Devastating. — AmadeusD

Thanks for sharing. yes, devastating. Nothing more devastating than the death of a child.

There's a real sense of not being able to make any sense of what he was experiencing.

I had to look it up. Heaney wrote this poem about the death of his four-year-old brother, who had been hit by a car.

Maybe. Maybe not. "Thou shalt not steal", for example, depends on a theory of property rights that did not exist in many simple societies. So the moral code and the notion of "property" developed together. — Ecurb

Even chimpanzees know what belongs to them, so the idea of ownership goes back millions of years.

As does the concept of punitive behavior. The idea of justice is not solely a human trait.

Here' some interesting reading about research involving chimps -

Chimps don't just get mad, they get even

When Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, this may represent the transition from simple, hunting and gathering societies (like Eden) to more complicated civilizations in which morality must be codified (because it is less "natural"). — Ecurb

I do not believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures.

All human behavior is "natural"

Membership is more important than eating cows, pigs, or fish on Friday. — Ecurb

Now you're thinking like a biologist

If that's true, why do we need moral rules? — Ecurb

I'm not sure why a biological basis for behavior would preclude the need for moral rules.

Of course all female mammals are altruistic toward their children. If they weren't, the children wouldn't survive (until human practices like adoption and orphanages). — Ecurb

I remember reading once that a mother's love is the evolutionary origin of all other forms of love.

But moral codes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't desire to break them. — Ecurb

Yes, a human brain is a very complicated thing and variation exists. And evolution is an ongoing process. I remember reading something about how not all of us are at the same stage of brain evolution, that some possess a more ancient form of connections between the amygdala and cognition.

Many of us might want to steal, covet, commit adultery, or forget to keep the Sabbath holy (especially this last). We are enjoined from doing so by the Ten Commandments, not by "biological altruism". — Ecurb

The evolution of moral codes developed from concepts of morality, not the other way around.

By the way, Questioner, if you're interested in Indigenous American philosophy, I recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber (a cultural anthropologist) and Wengrow (an archaeologist). The authors argue that the traditional liberal European philosophers (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, et. al.) were influenced by Native American philosophy. Some American philosophers came to Europe, and books about their philosophy were popular, promoting individual freedom, rights, and equality. — Ecurb

Thank you very much for the recommendations!

You think altruism is a brain mechanism — Joshs

Not "a" brain mechanism - but the result of the interplay of several brain regions -

Key structures that may be involved during altruistic decision making and subsequent altruistic behavior include regions within the mentalizing network such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and temporoparietal junction (TPJ), reward regions including the ventral tegmental area (VTA), striatum, specifically the nucleus accumbens (NaCC), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and regions of the emotional salience network including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), insula, and amygdala

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5456281/

You dont feel that it is in your best ‘selfish’ interest to help people you care about and need in your life? In that case altruism wouldn’t be a matter of choosing others over the self but being motivated to expand and enrich the boundaries of the self. We would also need to clarify that the self isn’t a static thing but a system of integration assimilating the world into itself while accommodating itself to the novel aspects of the world. Altruism can be seen in this light as belonging to this enrichment of the self’s capabilities. — Joshs

Yes, it feels good to help other people!

That could potentially work as an immediate material explanation -- saying how it happened -- but it cannot work as a teleological explanation — BenMcLean

For the teleological explanation, we ask, "What is it good for?" Does it produce a good outcome? Well, in the context of natural selection, we can say that any traits that are selected for, have the effect of increasing fitness - improving the chances of survival and reproduction.

saying why we should obey this particular biological impulse and not other less apparently noble but much stronger biological impulses. — BenMcLean

You are correct in that science does not ask the "should we?" questions - only describes the traits that appear in a species, and how they might have come to be.

There is of course an element of culturally-driven mores that influence behavior - but the biology comes first. Biology precedes culture, Mix in a bit of "free will" and the directions taken by different cultures, with different histories, acting under different environmental factors, can diverge.

Many atheists seem to think that if they believe hard enough, then humanity will have evolved to make "consent" part of their biology instead of being a very conscious political choice but in fact, that is a fantasy. — BenMcLean

I don't think anyone with a basic knowledge of natural selection and evolution thinks this.

As the concept of "consent" has its roots in self-determination, and personal autonomy, I don't think we would be hard-pressed to find a biological, evolutionary origin of it. We are a social species. You want to stay in the group? Then you had better respect boundaries.

Any culture that does not recognize "consent' as an unimpeachable cap on behavior is operating under a different set of biological instincts. Culture is fluid, and human behavior is complex.

Humans sexual impulses are in fact way, way stronger than their altruistic ones — BenMcLean

There is no way you can make such a generalization.

And I do not buy that these two instincts are mutually-exclusive.

A developed expression of this idea is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where moral concern or empathy is not confined to one’s own community but is extended even to detestable outsiders. — Tom Storm

So, you are saying that goodness comes from God and we know this because the Bible tells us it's so?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures –

For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own—so have personal fitness of zero—but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Intuition seems to suggest that to behave altruistically is to reduce one’s own fitness, but with social animals, it increases the fitness of the group, and therefore is a behavior selected for.

This idea led to the development of the theory of Kin Selection and Inclusive Fitness

No doubt, we are much more likely to help someone we are related to, but if we see a stranger drowning, the instinct apparently kicks in, in some of us. We can get into other explanations, too, like how we mirror the behavior and emotions of others. Mirror neurons – which help us to understand the emotions of others - indeed do play a role in empathy.

https://positivepsychology.com/mirror-neurons/

It's likely borrowed from Paul writing in Romans where he says even of ignorant gentiles that morality is "written on their hearts". — Tom Storm

No, as a people of oral traditions, their history and moral codes, ideas of justice, etc. were engraved on their hearts long before the Europeans came along. They did not need to "borrow" the phrase from the Europeans.

In fact, we can look at different cultures, too, and find that the Christians are not the sole possessors of morality. The following passage from The Tao, written around 2500 years ago, hints at the Golden Rule.

Did the Christians "borrow" these ideas from Lao-Tse?

Heaven is long-enduring and earth continues long. The reason why heaven and earth are able to endure and continue thus long is because they do not live of, or for, themselves. This is how they are able to continue and endure.

Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it is found in the foremost place; he treats his person as if it were foreign to him, and yet that person is preserved. Is it not because he has no personal and private ends, that therefore such ends are realised?

The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things, and in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary), the low place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Tao.

The excellence of a residence is in (the suitability of) the place; that of the mind is in abysmal stillness; that of associations is in their being with the virtuous; that of government is in its securing good order; that of (the conduct of) affairs is in its ability; and that of (the initiation of) any movement is in its timeliness…

When gold and jade fill the hall, their possessor cannot keep them safe. When wealth and honours lead to arrogancy, this brings its evil on itself. When the work is done, and one's name is becoming distinguished, to withdraw into obscurity is the way of Heaven.

When the intelligent and animal souls are held together in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one gives undivided attention to the (vital) breath, and brings it to the utmost degree of pliancy, he can become as a (tender) babe. When he has cleansed away the most mysterious sights (of his imagination), he can become without a flaw.

In loving the people and ruling the state, cannot he proceed without any (purpose of) action? In the opening and shutting of his gates of heaven, cannot he do so as a female bird? While his intelligence reaches in every direction, cannot he (appear to) be without knowledge?

(The Tao) produces (all things) and nourishes them; it produces them and does not claim them as its own; it does all, and yet does not boast of it; it presides over all, and yet does not control them. This is what is called 'The mysterious Quality' (of the Tao).

You can read The Tao online for free at this link -

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm

What indigenous group/person? I am extremely skeptical of a quote like that from a category of people known to be amenable to superstitions and creator myths. — AmadeusD

Ten years ago I wrote a novel that took place in pre-revolutionary 18th century New York (then a province, and not yet a state) and did extensive reading about the Haudenosaunee as well as the Lenape of Pennsylvania. I can’t remember the exact source, but the quote is clear in my memory.

Despite popular opinion, the Indigenous people had a sophisticated code of moral conduct – but it was not a written code – “imprinted upon their hearts” – that they followed with constancy.

And their interactions with the colonials showed that even though they had a “Big Book” they often did not practice what they preached.

For some fascinating insights into the Native character of over 200 years ago, I recommend reading History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations, Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighbouring States (first published 1819).

At 346 pages, it is a detailed look. It was written by Rev. John Heckewelder, a Christian missionary who learned their language and lived among them for many years.

You can read the book for free at Gutenberg at this link –

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50350/50350-h/50350-h.htm

Yes, although some religious folk will say that since goodness emanates directly from God’s nature, we are good because it reflects God’s nature, with empathy being a part of the divine character. This would predate religion. — Tom Storm

But still depends on an external source for empathy - a god - and empathy is not that but something we developed as we evolved as a social species.

God doesn’t solve any problems when it comes to making moral decisions. — Tom Storm

I recall a quote from an 18th century Indigenous person - who said to a colonizer - "You white folk need a Big Book to tell you what is right, but what is right is engraved upon my heart."

It's absurd to think that humanity was a group of brutish, evil monsters without empathy before religion was "invented." Many aspects of religion were outgrowths of capacities well advanced by evolution in the human species before they ever decided to link these capacities with supernatural beings.

Empathy came first, religion followed.

But religion got itself all tied up with all kinds of hypocrisies. And, humans just got smarter, and reject fairy tales as fact.

But empathy remains, since we are hard-wired for it.

calling a woman an adult human female is not dogma. Its a description. — AmadeusD

One word is not a description. We need the fullness of language to describe any one person's experience. We need the fullness of intricate meaning and understanding.

As Henry Miller wrote -

“I do not believe in words, no matter if strung together by the most skillful man: I believe in language, which is something beyond words, something which words give only an adequate illusion of.”

And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'. — Philosophim

What is a woman? — BenMcLean

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons.

Dogma is authoritative – as if only it is the truth – as if identification by others should supersede self-identification.

The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth.

I am more a skeptic than a dogmatist, encouraging open-mindedness and questioning rather than stifling them.

This is a language argument. — Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want"

than getting something you want. — Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." You seem to imply that transgender persons are somehow selfish should their claim to their true identity be their goal. Do you apply this judgement only to transgender persons, or to all persons?

Global warming. — Philosophim

Invalidating and erasing a scientific theory is not the same as invalidating and erasing a state of being.

Although, ignorance applies in both cases.

Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or a — Philosophim

If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society. — Philosophim

Trans men are men. Trans women are women.

"What they should be able to do in society?" - I believe you are talking about using public rest rooms and playing in sports. Well, I have to tell you, only the people who pretend to be the gender that they are not are the danger in rest rooms, and barring trans persons from the rest rooms will not solve that problem. They are not the problem.

In sports - a transgender woman would still have the strength of a man, so should not be allowed to enter as a woman in sports. But - I will mention - - trans people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and even fewer of recent Olympians (0.001%) identify as trans.

A total red herring.

Here's the thing - the current war against transgender persons in the US is not about using the language properly, it is a campaign based on disgust - and disgust should never be the basis for policy.

You made no comment about Bree Fram, that I introduced to you?

There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language. — Philosophim

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons.

You is an absolute global unique fact. It's coordinate zero so to speak. There are no multiple coordinate zeros, unless there are multiple disjoint worlds, at which point one of the worlds would become the true coordinate zero again. — bizso09

Hmm ... interesting. The thought that comes to my mind is that none of us live in absolute isolation. My brain operates in a loop intimately connected to the environment.

Stimulus detected > analyzed > response

Does that mean that the world is fundamentally self-contradictory? — bizso09

This immediately made me think of the balance of opposites we find in this world. I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but various selves do not necessarily contradict, but exist upon a spectrum with opposites at each end. Individuals vs. the whole.

And this reminded me of some of the opening lines in The Tao -

... All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the want of skill is.

... So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to (the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and that being before and behind give the idea of one following another.

transgenderism (is that a word?) — Ecurb

I'm not sure. It doesn't sound right, does it?

Acceptance of trans people (and that includes using their new names and pronouns) is a matter of decency and good manners. — Ecurb

Agreed.

If some transgender individuals are "born that way" and others are not, would it be reasonable to discriminate against the latter group, but not the former? — Ecurb

I would say that discrimination is never reasonable?

Although I am not quite sure what you mean. Could you help me understand with an example?

we can accurate determine whether there is a direct correlation between being trans and being autistic. — AmadeusD

then the independent variable would be "autism/non-autism" and the dependent variable would be the incidence of transgenderism

If it were not a self-image problem, we would not be hearing about it. — AmadeusD

Let's look at this again. I had some difficulty with the word "image" because it tended to ignore the deeply embedded self-identity created in one's mind. But maybe that's where self-image is created, too. So, with transgender persons, I would imagine that the image they have of themselves does not align with the image portrayed by their outside body.

But this is not scientific certainty. — Philosophim

And your theory is?

We're still not quite certain what causes people to be gay, much less transgender. — Philosophim

here's the thing - why is a scientific theory need to believe people when they tell us who they are? Yes, science marches on, but if I talk face-to-face with a person who shares their experience, I am going to try to understand, not judge them.

Actually, people do decide to become trans gender, if you're talking about 'transitioning'. — Philosophim

Transitioning is care for a state of being recognized long before that.

As for 'trans gender' like a boy liking dolls, I just view that as sexist language. And I think you can decide to be, or not be sexist. — Philosophim

You are still not getting the concept of gender identity being imprinted in the brain.

No, transgenderism is absolutely an ideology. — Philosophim

Not to the transgender person.

Gender, the term in itself, is not an ideology. Its simply an assertion that people have a belief about how men and women should act in society. — Philosophim

No, no, no, no, no. Please re-read all of my previous posts.

its just noting that when transgender groups start to ask for language and laws to change, that is by definition a sociopolitical aim. — Philosophim

All they ask is that basic rights not be denied

Tell me - do you approve of the Trump administration barring all transgender persons from military duty?

Meet Bree Fram -



As a kid, Bree Fram dreamed of becoming an astronaut. After 9/11, she joined the Air Force and deployed to the Persian Gulf, where she tested new technologies to protect convoys from improvised explosive devices. That assignment led to her specialty: managing teams that built novel systems. (One came up with tools that could be used to take over an attacking drone, forcing it to fall from the sky.) The military kept sending Fram back to school, and her advanced degrees piled up. When the Space Force was created, she drafted its blueprint for acquiring the technologies of the future and ensured that new initiatives didn’t get smothered by bureaucracy. Her mission was cut short by a biographical fact: Fram is transgender. Upon arriving in office, Trump barred from service anyone who did not identify with their birth gender.

The Purged

It is attitudes like yours that make it so difficult for people like Bree

But until then, its a lie or embellishment from an ideological group that wants control and power. — Philosophim

Oh dear. So you are operating from fear, rather than reasoned thinking?

We might also say its selfish, narcissistic, deluded, and/or sexist. — Philosophim

I feel sorry for your transgender friend you have mentioned in the past. I don't think you can be a very good friend.

Ideologies can gain power because they assert 'their truth'. — Philosophim

You fail to grasp the argument. Transgender persons only want to live their own truth.

So ask away. — Philosophim

Why can't you just accept them as they are?

I just cannot understand what it says about my point there - emotions arise in the mind. They are mindstates. — AmadeusD

I suppose, but like all neurological responses, they begin with sensory input

So yeah, standard method would be to introduce a control group for each aspect you're studying. That wouldn't be hard, but you'd have the data to compare between all four groups. — AmadeusD

But why would you want to see this:

I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. — AmadeusD

Seems to me this is hte case for most self-image problems. — AmadeusD

Herein lies your misunderstanding. Being transgender is not a "self-image problem."

I could never understand the obsession with the need to have a rigid definition of "man" and "woman." As if the fate of humanity rested upon it. Can't we just accept that we all humans, riddled with variation?

It seems there are a lot of people out there taking the absurd position that, "You cannot be what you are, because I do not know what you are."

Well, then, learn.

Learn.

Paradigm shifts are difficult. We have to let go of old beliefs that no longer fit the new reality, and our instinct is to be resistant to that. But you risk nothing when you try to understand where someone else is coming from.

Approach the issue as a fellow human, not some pedant.

deleted

was Trump so petty that he had to through Machado under the bus because she got a Nobel prize? When is Trump we are talking about it, it might be really the reason. — ssu

Yes, he is that petty, and egocentric. According to reporting from the Washington Post, Trump is not installing the legally-elected Machado because she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize instead of giving it to him -

The day before, Trump had effectively dismissed the prospects of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, including Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, whose stand-in candidate, Edmundo González, won more than two-thirds of the vote in an election last year that saw Maduro refuse to leave office.

“It’d be very tough for her to be the leader,” Trump said when asked about Machado on Saturday, adding that she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.”

[…]
Two people close to the White House said the president’s lack of interest in boosting Machado, despite her recent efforts to flatter Trump, stemmed from her decision to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, an award the president has openly coveted.

Although Machado ultimately said she was dedicating the award to Trump, her acceptance of the prize was an “ultimate sin,” said one of the people.

“If she had turned it down and said, ‘I can’t accept it because it’s Donald Trump’s,’ she’d be the president of Venezuela today,” this person said.

This act of his alone demonstrates he does not have the interests of the Venezuelan people in mind.

Why would it shock you if it wouldn't surprise you? — frank

It would be a shock to the system but not unexpected from Trump

I'm not a fraidy-cat person, but I fear for the precarious position the world is currently in.

Gangsters are in charge.

I'm Canadian, and though it would shock me it would not surprise me if Trump moves on Canada.

I doubt there was such forethought... and the recent news indicates otherwise. Hitting someone generally results in their getting their back up, rather than their becoming more cooperative. — Banno

From an article linked to the one you linked -

"But the assumption that forcefully overthrowing the current government will lead to a smooth transition to democracy is dangerous," he said.

"Venezuela is full of armed groups that would resist the regime's collapse and undermine any effort to restore the rule of law. Generals currently loyal to Maduro might install an even more repressive leader.

"Without a viable strategy for what comes after the government falls, ousting Maduro could lead to even greater repression and hardship for Venezuelans."

No oil company will invest in infrastructure in the circumstances Trump has created. — Banno

My guess is that he has them lined up already, since he has stated an agreement publicly.

But your point is taken - it will be quite the unstable set of circumstances.

Governance and policy are inconveniences, minor details, (as are people affected) that Trump is not interested in. At home, he leaves that stuff to Vought, Miller and Hegseth. (And they, in their self-serving ways, feed Trump's delusions that he is indeed the god of it all.) The only thing that concerns Trump is how he is going to get his cut of the pie.

Whose power play is this? — ssu

Putin, Xi Jinping, Trump


The day after USA took Venezuela, this is what Trump said to Fox news -

"We have to do it again. We can do it again, too. Nobody can stop us. There's nobody that has the capability that we have."

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTF5r13EXTR/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Ha! Folk think there's a plan... — Banno

There doesn't seem to be any plan for exactly how they are going to "run" Venezuela. Apparently, there is no plan to install the rightfully-elected. So, we'll have to wait and see how much the current power vacuum destabilizes the country.

It seems the only plan is "get the oil."

This is actually a plan to get rid of the US from being the sole Superpower. And Trump is eager to carry out his role, if he gets the billions he wants. — ssu

Whose plan is it?

The way I understand it, Putin, Xi JInping and Trump are in a quid pro quo threesome, each concerned with their own imperialist goals.

Trump is certainly in it for the money, but I think he wants to expand US power, not eliminate it.

First of all, Russia isn't a superpower and China won't ever overtake the US, even if it came very close to overtaking it, — ssu

No, they won't be taking over one another, but leaving one another to their own sphere of influence.

Currently, it's Trump gets Venezuela, Putin gets Ukraine, and Xi gets Taiwan.

Hence when you say that there are three Superpowers, you have already swallowed the Kremlin/Beijing rhetoric. Where does this defeatism come from? — ssu

I concede that maybe I shouldn't have used the world "superpower" to describe Russia. Maybe "power at play" would have been more accurate.

We just freakin' annexed Venezuela? — frank

There’s a plan in place to carve the world up into three superpowers.

In George Orwell’s 1984, the author envisaged such a world run by Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. What we find in the story:

Officially the three superpowers were permanently at war, with all three constantly forming new alliances, and breaking them, and changing sides. But in reality, as Big Brother’s representative O’Brien finally explains to Winston Smith, the ostensible war was a sham. Each and all the superpowers’ leaders were interested only in power and in personal aggrandisement; and they perceived, as despots have done throughout all history, that the easy the way to keep their own unruly populations in check was to be at war, or to be seen to be at war, so that the people felt obliged to unite against a common enemy.

How prescient was Orwell in describing our modern-day reality, where these three powers – Trump’s USA, Putin’s Russia, and Xi Jinping’s China – vie for power?

Will they work together to divide the world up into three spheres of power and influence – three sections of colonies controlled by the three super-powers?

What does Trump mean in invoking the Monroe Doctrine as a “Trump Corollary” in a pledge of “potent restoration of American power and priorities” to the Western hemisphere?

What does he mean when he says, “We’re going to run the place.”

Trump has stated that he wants to take over Canada and Greenland. Now, he’s got Venezuela. Who is next? Should Carney shut off the geolocation on his phone?

According to one analysis:

Trump appears unperturbed by stronger Chinese and Russian spheres of influence – as long as he has a domain to match Xi Jinping’s and Vladimir Putin’s.

Does Trump want the entire Western hemisphere?

And now, Trump’s support of Putin and Russia is starting to make more sense.

Trump would give Ukraine to Putin, and in return Putin would give Venezuela to Trump.

Venezuela is Russia's most important trading and military ally in Latin America. Russia recognized Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela

This was a case of “You keep out of my face, I’ll keep out of yours.”

Putin gets his prize in Europe, and Trump gets trillions of dollars in oil.

You think it is a coincidence that Trump sent warships into the Caribbean one day after his meeting with Putin in Anchorage?

According to the Congressional testimony in 2019 of Fiona Hill, this kind of deal was on the table during the first Trump Administration

https://i.postimg.cc/hG078Z7y/Fiona-Hill.jpg

But here, you're singling out one layer in this complex and dynamic whole, and claiming that 'everything' is derived from that layer. That is, after all, exactly what reductionism does - it reduces (or tries to reduce) consciousness, intentionality, rational inference, and so on, to the level of the so-called 'hard sciences', where absolute certainty is thought to be obtainable, where everything can be made subject to so-called 'scientific method'. I'm not going to try and give a detailed account of what I think it wrong with that, other than registering it here. — Wayfarer

Thank you for that. I respectfully hold a different point-of-view on the matter (pun intended).

"Reduce" is a funny word. I rather think of the functioning of the brain as a grand, astonishing, glorious, stupendous culmination of the evolutionary process. I am blown away when I think of it, as much as I am blown away when I gaze upon a star-studded night sky. I sense the bigness of it all, not the smallness. I can affirm the reverence that should be accorded life, even while understanding its source.

And - what do you mean? Reduced from what? The notion that there is something else - something more - accounting for our mental capacities - that human consciousness is a fundamental component of reality as opposed to a manifestation of natural processes, jerks humans out of all of nature, makes us something special that evidence and logic do not support. We are not "above and beyond" nature, but a part of it, just like everything else that exists. An anthropocentric understanding of consciousness to me is at best arrogant, and at worst narcissistic.

A materialist explanation of a work of art would be that it comprises these materials that make up the surface on which the paint is applied, that the various pigments comprise such and such chemical bases, that react together in such and such a way as to produce the various hues and shades that are visible to the observer.

Do you think that such an account, no matter how detailed, will ever satisfy the requirements given here by Tolstoy? — Wayfarer

This interpretation misses a key point - it neglects the artist and the receiver of art, on who Tolstoy's focus was. A painting is merely matter, but a brain is "matter in motion" - involved in complex chemical processes, with capacities for sign, symbol, and meaning.

Isn't science supposed to be explanatory? If science cannot answer the "what is it like?" question, isn't that a huge failure? — RogueAI

No.

It is not just when someone else reads my writing that they find meaning you didnt intend. The very structure of intention guarantees that you will end up meaning something other than what you intended in the very act of intending to mean something. — Joshs

Art is in the eye of the beholder

The act of meaning is never purely present to itself. It is always contaminated by something other than itself. — Joshs

In this case, seen through the prism of the reader's experience

neuroscience cannot tell us whether we should believe a person who claims to not feel any emotions. — RogueAI

Well, Mary would probably be excluded from the study.

but doesn't provide any information about the content of the emotional state- the famous what is it like? — RogueAI

Why does this matter?

Isn't it possible that a small unnoticeable change to a region of the brain could result in her condition? Or it could be a psychological condition that a brain scan will never pick up? — RogueAI

I guess so.

Sorry, I don't understand the purpose of these questions in the context of this discussion.

Let's go back to my earlier question about Mary: Suppose Mary falls and hits her head and says she can't feel any emotions anymore. Her body still displays all the physical signs of emotions, but Mary claims to never actually feel any emotion anymore. How would neuroscience verify this claim? Suppose her brain is studied and everything is normal. Do we not believe her? — RogueAI

Sounds like Mary is either delusional or lying. Brain trauma can interfere with the emotional response, but that would manifest in physical symptoms, like monotone speaking, no change in facial expression, avoidance of eye contact and neutral body language (i.e. relaxed and staying still in a situation where they should be tense)

Also - if she really "felt no emotions" the injury to one of these structures would be detected: hypothalamus, amygdala, hippocampus