Unfortunately not. While reading Ivan i had a rather intense, and close call with cancer. I think I'll give it a while.

Most of us who see Mikie is a completely unhinged child do agree with this. For my part, i've never suggested otherwise. He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person.
Perhaps "existential" is a bit far in my book, but that's due to something other than "the case right now"

You may reject such a notion but only because of your definition of experience as requiring consciousness or at least self awareness. — prothero

I'll be honest: your conception is entirely incoherent to me. I cannot find a way to have it make sense in any practical way. It seems a side-step or macguffin type re-definition of the word 'experience' into (literally) non-experience, by something which is unaware. I cannot bring myself to accept this, i'm afraid. I take all your points about language, but unless you're telling me there is no way to criticise language use, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to put across. It just seems contradictory (or, at least, a total and utter, patent cop-out). Nothing personal in that at all.

Subjective experience by its very nature is beyond the realm of measurement, quantification or direct observation. — prothero

But it is, by definition and logical necessity, an experience by a subject. If one is not aware, this is not possible. So again, I take your point, but unless you wholesale reject the concept if 'error' here, I can't see it holding any water.

that such speculations do not deny or ignore whatever scientific information or data are available. — prothero

This is fair, but I think exactly the same problem as you have with language. At these fringey, ambiguous, speculative edges of thinking(or working?) we do not have solid, inarguable scientific knowledge. So, again, while that's fair, I think its an overextension to say that this applies to science, and not language (as we currently use it). It would be extremely hard for the average person to even understanding "experience" without a conscious subject to have the experience.

These are all opinions stated as facts which I am sure i do as well. — prothero

I take it then, that you feel there is no matter of fact for these issues. IF that's the case, why are we having the discussion? Again, not personal. That just seems a dim waaste of time.

Consciousness in the broader sense comprises the entire framework within which knowledge is obtained in the first place. — Wayfarer

I am sorry - this comes across as new age fluff. Can you be a bit more precise? We're getting into an area where claims are floating off into the ether, not even attached to coherent language.

It is hard to see how in a barren universe devoid of any form of subjective experience it could arise — prothero

Its also extremely hard to see from whence it could arise, in a "consciously dead" universe. "levels of consciousness" does not explain the sudden arising of subjective experience (which, by any cut, is an off/on type of change. You can't be "semi-aware" in any sense relevant to what we're discussing).

Again, you have leapfrogged the entire point I have made.

THe methodology I'm using would expressly ignore policy at the first stage of discussion, and only focus on getting on the same ground about goals. You cannot speak about policy unless you're clear on what your goals are. And you cannot speak about all policies. This is the fatal flaw in modern politic discourse, as far as i'm concerned, and why discussions like the (overwhelmingly, anyway) political threads here - they're trying to make meta-political points by way of specific policies or outcomes. Doesn't work like that, plainly.

Unless your goal is to ignore your opposition, not make any effort to understnad them, and not make any effort to actually achieve some kind of unity or peace, then sure, that's the way to go. IF you are wanting that, understanding people's aims and how their values inform them has to be prior to policy. You're literally grasping around in the dark (usually in anger) otherwise.

I don't have one, because I am adult. It seems Mikie not only needs an ignore list, he chooses, instead, to lean into everything that could show his childish side. Not my circus :P

I'm waiting for something a bit more on the nose...

Oh, this one was deep. Say more!

I feel pretty strongly that human consciousness has evolved from more primitive forms of mind in nature. I also largely reject the notion that “mind” emerged de novo from nature without more primitive precursors being present. — prothero

No issues with this. I find the preamble a bit out of hte place though. I am being quite specific about what hte terms mean, for me, in those sentences. So if that's just context for your questions, fair enough, but I want to be clear - they are simply terms for me. They are not ambiguous and I don't use htem interchangeably. The only one that can be multi-faceted in my mind, is 'experience'. Something without any awareness can 'go through' something (as in the body example) but I cannot find anything subjective in that, so I reject the term 'experience' in the context we're speaking. Experience means subjective awareness of one's own life/circumstances.

I am a panpsychist of sorts. — prothero

Same, but it's vague and ill-defined, so it's an intuition and nothing I could support properly, I think.

Have you worked with cows? — prothero

Yessir.

responsive to environmental changes and threats than you wish to give them credit for.s I think you will find they are not stimulus fixed response creatures in the way you propose. — prothero

I do not see reason for this in the research I've seen/known about. Bees are certainly very complex systemically. AN individual bee? Not really, no. Happy to be shown something though!

For me this means they perceive, are aware and respond. — prothero

These are reactions you're describing, not responses. I think that's a key difference here, in how we're seeing the word experience. Jellyfish do not have brains. They sense and react (though, this is erroneously described as 'response' in places but that is patently not the case). I see your view of it, but don't think it makes much sense, personally. The claim that one can experience without a mind seems absurd on it's face, and on further analysis.

Certainly perception in the sense of being “aware” of the wider or external world and responding to it is pretty widespread (if not universal) in the natural world. — prothero

False. The ability to receive and react to stimuli is, as I take it, literally universal in the animal kingdom (as it is a property of animals). Awareness and deliberative response is common, but far, far, far from Universal. Can you elaborate on why you would make that claim?

Have you watched Corvids solve puzzles or octopi opening jars? — prothero

Yes, and to the following question too.

It seems the height of anthropocentric thought to deny the abilities of our follow creatures in terms on their performance. — prothero

I don't know what you mean, but it's highly likely I haven't done whatever you're complaining about.

It also seems quite illogical and against evolution to postulate that human thought and consciousness arrived in the world without a long evolutionary path and many precursor forms of mind in nature. — prothero

Probably. But I have no reason to reject that at a certain point, consciousness arises at a level far, far beyond the previous. We have no evidence of this run-up, and we're pretty damn good at finding gradual processes in the records.

I note that this has stimulated some excellent exchanges from a variety of perspectives. — Amity

You think so... Feel free. It's as bad as Twitter, most of the time. Sure, some great points get made. Generally, not by the posters you are thinking of.

This all said, it is patently clear you take a certain view here, which is decidedly political, and are not quite open to discussions of disagreement. That's also fine, but I prefer not to operate that way. Most people in those threads behave the way i described. Evidenced by their own panicked responses to trivial comments, throughout. Again, that's fine. Not how I would operate, as it doesn't seem to cohere with reality (on my view).

Listen to what people are saying about their concerns and problems. Then, act to show you care and will support them, in real terms. — Amity

I do the former. The latter is then not possible.

There is a lot to be learned from people who invest their time and energy analysing 'what is going on'. Who care to question, respond and explain. — Amity

Generally, not. The majority of these people are diving into a pool of their own creation, and are rarely providing anything by way of novel or interesting insights. Generally, this only happens when one changes 'camps' as it were (which si not always good, granted. Perhaps, in the main, not good. Context matters for that one).

However, what is happening now can't be ignored or denied. — Amity

Well, it can, in the terms presented hereabouts. There's something going on, that's for sure, and I've not suggested otherwise. But claims like this are Kafka traps. Either I agree with you, or i'm ignorant and 'of course you'd say that'. It's not a good faith approach. The fact is, it can be framed completely differently form the panicked, self-referential crap that is bandied about in this forum (and that is simply my view. Not 'the truth' as it seems to be interpreted as - I'm not even that smart, but I respond rather than react which I think is crucial). Analyzing what's going on does not need to always land on the same crash pad.

I can respect people's views, respect the effort their putting in as people, humans, thinkers - and still think the conclusions are batshit (though, that's probably only relevant to a few here - most are pretty switched on, just.. emotionally invested in a way that skews things).

I always understand what you mean — Vera Mont

This is patently untrue. Unless you are also a wilfull troll. That would explain the disparate responses well too.

I have piles of facts and statistics — Vera Mont

There's a big blank space where you claim this. There always is.

I didn't claim anything — Vera Mont

Can you cite where I've gone wrong on facts or statistics? — Vera Mont

Hehe.

Your response was not relevant. — Vera Mont

Yet, here you are. And there's nothing wrong with that, other than noting you've delved into something irrelevant over several hundred words. For what reason, I cannot tell, unless there's something in what I've said.

I expect that's pretty much what Romulus Augustulus said, the year before he was deposed. — Vera Mont

And he was entirely right. The mistake you're intimating here is the exact one I've charged you with. Ironic, but not surprising.

I got mine, Jack. (for now) Whatever others suffer is no skin off my ass. — Vera Mont

Right o. Take care.

What is unclear about it? — Christoffer

No, it's not that it's unclear (although, I could wrangle it in that direction). It's that I think the 'view' described is erroneous to a rather extreme degree :) It was quippage, not argument.

This is getting fun again Mikie! Repeat yourself MORE! :D

:ok: :up:

Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers. — Fire Ologist

They are. Trying to talk to someone of genuine faith about something for which there is contrary evidence is one of the most trying tasks a human can undertake. The Lane Craig example is exemplary. LOL.

Am I really a doucher and I just never applied my reasoning to the situation? Banno thinks I can’t even reason - now I’ll have nothing left!! — Fire Ologist

If, in a conversation, you display bare denial of evidence which contradicts your stated belief, yep, you would insufferable and liable to being ostracised by those exercising sufficient reason. I don't think that's good, but it does tend to be what happens.

Is believing vital to the mix? — Fire Ologist

That is what faith amounts to. Belief in lieu of, or despite evidence. An educated guess doesn't require faith in anything but the means of education, as far as I can tell. Faith is not an educated guess. Faith is a commitment. Faith is something which you wholesale give your faculties over to, as a guiding principle chief among others. Lane Craig, again, shows this well.

Risk involves a lack of knowledge, an act despite the lack of knowledge, like belief despite any reasoning or evidence. — Fire Ologist

Risk, generally, involves reasoning. These are not related, as I see them.

I think belief, reasoning, knowledge are simultaneously at work in many of our actions, and a ‘faith’ is just another ‘science’ which is just another ‘story’, because it’s just another wording, which relies on beliefs, reasoning and knowledge to happen. You choose your beliefs, but we are all slaves to believing something. — Fire Ologist

Sorry to say, this sounds like pure prevarication. The first line up to "..,and" is apt. That seems obvious. But that doesn't give rise to Faith in many (if any) scenarios. Faith generally isn't required to motivation action. Beliefs about beliefs? An interesting area. Not one which impinges on these views of Faith, though. Though, I think it is clear, and inarguable, that Faith requires commitment to a concept in spite of xx, yy and zz. The others do not.

No facts or statistics necessary. — Amity

She claimed to have them. There were none. Please re-read the exchange, because you're defending something explicitly stated, as not stated.

To backtrack, Vera was responding to my question: — Amity

I am aware. This is not relevant for the subsequent exchange.

It is derogatory to suggest this is a 'rant'. Not to mention condescending in tone. — Amity

I'm sorry, but you literally quoted me disowning this in explicit terms. It has nothing to do with me if you're either unable to read, or not able to understand. I did my diligence here and wont be held to your internal offense meter.

I also note your response is pointless, and entirely out of pocket. I was talking to Vera. Not you.

So what, if this has been discussed before. It is new to this thread and new readers.
It bears repeating. — Amity

You do not understand, whatsoever, what that line means. Vera does. Because she and I have been here before.

Which is why I'm here. — Amity

Then none of this makes sense. Speak with her.

This is a point in history but not like any other. — Amity

No point in history is like any other. Ironically, histrionics is what has people making these claims. We are not special. Our time is not special.

Nobody is pretending anything. This is a crisis. If you don't recognise that, then so be it. — Amity

No, it isn't. Most people in those threads you mention are absolutely out of their minds on panic and sniffing their own arses. If you cannot see that, so be it. But given I spend time outside of lil political bubbles, and subscribe to no common ideologies, It is clear as day.

Well, like most, we see what we want to see. — Amity

Correct. That is what I have pointed out.

But that is more than I am prepared to do, right now. — Amity

That's fair, but probably best not to broach that then to avoid being charged with being either a diletante or coward. I am not intending to insult - this seems a correct view.

Misogyny is only part of Trump's regressive destruction of rights and justice systems.
Happening right now.
Full throttle.
Without a breath.
It is not a time to step back. But yes, to take a deep breath and step up. In whatever way we can. — Amity

You think a crisis is in full swing. You're bound to say these things. If you could enumerate what rights you're talking about, we can discuss. (Roe v Wade wont go well for anyone arguing that this is a removal of women's rights - it is patently not, unless you consider access to specific medical procedures a human right. If you do, fine. I don't).

Cows have brains. I take it they have a mind, but cannot be sure. I also take it they have experiences, as they appear to deliberate and show awareness to a relatively high degree for a lower animal, as it were.

Bees have brains. They might have minds. I do not think they have experiences. They do not seem aware of much. They seem to react, not respond, to stimuli.

How about sentience, awareness, perception, etc. — prothero

Awareness is the best corollary of consciousness in my view. The P Zombie notwithstanding. If you are not aware that you are undergoing X, you are not experiencing it. Your body might be, in some super-strict sense, but what we mean here is subjective experience. So, if you're not aware, that's not on the table.

Perception is the weirdest of all these to me, because it seems to have a dual meaning even in this specific context: It can mean that your apparatus can receive information - but it can also mean that you are aware of said information. I leave this one to the side lol.

My comment can be translated into your question. What hte heck is being talked about there? Nonsense, at best.

I see. An overview of history is insufficient basis for an opinion. OK — Vera Mont

No, and you would do well not to quip when you've clearly not understood what has been said. We've been here before too, Vera.

Almost certainly neither. These discussions are ridiculous and don't account for almost any relevant calibrator.
In this case, it's more than likely that higher unemployment among young men is causing it inter alia. Additional issue is the fact that men are not encouraged to achieve very highly and haven't been for some time (though, this is canvassed in the article.. What can be said for it is up in the air).

And there it is again :)

THe entire post is just you going over how you feel. There aren't any facts or statistics that can be quibbled with - which is why I gave a similar response.

doesn't make me feel the slightest bit good. — Vera Mont

You've not understood what I've said. "About themselves" is appended to what you've responded to. And, in this sense, you're continuing the trend it seems by somehow saying you don't feel good about... not feeling good. I think we've been here before, Vera.

Seems to me, it is only perspective that can lead to these sorts of rants (not derogatory - anything adequately complete will be a rant in this context). If this were based on 'facts' then your personal feelings wouldn't be relevant. When i speak of perspective here, it's an impetus that says "No, it is not likely that your view of your own era is accurate, historically. Nor could it be". And so having a bit of perspective may well change your feelings regardless of "the facts and statistics" which are not here, anyway. You claim both to live as a optimistic youth, but carry an abysmal view of the world in whcih you live, which has only "gone downhill" for fifty years. *shrug* i guess.

Sure. Your consistent inability to maintain an adult's emotional capacity is a laugh.

I think this will lead us into a disagreement about language, about the definition of consciousness? — prothero

I don't see that it will - but that could be another interesting discussion!

mind, experience and consciousness — prothero

A mind can be conscious. A conscious mind can experience.

They can also not. So, i hold these to be sufficiently different to say "no" to your question.

What entities or creatures in nature do you consider to be conscious, to have experience? — prothero

Conscious minds, when they also have experience. I believe a conscious mind is necessary, but not sufficient. Whence commeth Chalmers.

Modern neurobiology would indicate there is a lot of "unconscious" experience and mental activity? — prothero

I would certainly appreciate that!

As for the quip there, I think this is contradictory. The previous discussion didn't seem to touch that issue - if it's unconscious, its not being experienced. That's somewhat baked in, as best I can tell/as far as I know. With that out there..

Do you think all experience is limited to consciouness? — prothero

Yes. I don't think there is any other option. Subconscious (or even pre-conscious) activity doesn't seem to be experienced ny anything but hte mechanisms undergoing the changes required to actually constitute those activities. But again for me, that's somewhat baked-in to the words and concepts being used.

If something is not made conscious, whence comes subjective experience?

:ok: Very good example. That is what faith does, for a 'believer'.

The important point here is that subjective experience need not involve, and can be detached from, consciousness. — prothero

Could you elaborate? This seems prima facie ridiculous to me, so wanting to assuage my worries.

Trump? If so, yes, i'd say so. I think he's far more cynical than bigoted too.

And there we are.

An example of misogyny is violence against women, which includes domestic violence and, in its most extreme forms, misogynist terrorism and femicide. Misogyny also often operates through sexual harassment, coercion, and psychological techniques aimed at controlling women, and by legally or socially excluding women from full citizenship. In some cases, misogyny rewards women for accepting an inferior status. — Wiki - Misogyny

Sounds like this is very much appearing as a ghostly apparition (not in the sense it doesn't exist, in the sense it is weak and not very effective) in the Western world. This isn't to say someone like Trump doesn't embolden thoughts in those who have them - but if you were to ask any person, and press them, on their views about women, the chances that you'll come to anything close to what's represented in this definition (not going to wade in Manne's nonsense) are not so much low, but rare.

This is why defining things on their outcomes is an extremely bad practice, if we want to change outcomes. Defining things by their intent allows us to illustrate that someone who is, at base, not misogynistic, is, in fact, behaving in a way that perpetuates misogyny without forcing them accept a mind state they literally do not hold.

Probably worth stepping back a bit, taking a breath and realizing we're not in a fucking crisis either. Women have never been more powerful, revered or protected in the West. And we're doing better than anywhere else by far.

It looks to me like each period of madness in history ends in greater destruction. Is this one big enough to be the last? We can hope not, but I left my faith in humanity in the 20th century. — Vera Mont

This strikes me as the exact out-of-perspective thinking that everyone of every age who wants to feel good about themselves would put forward. We are not at any special stage of history, other than the forefront. Our time will be relegated like any other, and a future time will be more important at that time. It strikes me as nonsensical, and panicked. Hence, step back, take a breath - this is not a crisis. It's a point in history. LIke any other. Pretending we're in special circumstances is a really weird move, other than to ensure you don't give up - whcih seems weak to me.

This is why the US is broken. No laws seem to have any effect on the people in power. — Christoffer

Can I please know from what position you're watching this film? It's not one i've seen. Definitely not a documentary.

This, roughly, was going to be my response. That the methodology espoused is easier, and more satisfying in terms of 'getting somewhere', I cannot help but assume anyone interested in consciousness will feel they are settling to explore those issues, rather htan the fundamental questions of consciousness (what, why, how etc... as priors to the above methodology).

Yes, definitely falls along those lines. I think being honest is probably hte crux. With yourself. Stop arguing about things you don't even believe. If people did that, we'd be able to remove teh trash around our feet and notice we stand on the same ground.

I think — ChatteringMonkey

This is not hte way to do things. This leapfrogs everythign I think is important in that discussion/post.

Nominal? I'll take that! Without accepting th premise LOL

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-as-gender-pay-gap-reverses/ar-AA1A6Gwu?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=e3bc660083b1439abdd6362a4f0927a8&ei=4

That's sorted, I guess :rofl: (yes, I am kidding).

I don't think anyone fit the category of forum rules against evangelism better than you do. — Christoffer

Mikie does. Patently.

I don't think the analogy is apt. It's a good one for getting the average person to consider morality as something we can discuss and work with.
It does not, however, indicate that there is anything remotely close to objectivity involved in morality. "Good health" can be objective without a morally relevant consideration. "Being in good health is good" is not a similar phrase. It doesn't kow to the same logical inferences and it has no genuine basis for adherence, other than preference.
Which is what morality is, at base, in my view.

Seems like this would simply lead to a circle of non-productivity and non-progress.

I also think it is not in our best interests to treat everyone with empathy. This is where, as a pretty clear lefty in terms of box-ticking, i get off the train. the "Be kind" crowd have fucked everything up in my view.

Does "prehemispheric structures" refer to the pre-frontal cortex? — Gnomon

Brain stem structures, is my understanding - the nerve bundles prior to the hemispheres of the brain around the top of the spinal column and 'bottom' the brain. I see subhemispheric is also used:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/split-brain :

"Perception around the body in the periphery of the visual field, including ‘ambient’ pre-attentive awareness of space and motion properties of objects, is not divided in the split brain, indicating that subhemispheric (brainstem) systems, which remain unified, can integrate perceptuo-motor functions."

Not a neuroscientist though. Apt for our purposes: https://philarchive.org/archive/SLESTU :

"Most likely the place where the two visual hemispheric images integrate into a single coherent screen that can contain the space of our visual image, the “visual sensorium”, is in an evolutionarily older sub-cortical area such as the optic tectum in the midbrain. For that region is pre-hemispheric and most likely from where core visual phenomenal consciousness evolved prior to the embellishment of cortical-enabled intellectualization."

AFAIK modern science does not seem to support that. Are you aware of any evidence that only one hemisphere is aware of what's going on outside? :smile: — Gnomon

That's also my understanding - Jaynes work was extremely important to my research into the anthropological side of psychedelic use over a decade or so and it never made sense to me, unfortunately. Taking drugs would result int he same sorts of interpretations and when we have evidence of used (albeit, sporadic and sparse) psychedelics across most of human history, its hard to look past that as a source of the types of reports and themes that lead to the bicameral idea. Not that its a bad theory in and of itself, but its a bit like the Stoned Ape theory. Decent.... in theory.

The equity-inclusion crowds then, in practice, build an anti-diversity world; inclusion is at odds with diversity. The racist crowds are anti-human, so self-defeating, and much worse, but inclusiveness has to be grounded in a respect for exclusivity, or it may also tend away from the better world we seek. — Fire Ologist

Very good. I think not only is it self-defeating in that sense (which admittedly, might just come down to the linguistics of hte bumper-stickers) but is exactly opposite to what anyone truly wants - which is for things like racialised thinking to disappear. It is explicitly encouraging racialised and sexualised policies (most other aspects of DEI are reasonable, such as having ramps for disabled employees or whatever so that there's no barrier to hiring them).

We need to accept all the samenesses, not the differences first. — Fire Ologist

Yes. This seems particularly important for sex, imo. The conversation is so intensely stupid around sex/gender because this obvious starting point is ignored (or, misused to suggest something ridiculous). For race, its a bit less ridiculous because you can't miss that someone is black, or South Asian or ebony (here referring to mid-Africans with truly dark, sun-kissed tones and is not meant to be derogatory or anything).

One that's sorted, the differences become obvious, and the response should be similar to Shaun Murphys about 'being a boy'. THe question is ridiculous. You are the race you are, and you have the attributes you have. Its not a moral question, and has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is the case that we have all these races with (relatively) distinct genetic profiles which we can trace back thousands of years.

I think, though, we're missing hte point. the Alt-Right (and indeed, the intensely DEI crowd) pigeon hole people by observing behaviour, and tying it race. And both sides of that are woefully inept, and inconsistent. Statistics, basically. Which is what everyone does preconsciously, constantly, all the time, about everything. But couple that with 'ideology' and you have a timebomb.

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. — frank

I see. I may be ignorant to how well-subscribed that view is. My understanding is even the duller coterie among that sort of group aren't seriously suggesting that stupid people will become another race. I see you're adding in some futurism. Fair enough - I guess my response is just to that then LOL. I don't really see the connection. But thank you for that clarification.

This inspires me to look at all the significant viewpoints on the scene and place them as if on a chessboard where I can move them around and let them interact. Do I escape bias this way? Probably not entirely, but it's maybe a little more sophisticated than the rooting-for-my-team approach, which is just blind bs. — frank

Definitely true. I think the risk here is taht its going to still result in various, conflicting views. For instance, I feel I also do this to the degree that I am able, psychologically and in terms of my knowledge of history and the present - but my conclusiosn would be much different I'd think. View from nowhere rears its head i guess.

It's not necessarily about the stated goals of said ideologies, but about the policies they tend to support and the implications of those. — ChatteringMonkey

This seems to leapfrog the issues in the prior suggestions. What's wrong with less immigration? Or at least, and this is the general MAGA line, less illegal immigration? Those are, for this context, rhetorical. If you want to skip to the next paragraph, the one below it responds directly to the above quote..

I understand it's likely what you're pushing at is that the motivator for them is actually just "less wogs, pls" or some nonsense like that. But that's only going to cover a, probably somewhat small, proportion of that group. Many will just be plain ignorant, and then there will be varying degrees of reasonable argument (one being extremely sensitive, because it's allowable and in fact considered morally 'right' when applied to any ethnicity that isn't white. Which is patently racist - another discussion). This goes to what I was initially suggesting:

What's your goal? Reducing harm? Ok. Good goal. Lets discuss how to get there and hash-out the theoretics of X or Y course of action/policy.... This base-line is almost never set down and so the arguments proceed from one another's bias about how the motiviations (even though unknown) are somehow evil. There is no point talking about policies and actions unless you can hold them up to a stated goal and point out that either A. the goal is unwarranted, or B. the policies/actions wont achieve the goal. Even if this is purely practical, and its just that no ones going to listen to you when you can't even stop yourself from pretending to know their mind, that's totally valid imo. Don't do that.

It also seems patently clear that, over the years, many 'liberal' policies with both 'pleasant' stated goals, and apparently good reason to believe the policy will get there, have resulted in something else (unforeseen, unwanted etc..). So, that doesn't seem a great benchmark for either 'side' to critique the other.

There is no acceptable alternative.

In a legal setting, through the legal process. Preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. — tim wood

More likely to be balance of probabilities unless there's no disputed facts ;)

Certainly, we already cover criminality when known lies result in some genuine loss etc.. So i can't see why we would preempt that by making "lying" a criminal offence other than perjury. That a lie is punishable by prison would tie up courts in defended hearings literally 100% of the time, at all levels and is an utterly ridiculous suggestion, legally speaking.