution. There's no predicting that kind of event.

How about this guy?

Anyhow. it's not surprising a privileged rich dude living off and exploiting his famous heritage thinks he can get away with stuff like that when he's been getting away with it his whole life. — Baden

There were all kinds of conspiracy theories about Bill Gates too: that he engineered the virus so he could get rich from it. People really believe that stuff. They aren't trying to be jerks. I think it's an expression of the fear of being deceived. There's a kind of horror to it. We're drawn to horror.

I'm currently reading a book by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics. After a chapter discussing Donald Hoffman's interface theory ("a necessary deception"), he raises the "binding problem"*2 of Consciousness, using vision as an example. "The retinal image is split apart at its very inception into disembodied aspects each of which is analyzed in different and specialized part of the brain". And, "the information parsed by the brain is assembled and comes together somewhere". Then he concludes, "no one knows where or how visual information comes together to yield a systematic, unitary image." — Gnomon

Great post btw. I read about the idea of a central processing hub a while back. It would take sensory cues, models, learned and innate reflexes, hopes, fears, etc. and smush it together somehow.

But it's only uncanny if your worldview has no place for immaterial stuff like Ideas & Ideals. — Gnomon

But if the cultural pendulum swings back toward thinking of ideas as some sort of stuff, or an interaction between stuff, then ideas would take their place among the material of materialism like gravity did.

Although he does say:

As I see it, the science of consciousness is all about relating third-person data - about brain processes, behavior, environmental interaction, and the like - to first-person data about conscious experience. I take it for granted that there are first-person data. It's a manifest fact about our minds that there is something it is like to be us - that we have subjective experiences - and that these subjective experiences are quite different at different times. Our direct knowledge of subjective experiences stems from our first-person access to them. And subjective experiences are arguably the central data that we want a science of consciousness to explain.

I also take it that the first-person data can't be expressed wholly in terms of third-person data about brain processes and the like. There may be a deep connection between the two - a correlation or even an identity - but if there is, the connection will emerge through a lot of investigation, and can't be stipulated at the beginning of the day. That's to say, no purely third-person description of brain processes and behavior will express precisely the data we want to explain, though they may play a central role in the explanation. So as data, the first-person data are irreducible to third-person data.
— David Chalmers, First Person Methods... — Wayfarer

He means that the information we have about how the visual system works, for instance, doesn't explain the experience of seeing, at least it hasn't yet. The knowledge about what the brain is doing during vision is third person data. The experience itself is first-person data.

But if, say, Penrose turns out to be right and experience has something to do with events on the quantum level, that would be a third person account. It may be that we as a species are like a patient who is "locked in." Maybe we can't have final answers, or maybe final answers simply don't exist. But that doesn't mean we're presently at an end of our journey to sort out what we can understand.

Yes. Chalmers believes that our present scientific approach to understanding consciousness is limited to explaining function. He believes we need to add experience as an explanandum in its own right.

On the other hand, you said:

He says it is intractable from the third-person perspective, due to its first-person character.. — Wayfarer

This isn't true. He believes a scientific theory of consciousness is possible. This would be a third-person account.

‘Facing up to the problem of consciousness’ concerns the difficulty, or even the impossibility, of a providing a scientific account of first-person experience due its subjective nature. — Wayfarer

You inserted "impossibility" there. That isn't Chalmer's view.

As I’ve said, I think Chalmer’s expression of ‘what it is like to be…’ is simply a rather awkward way of referring to ‘being’. And as I’ve also said, that is not something which can be framed in scientific terms, because there’s no ‘epistemic cut’ here. We’re never outside of it or apart from it. A Wittgenstein aphorism comes to mind, ‘We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.’ — Wayfarer

Here you lay out your own view more clearly, and it's a view that has its place in philosophy of mind. It's called mysterianism. A famous proponent of it is Colin McGinn. David Chalmers doesn't hold to that view.

First, he doesn't need 'help'. You and he disagree. He's at the very least your epistemic peer, so if you disagree it is as likely you are wrong (and in need of 'help') as it is he is.

Secondly, if you were an acknowledged, qualified Chalmers expert, maybe we'd hear what you have to say first and ask for help second, but you're not. You're just an ordinary lay party. So if you think someone is wrong, have the courtesy of assuming you'll need to support that first. It's not rocket science. — Isaac

No, the hard problem is a fixture of philosophy of mind at this point. The whole point of the hard problem is to put us on the path to a theory of consciousness that explains experience. Chalmers explores numerous possible pathways. There's nothing controversial about that.

My posts to Wayfarer were meant to be a heads up to look back at the very paper he cited. It does not say that science can not explain experience. If he thinks it does, he should point out which passage he believes says that, and we can bring to light where Wayfarer misunderstood.

posts are always well supported by citations (to the point of being infamous for it!). If you're going to accuse someone of misrepresentation, at least have the basic courtesy to do so with the same level of textual support with which the original claim was given. You're not a prophet. — Isaac

If he needs help discovering what Chalmers' meant by the "hard problem," I'll be happy to point him toward helpful resources.

In no way have I misrepresented Chalmers’ position in this thread. — Wayfarer

Actually you have, repeatedly. Chalmers is optimistic about a theory of consciousness that explains experience.

Facing up to the problem of consciousness’ concerns the difficulty, or even the impossibility, of a providing a scientific account of first-person experience due its subjective nature. — Wayfarer

Again, you seemed to have misunderstood Chalmers' point. He does not propose that science can't explain experience. He's fairly confident that it can with some conceptual adjustments.

I agree with Chalmers, on the grounds that objective physical sciences exclude the first person as a matter of principle.
— Wayfarer

But physical sciences don't exclude the first person as far as I can tell.

Can you show me somewhere, where this principle you speak of is written down? — wonderer1

Chalmers never said that first person data is excluded from consideration by scientists, and Einstein's thought experiments specifically reference the first person point of view.

I knew they were wrong from the get go. But you believed it. — NOS4A2

So you were pessimistic. You knew January 6th wouldn't accomplish anything. And it didn't.

There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust. — NOS4A2

That's what you hoped he would be because you wanted him to wreck the system. The system abides.

If this is the case, or at least a close approximations, fiscal policy should play a larger role. We should be taxing those who benefited from the windfall monopoly-like profits to reduce aggregate demand instead of using a brute force tool like rate hikes (of course, you might still do hikes, very low rates appear to increase inequality long term in a corrosive way). We should also be looking at market share and trust busting with renewed vigor. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In order to do that, taxation would have to be controlled by a body of experts the way rates are. In principle, people shouldn't be taxed unless they approve, so this is a side effect of founding principles, not a lack of wisdom on anyone's part. What is available to take action is rate hikes. Powell specifically mentioned Volcker in his last set of comments, so he's saying "Don't doubt me."

The Fed is still promising a hike at the end of July to bring inflation down to 2%, probably 25 bps. Right now it looks like we could have a soft landing, but the outlook seems to change weekly if not daily. We'll see.

:up:

You took a disparity in outcomes and called it sexism — Judaka

No, I didn't. The disparity isn't the sexism. It's the result of sexism.

Anybody who defines sexism as a set of disparities is an idiot.

A term describing disparities shouldn't have a moral stigma, disparities are only immoral if they're wrong or unfair. If sexism is just disparities, what does it mean to be sexist? And isn't it a problem to have a term that describes disparities, which in all the same contexts describes the reason for those disparities being due to a bias against the competence of women? — Judaka

I don't think anyone defines sexism as a set of disparities, do they? Sexism is a kind of prejudice. Disparities are the concrete outworking of historic and present day sexism. We focus on disparity because it's something we can and do address through legislation. We can't legislate how people think and feel, and we don't need to.

Yeah, not sure why you interpreted "disparity" as "income disparity" but any disparity in outcomes would suffice, proven or perceived. — Judaka

So what's the problem?

:grin:


:up:

There's a female pediatric intensivist I know of. Word is that when she has a proposal to make, she hands it to a particular male surgeon and asks him to make it. She's learned that the hospital establishment will listen to him. They won't listen to her. It's sexism. I don't know if her pay is any less than a male doing the same thing. I kind of doubt she's hurting for money, though. Point is, there's more to it than income disparity.

Why do you think we particularly focus on income disparity?

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that stuff. It reminds me of the shift in fashion associated with Beau Brummel. Rich men stopped wearing wigs, make-up, and ornate dress. They adopted the appearance we now think of as masculine.

TR's interest in being physically fit is related to the fact that he had severe asthma as a child. Childhood asthma is still potentially lethal, and since it's often exercise induced, it can be debilitating. I think for TR, when he went overboard sleeping out on the range with cowboys and spending extended periods of time out in the wilderness alone, he was proving to himself that he wasn't weak.

So later, when he sent federal troops to protect striking workers from physical abuse at the hands of their employers, he was manifesting pure optimism. Can you tell I'm a fan?

Oh yea! Let's party old school!

The point is not that there's no alternative take. The point is that treating science as a battle of the exasperatedly well informed vs the stubbornly stupid is a gross misrepresentation of how it works. — Isaac

masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures.
— frank

Can you or do you care to say more on this kind of archetype? — Moliere

They show up in the stories we tell. In our world they'll be in formulaic movies. In the ancient world there would be a central epic tale in which various divinities would influence events, some male and some female.

Christianity is kind of odd in that the central figure doesn't really demonstrate characteristics we'd think of a masculine. Jesus is a pacifist. He's compassionate. He's a son, not a father. Maybe he represented some kind of shift? Not sure.

A friend just returned from Kenya. He said the Chinese come in and everyone celebrates the hope that they're going to employ Kenyans. Nobody is employed, though. The work is done by unpaid prisoners and the people in the government get a little richer.

I don't see how poo pooing the struggle of some women somewhere is helping that or anything else really.

For me, the word "arena" refers to the arena where the Roman ludi took place. Combat by gladiators or the killing of wild beasts for the entertainment of the public. The "man in the arena" is properly a slave engaging in blood sports to amuse others, not the romantic hero portrayed by Roosevelt. TR certainly killed his share of wild beasts for his own amusement, of course, but if he thought of himself as "the man in the arena" I wonder if he understood what it implied. — Ciceronianus

Every story has two sides.