James Comey’s May Day OP is a must read. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the link - it's a very interesting read, even though it's extremely depressing.

So basically Relativist agree's that there are problems at the border, but then comes the Freudian slip: Trump's border wall doesn't work, Trump's rhetoric is bad. — ssu

If you're going to criticize what I said, you should read me more carefully. What I said is that a border wall does not solve *all* important problems (e.g. it does not reduce asylum seeking), and I also said that his rhetoric MIGHT have contributed to the current influx of asylum seekers ("better come now before the wall goes up or the border is closed"). I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but it is certainly a possibility.

Personally, I think there probably are places that border barriers would probably be helpful - but it address only a subset of the problems, and doesn't even actually completely solve that subset (shut off one mode of entry will likely result in pursuing others). If I had my way, I'd leave it on the table, but I wouldn't make it the prime objective. Most importantly, I don't claim to be an expert - and I think the complex nature of the situation screams out for analysis BY experts to identify the problem and propose remedies.

Imagine if theoretical physicists considered causation optional: it would be the end or research. I think it's safe to continue assuming it, even though it is impossible to prove, because the success of science provides good inductive support to accept it as true (or at least, as highly likely to be true).

There remain som more interesting considerations: 1) is causation present due to physical necessity or metaphysical necessity? 2) if everything that exists has been caused, does this imply an infinite causal chain? If not, then this implies something exists (or existed) that was not caused.

The semantic discussion can be avoided by sticking strictly to the facts and refraining from use of the misleading term "collusion." But if it is going to be brought up, it should be called out.

The Mueller report paints a very dark picture of Trump's behavior, irrespective of whether it fits prosecutable crimes. I'm aware of only 2 Republicans who acknowledge this. The rest simply dismiss the report under the veil that "it exonerates the President of collusion." In effect, lying doesn't matter to them as long as it wasn't under oath. Obstruction and witness tampering is irrellevant to them if it has not been proven to have affected the ability to prosecute a crime.

How do we conclude what we "feel"?

To be precise, the actual experiencing of a feeling is not a conclusion. The describing or labelling of a feeling entails a conclusion that relates a standard semantic description of a feeling-word (or phrase) to one's introspective analysis of the feeling that is experienced.

" you're applying some common sensical meaning to what collusion entails (we don't have a set legal definition and jurisprudence dealing with its interpretation) and then set out to shoehorn facts of the report into evidence for something for which no evidentiary barrier is set. Why go down that road at all? "
To get the facts straight. Republicans continue to make the false assertion that Trump was exonerated of "collusion". The relevant facts are that there was not sufficient evidence for a prosecutable case of criminal conspiracy, but there was nevertheless a great deal of lying about the many interactions with Russians, as well as obstructive behavior that may have blocked finding the complete truth about conspiracy (particularly the manipulation of Manafort).

The lessons that you speak of that can be learned from the Trump administration's failed tactics are? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Consider the zero tolerance policy that led to separating parents from children. Trump thought this would be a deterrent and ignored the morality (and associated public backlash) and the stress this would place on the immigration courts. Lessons learned: morality should be considered and given priority; consider the consequences of planned actions and plan for dealing with those consequences.

Consider Trump's rhetoric and the possibility that this contributed to a rush to the anticipated soon-to-be-closed border. Lesson learned: words can have consequences, and may even exacerbate the problem you're complaining about.

Trump preached that the wall would solve all important problems, ignoring credible criticism. Lesson: take criticism seriously, rather than dismissing it. Identify all the problems, by soliciting input and analysis from across both parties and a variety of backgrounds and expertise. Identify potential solutions and anticipate benefits, costs, and negative consequences to each. Anticipate that course corrections will be needed. The focus should be on problem solving, rather than "winning".

Trump has threatened to cut off aid to the Central American Countries to punish them for failing to prevent their residents from coming to the US. Experts have noted that this is likely to result in MORE migrations, not fewer. Even if one is skeptical of this, one should consider the possibility the critics are right. Perhaps MORE aid would help. Perhaps more control of the way the aid is spent should be sought - I don't know, but it can certainly be considered and studied.

Trump has frequently complained about our immigration laws. Lesson learned: at best this is ineffective; at worst it is divisive. Why hasn't he asked for a bi-partisan commission to revise the laws (accepting reasonable compromise) to make them more workable?

And speaking of compromise: Trump and the Republicans have failed to reach out to Democrats on any major policies (not just immigration). They treat "compromise" as a bad word, an anathema to be avoided at all costs. Lesson learned: bipartisanship is a good thing. Compromise should not be considered a loss, or caving in - rather it is a way to progress.

Qualia (which is the plural of "quale") are sensory experiences, such as the sensation of headache pain or the experience of the color red. Because a blind person (if blind from birth) has never experienced the redness of an object, they cannot truly know the color red (or any other color) - this quale "redness" is meaningless to such a person, although they can gain some propositional knowledge about the concept of color (e.g. wavelength range, knowing what objects are red, the concept of mixing paints or combining light colors...).

Imagine creating an artificial intelligence that can identify the color red based on measuring the wavelength of the light reflected by objects. This AI will still not experience red as we do. Some suggest that your experience of redness isn't even the same as mine - but there's no objective way to know whether this is true or not (I personally believe that we do experience redness very similarly, but not identically).

There's lessons to be learned from the Trump administration's failed tactics. They haven't been the sort of obvious, short term remedies that are done for treating gaping wounds - and they show that the wrong treatment can actually make the problem worse. There's not even agreement on what the problems ARE. For example, Trump would like to shut off all asylum seekers. An absence of a wall has not caused the current crisis.

In a more perfect world, one with more statesmanship and less politics, a bipartisan group would be convened to identify the problems and their causes, and then develop fact-based policy recommendations that could be implemented while being monitored for efficacy. I'm skeptical that can happen here.

There are problems that are manifested at the border, but a border wall does not solve it because asylum seekers can enter through legal points of entry. Trump's rhetoric has done more harm than good: it has induced people to come now, because they think the opportunity will disappear. We absolutely need comprehensive immigration reform, which should include things like guest workers and better control of the asylum process. If Trump were interested in solving problems, instead of "winning"- we could make progress.

What exactly do we mean when we state a feeling? — Edward

The meaning is the feeling itself. The words are an attempt to convey the fact that this feeling is being held, and it can only be truly understood by someone who has experienced that feeling.The same is true of all qualia. The word "red" means the that property of perception that we label "red". A person who has been totally blind from birth cannot truly understand what red is.

The key question is: what is consciousness?.

Philosophy of mind discusses a variety of aspects of consciousness, such as the holding of beliefs, intentionality, qualia,... and there's no evidence of such things being present in objects other than organisms with brains. However, if you believe in some form of dualism, I see no reason to rule out minds being attached to anything.

I recommend Micheal Tye's book ,"Tense Bees and Shell Shocked Crabs: Are Animals Conscious?". He explores the very topic you are investigating.

Here's a link to it on Amazon: here, where you can see a preview.

The Muller report is not a court though, it was meant as a probe to find and discover evidence. It found evidence of obstruction, but it did not find evidence of collusion — VagabondSpectre

Not true. There is indeed evidence of collusion. What Mueller did not find was a prosecutable case for criminal conspiracy. On the latter, there is some evidence that is suggestive of conspiracy when considered in the context of Trump's behavior toward Putin.

Working with Wikileaks and attempting to work directly with Russia on the Clinton dirt was collusion, but does not fit the legal definition of criminal conspiracy.

Trump's hinting at a pardon for Manafort, and Manafort's responding by lying implies they're hiding something - which could very well be actual conspiracy. Absolutely not prosecutable, but nevertheless highly suspicious.

Trump gets away with passing judgement on his opponents based on "hunch" (e.g. Obama spying on him), so turnabout seems fair play. He vilified Hillary for deleting emails, and he deserves vilifying for his alleged amnesia and hiding his finances.

I brought up 2 key issues, and I can't discern your position, so I'll ask directly.

1) Are you skeptical of causation within the universe? The progress of science depends on the assumption that everything in the universe has a causal explanation (i.e. the PSR). Although it is an unprovable assumption, the success of science provides abductive support for it.

2) Are you (merely) contending that brute facts are metaphysically possible?

3) Are you generally skeptical, such that you choose to believe only that which can be proven analytically? Some of your posts give me this impression, and this may explain why you (seem to) question the PSR.

I addressed that in the rest of my post.

"Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen?"

From a strictly semantic point of view: no. Labeling something "an effect" implies it is an effect of something, and that "something" is its cause. In other words: there is a cause if and only if there is an effect.

Perhaps you're asking if causeless things can exist. Within the universe, it appears that every state of affairs has been caused by prior states of affairs. The state of the universe at time Tx is a direct consequence of the universe's state at time Tx-1.

So-called "virtual particles" were brought up. They are caused. A "virtual particle" refers to interactions between a quantum field and other things (other fields, measurement devices). Quantum fields fluctuate in a deterministic manner per a Schroedinger equation (here is a good description of "virtual particles.")

So if things within the universe are caused, what about the universe itself? The universe may be the result of physical conditions that necessarily cause universes to exist. What about these prior physical conditions? Perhaps these were caused by still earlier conditions, and this reflects a long chain of cause-effect. Does the chain end? We're left with two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain of causes, or there is an uncaused cause. Some of us argue that an infinite causal chain is impossible, while others insist it is possible. Take your pick.

Start with an account that a historian would give, one that is as complete as possible. Next show how these factors supervene on the mental activities of the individuals involved with declaring and waging the war.

Just cause Matthew says so and so many people saw miracle X, doesn't mean they did. — NKBJ

That's even worse, because the author of Matthew was not even an eyewitness. He's just passing along hearsay.

Person 1 Claim: "I won the lottery, my friend saw the ticket and can confirm"
Person 2 Claim: "I won the lottery, 10 people were saw the ticket and can confirm" — coolguy8472

There no difference, because in both cases it is just a claim that YOU are making. If it's a lie, it's just a somewhat bigger lie to claim 10 people have confirmed.

On the other hand, if 10 people actually tell me they saw your winning ticket, that increases the epistemic probability to me that you actually won.

FYI - In 2016 there were 10 "faithless electors" who tried to vote against the candidate to whom they were pledged. 3 of these votes were invalidated, and 7 of them were validated. This Wikipedia article has the details.

The natural= That which exists (has existed, or will exist) including ourselves, everything that is causally connected to ourselves, and anything not causally connected (such as alternate universes) that is inferred to exist, to have existed, or that will exist, through analysis of our universe.

The fact of your nationality (and age) is irrelevent as regards your chance of winning a lottery, so this statement is wrong. The chance that the winner would be a Czech (any Czech) may be .03% of the chance that it would be an American (any American), but your chance as an individual is the same as any other individual's. — Tim3003

Tim- I know that. I was just looking for a way to succinctly show that it's wrong.

For the record, this pertains to a discussion I'm having about the so-called fine-tuning argument.

I didn't actually win, and obviously it's because I'm a 65 year old, male Czech.

I think you nailed the error. I can express it in terms of conditional probability:
where P(a|b) = the probability of a, given that b is true

C=being Czech
W=winning

P(W|C)=P(W|~C)=P(W)

After hearing Trump's proposal for a temporary extension of DACA, I was modestly optimistic that this might be at least an initial step towards some kind of compromise. I was so wrong. The actual legislation the White House sent to the Senate does even more harm: it curtails the ability to apply for asylum and it does not extend DACA - it replaces it, reducing the number than can apply; and the TPS extension is also limited. (see this article).

These issues should be debated and shaped legislatively, in a comprehensive reform of immigration law.

Feb 16, 2017
Trump: “DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me...You have these incredible kids, in many cases not in all cases. In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too...I have to deal with a lot of politicians—don’t forget—and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. The DACA situation is a very difficult thing for me as I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grand kids and I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the law is rough. It’s rough, very very rough.”

So it appears Trump really wants to help Dreamers. So how can his offering to temporarily help Dreamers constitute a compromise? Compromise entails giving something you don't want, or giving up something you DO want.

Right. He of the Sarah Pailin VP choice. He was not-so-great, only with effort better than Trump. Of course he did have some principles.... — tim wood

McCain regretted picking Palin (see this). Admitting to a mistake is a sign of both intelligence and humility.

Jeff Flake? Mitt Romney?

How about let's not cast baseless smears just because we don't like secure borders? — Inis

It's not baseless, but it's relatively unimportant whether or not Tump is a racist in his heart. What's important is that his rhetoric appeals to racists, and it repels those of us who are not:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

That's only one factor in the equation.
This Wikipedia article provides a balanced analysis.

Trump is a consequence of the right wing punditocracy. This is no exaggeration; listeners are his base, and Trump frequently takes advice from them.

I'm not so sure about that. You should hear some of the Republican politicians grovel before Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Having right-wing media turn on you can likely damage your popularity among conservative voters. — Arkady

Funny you should mention that, because Mike Pence was a guest on today's Rush Limbaugh show. Pence said: " Thank you, Rush. It’s always an honor. I just left the Oval Office — told the president I was headed to be on your program — and we couldn’t be more grateful for your voice on the airwaves of America every day. Everything we’ve accomplished over the last two years — rebuilding our military, reviving our economy, setting a record for conservatives appointed to our courts, America’s growing at home, we’re standing tall on the world stage — you’ve played a key role in that. And, Rush, we don’t thank you enough. But thank you for all that you’ve meant to this movement and to the progress that we’ve made in this country."
(source)

Do his supporters believe Trump is clairvoyant?

I don't know how else to explain their complete trust in every "solution" he comes up with, despite there being no evidence of careful study and analysis. This is my main beef with his pushing of a wall. I have no a priori commitment against a barrier, at least in some places, if it will help - and it will not cause other problems (e.g. environmental or stealing personal property). But it has NOT been studied in full, with a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

Now? That would make Mike Pence President and Nancy Pelosi Vice President. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Pence becoming President would not result in Pelosi becoming Vice President. She would briefly be the next in the line of succession - while remaining Speaker, but only until Pence appoints a new Vice President and s/he is confirmed.

I don't know that it's an honorable profession, but it does seem to be one sort of profession that a truly honorable person might take. I suspect some people become doctors from an initial noble intent, but based on my personal experience - this nobility often disappears. My personal physician (internal medicine) seems drawn to it by the intellectual challenge of diagnosing. There's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's similar to my being drawn to software engineering and support, but it's not "noble" per se.

Remember Dr. Kevorkian? Regardless of whether you agree with what he did, it seems to me he was driven (at least partly) by noble intent. Doctors who spend a lot of time on charity cases seem driven by noble intent. But most of the ones we run across are just doing their job.

April 2016, Trump said, ""We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly, folks. It's gonna be fast. I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."

He did keep part of this promise: he was unpredictable.

In May 2017, he said that in 2 weeks, he would announce his plan. It never happened.

1. If I read my logic book then I will feel tired and frustrated
2. I feel tired and frustrated
3. Therefore I read my logic book

Question: is this a valid argument? a fallacy?
If you can't get this right, you' d better return to reading it.

What is a concept? I suggest it is an abstraction, described propositionally.

You seem to be suggesting there exist platonic entities that correspond to numbers, but that our propositional description of these things is flawed as a consequence of our intellectual limitations. Without a referrent, there can be no flaw in that description.

Can't we also agree that how a person weighs such factors is not merely backward looking, not merely a matter of past experience and belief, but also forward looking -- a matter of what kind of person the agent wishes to be? And, if that is so, then the past is not fully determinative. We know, as a matter of experience, of cases of metanoia, of changes in past beliefs and life styles. While this does not disprove determination by the past, it makes it very questionable. — Dfpolis

No, it's not just beliefs - it's also due to dispositions and can be influenced by impulsiveness. These are also consistent with determination. Questionable? It's questionable either way.

The coherence of compatibilism shows that a determinist's ontological commitment is not falsified. Still, I agree that the coherence of compatibilism doesn't falsify a libertarian's belief either.

I don't think the arguments given do this. They begin by noting that we feel responsible, and show how this plays a role in our behavior -- none of which is in dispute. The question of why would we have a false belief in responsibility if we are not responsible is simply not addressed. Why couldn't we reprogram the drunk driver with prison or a scarlet "D" because reprogramming works (if it does), and not because of an irrelevant responsibility narrative? — Dfpolis

I suggest that you are defining responsibility from a libertarian's point of view, and observing that my account is inconsistent with it. The account I gave has the explanatory scope needed to show that moral accountability is still a coherent concept under compatibilism, even though it is not the identical concept to that of LFW.