I've even met people who argue for libertarian free will, and then upon some investigation it turns out all of their intuitions about free will are compatibilist too (but that's a bit rarer). — flannel jesus

Are you familiar with Molinism? William Lane Craig is a Molinist, insisting that we have LFW despite the fact that each choice could not have differed from what it actually was - because you can't do something contrary to what the omniscient God knew you would do. He nevertheless insists choices are freely willed: God just happens to have magical knowledge of what freely willed choices you will make.

In other "possible worlds" you might have made different choices, but that would be because the circumstances were different. This is nearly identical to compatibilism. The only real difference is that Craig assumes the mind/will operates independently of the deterministic forces of the universe. So although one's past "determines" (loosely speaking) ones choices, the determining is not exclusively due the necessity of laws of nature.

Well, of course, which we get through physical sensors that display information through light on a screen to your eyes. — Lionino

Maybe we can agree with this: all our knowledge of the world is grounded in our physical senses.

I'm late to the game, and I'm sorry if this has already been brought up. But just in case it hasn't, here's my response to the Op:

However, what about ¬(A→B)? What can we say about this in English? The first thought is "A does not imply B". But here is the trouble:

if ¬(A→B) is true
and B is false,
A is true. — Lionino

No, your conclusion (A is true) is not valid. You seem to be interpreting “¬(A→B)” as: “¬A->¬B”, and that’s invalid. “¬(A→B)” just means that the truth value of A does not give us a clue as to the truth value of B. A better English translation of ¬(A→B) is : it is not the case that A implies B

Consider these substitutions:
A=All bluebirds fly
B=Fred is a duck
This is consistent with ¬(A→B) being true. If we discover Fred is a pigeon then B is false, but it tells us nothing about whether or not all bluebirds fly.

There's plenty of evidence. I find that most people don't seem to be able to evaluate evidence properly, or they have an epistemological view that puts too much emphasis on science or a certain scientific view. Epistemology is more expansive than just science. Most of what we know is through the testimony of others. — Sam26

Do you agree that the best case you could possibly make would be an abductive one (i.e. an inference to best explanation)? In earlier posts, I've accused you of making an argument from ignorance - but you can avoid that by casting it as an abduction - arguing that your hypothesis is the best explanation for all available data. Why don't you do that? Fair warning: expect me, and others, to point out facts that you may be overlooking and the ad hoc nature of some assumptions you may be making.

*edit* I want to comment on this:

I'm not assuming anything. I'm making an inference based on the testimonial evidence that has been corroborated by doctors, nurses, family members, and friends. — Sam26

The correct inference should be: these people had some mental experiences, not that these mental experiences were of actual events. A mental experience COULD be associated with an actual event, but there's no evidence of it.

You have treated the state of the person (e.g. "near death"/comatose/ etc) as somehow implying the person must have had an actual experience, but that does not follow. Slightly stronger, but still deficient - you've suggest that measurable brain activity is nonexistent (or nearly so), and therefore the mental experience cannot be due to brain activity. Wrong again, because this depends on the assumption that these sort of mental activites would necessarily produce measureable brain activity. Brain measurements do not detect all neuronal activities. Again, it's POSSIBLE, but you haven't showed this possibility is the best explanation.

Being that we are physical beings who receive information through physical senses, one wonders if evidence of the non-physical is even possible. — Lionino

Fair point, but it only points to the logical possibility that something nonphysical exists --and that's insufficient to justify belief in it.

I'll add that we aren't JUST limited to information we receive through our senses. We can't physically sense quantum fields, but we have inferred their existence based on theoretical models that have great explanatory power and scope.

Given the pattern in scientific research and models, I can't see how there is the possibility to falsify the idea 'if we discovered something non-physical' we would change our model to include dualism or pluralism as real possibilities or the case. — Bylaw

I'm not just referring to the prevailing scientific models, but also to an individual justifying a belief. The relevant belief we're discussing is life after death. I interpreted that as being dependent on dualism, but I grant that is debatable- but I also think that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: do the anecdotes of NDEs suffice as evidence to justify belief in a life after death? I think the answer is no.

Do you mean that we perceive these as different, our perceptions of such objects are different? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm discussing an ontological theory: they are truly different, irrespective of what we perceive.

That these angles of degrees are an accurate description of what is really the object, is highly doubtful, so we're best off to just recognize that these are descriptions of what we perceive. — Metaphysician Undercover

This was intended only as an example of an ontic property, to illustrate that properties do not exist independently of the objects that have them - in this ontological theory. If you don't happen to believe there actually exist objects with angles, it's irrelevant to the point. If you simply want to contrast this theory with some alternative theory, you first need to understand this one- then you can contrast it.

We discussed in this thread the necessity of brain to function to have a consciousness. We concluded that consciousness does not exist outside of a functioning brain.

That is a false conclusion. Our consciousness may exist after death, but since it is not bound to any body, there is no physical evidence that it exists. Likely they don't exist, but possibly they do. — god must be atheist

You'd have a point if this were a deductive conclusion. It's not. It's abductive: it's the best explanation for the set of known facts. Abductive conclusions do not prove the converse is logically impossible, and they are falsifiable. Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. But in the absence of evidence, it's ad hoc to assume dualism (even though it's logically possible).

When you say existence is a state of affairs, do you mean an "event" as in Process and Reality — Gregory

No. I'm referring to David Amstrong's use of the term. "State of affairs" is the term he uses to refer to any ontic object. If X exists, then X is a state of affairs.

He uses this clumsy term in order to stress that everything that exists has 3 types of constituents, and the constituents never exist in the world independently of a state of affairs.

The 3 types of constituents are: (thin) particular*, (intrinsic) properties, and relations (=extrinsic properties). They constitute a state of affairs.

* A state of affairs can also be referred to as a particular. This is a "thick" particular. "Thin" particular is just an abstraction of a thick particular (=state of affairs) minus the properties and relations. He does this because he denies that existents (states of affairs) are simply bundles of properties.

These conventions are semantics, and do not erase the fact that there is a ontic relation. An object with the relation labled 90 degrees is logically and ontologically different from an object that we label 45 degrees (under the same set of conventions) - and they are different irrespective of how we choose to abstractly divide a circle.

What is instantiated is what we sense as particular things, and that something has a 90 degree angle is a judgement we make. So "90 degree angle" is not an instantiation of the particular, it is a judgement which is made by human beings, produced through measurement — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying the relation of 90 degrees, that we measure, does not describe an objective fact? Of course, we define "degree" and "90", but the relation we identify as such is not mere opinion - it describes an ontological relation (setting aside the inherent error of making measurements). Do you disagree?

God should teach them how not to make unserious arguments. — Lionino

:rofl: :rofl:

[

Do you still believe you see the world as it is? — Gregory

I believe we perceive a reflection of the actual world, one that is functionally accurate - i.e. it enables us to successfully interact with the world - which is mandatory for survival. I believe ontological theories (like the one I referenced) are theories about the way the world actually is - foundational aspects, at least.

Still, all our knowledge and theories are grounded in our human perspectives (this is actually the "relativism" I based my screen name on). I also don't think this is actually a problem, or at least not a problem worth worrying about.

What are we adding to our conceptual scheme by speaking of universals that modern materialism is missing? — Gregory

I think nominalists and Humeans are missing something. Properties are ways things are, and there do seem to be multiple objects that have commonnalities in the way they are. IMO, Humean regularity theory doesn't have a satisfactory account of laws of nature. Armstrong (a modern materialist) improves upon these.

I think it's useful to consider a "soul" as a person's essence: that core of a person that actually persists over time throughout life and possibly beyond into an afterlife.

I don't actually believe in souls, an afterlife, or that there exists an ontological "essence", but focusing on essence helps to identify the problems: if there is no essence, then there is no soul.

Consider the set of memories you have. This can't be essential (part of your essence) because the set changes over time - we both add memories, and lose them. Further, there's strong evidence memories are "stored" physically in the brain, which implies they cease to exist at death. If some invisible essence (soul) of mine continues to exist after my death, it seems rather irrelevant if it lacks my memories. (When I've brought this up to Theists, they suggest God could basically copy your memories into some immaterial form that attaches to your soul. To an atheist like me, this seems an ad hoc rationalization).

To me the question is whether what we exprience as "matter" is purely material and nothing else. Aristotle doesn't believe forms are purely abstractions but reside inside, or maybe for properly "around" matter, as well as existing within the mind. — Gregory

My view is mostly consistent with (physicalist) David Armstrong's metaphysics: everything that exists (an existent) is a "state of affairs" which is a particular with its properties. Properties do not exist independently; they exist only imminantly - instantiated in a state of affairs.

The same property can be held by multiple existents, therefore a property is a universal. Example: -1 electric charge is a property held by every electron (as well as other objects), so it is a universal. Universals are anything that can be multiply instantiated, which includes sets of properties (consider the complete set of properties that an electron has; so "electron" is also a universal).

We mentally identify properties through "the way of abstraction": conceptions are formed by considering the common features of several objects or ideas and ignoring the irrelevant features that distinguish those objects. Obviously, the abstract concept of a -1 electric charge is not the charge itself.

This makes the most sense to me because it parsimoniously accounts for everything that exists, while rejecting nominalism. It even provides a framework for laws of nature.

What the framework doesn't do is to treat abstractions as having some direct relation to the objects to which they apply. There is only the indirect relation of the way of abstraction.

I'll defer to your knowledge of Aristotle, but that still doesn't make it so - that abstractions have actual, independent existence. It's unnecessary to an ontology.

I'm not a relativist in any traditional sense.

Universals have to do with forms, which are immaterial. — Gregory

That is a platonist view. The alternative (and my preference) is immanent universals: they exist exclusively in their instantiations.

Example: a 90 degree angle is instantiated in objects that have this angle. "90 degree angle" doesn't exist independently in some "platonic heaven".

I do agree that sensory experiences are not dependent on sense organs. — Sam26

You misunderstand if you think I believe that. I don't. My point is simply that IF one gives credence to those handful of NDE+OBE claims, wherein the individual purports to have seen/heard events (say) in another room, clairvoyance (perceiving events without the use of sense organs) would not be unreasonable. I'm skeptical this has truly occurred, but I know there are NDE enthusuasts who are convinced they have. They, of course, jump to the conclusion that dualism is true and the spirit lives on after death. That's non-sequitur.

You pointed to Eban Alexander, so I found and read an article he'd written. A decomposed brain is truly "mush" - it's physical structure is destroyed. Alexander's brain wasn't mush, it was sick. He was in a coma, he hadn't even died in the clinical sense you are fond of referencing. It appears that his sick brain generated some vivid mental experiences, which he interpreted as veridical heavenly experiences. I'm not impressed.

You're assuming that because the brain is still in some sense alive the experiences must be coming from that lower functioning state. There's no good evidence that that's the case. — Sam26

Argument from ignorance: neuroscience hasn't explained something, so it must be dualism. There's no evidence of anything unnatural, so it's ad hoc to propose it here. In no sense is the brain of a comatose patient dead, contrary to what you wish to believe.

Many who believe in a life after death in heaven, tend to consider these anecdotes as "proof". They made the fraudulent book "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven" a best seller.

You can choose to believe this stuff, if you like, but if you think you have an objective argument for NDEs proving dualism, or a life after death, you are fooling yourself.

The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. — Sam26

Non-sequitur. In 100% of cases, there is still a functional brain. An optimistic (yet debatable) interpretation of the evidence is that sensory input is not dependent on sense organs.

But they did. — NOS4A2

No, they didn't. Clinton was presented information purported to establish a secret communications link between Trump and Russia's Alfa Bank. She approved the proposal to make this public. No one lied, they were simply mistaken.

Funny you'd bring this up, since this incident led your hero, Durham, to prosecute Sussman for making a false statement to the FBI (one of those "process crimes" you complain about, when it involves a Trump loyalist). But it was shown at trial that Sussman believed what he told the FBI. It also came out that no one in the Clinton campaign approved taking this to the FBI. If you were consistent, you'd be complaining about the injustice done to Sussman. It never should have gone to trial.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended. — NOS4A2

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of. — Relativist

That’s the only thing you can say and it’s taken place of your arguments. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. But you have nothing to dispute it. — NOS4A2

I believe I've reviewed the facts with you before, but nevertheless I'll go over it again.

The law firm of Perkins-Coie represented the 2016 Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Marc Elias, a partner of at the firm personally hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump . Fusions research on Trump was already in progress, funded by GOP opponents).
Fusion’s research consisted of digging through court filings from Trump’s numerous lawsuits and through newspaper reports.

From their research, they saw a suspicious pattern of associations with Russians. This led Fusion to hire Steele to investigate further. Fusion told Elias only that they had hired someone from outside the US to collect intelligence about Trump’s ties to Russia. Elias gave no direction to the activities, and had no idea who was doing it. As the only conduit between Fusion and the Clinton campaign, this shows that there was no direct connection between this intelligence collection and the campaign. The work was ultimately funded by the campaign, but there has never been any evidence of wrongdoing (or direction) by anyone associated with the campaign (including Elias). Perkins-Coie paid Steele, and passed the charges along to the Clinton campaign – which incorrectly booked these costs as legal fees (based on the fees being incurred by the law firm – although it should have been identified as opposition research).

So...sure, they paid for it, but they had no idea they were paying for faulty intelligence. Furthermore, the campaign never used Steele's intelligence in their campaign. So the "propoganda I was referring to was the falsehood that the Clinton campaign wanted to make stuff up about Trump and that they used this in the campaign. That is categorically false.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended. — NOS4A2

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of.

If he did obstruct the investigation, it was because it was an unjust investigation. Obstruction of justice is wrong, Obstruction of injustice is laudable. — NOS4A2

That's laughable. Are all investigations unjust when hindsight shows the person was innocent? In this case, there's not even a rational basis to claim Trump was proven innocent - because Trump's obstruction was successful: who knows what Manafort may have revealed had he not been promised a pardon? And no, I'm not insisting Trump conspired with Russia, but it would be false to claim he was proven innocent. His obstruction undermined the investigation and thus tainted the conclusion. If there weren't so many bigger crimes by Trump, it would be a worthwhile campaign issue for Dems.

Regarding the investigation, there was a great deal of reason to be suspicious, and Trump's behavior (including the obstruction) is not the least of it. An innocent statesman would have merely expressed his confidence that the investigative process would prove his innocence. Instead, Trump's childish tirades have led to his cult members losing trust in the justice system. Despite errors being made during the investigation, they did not lead to inventing evidence or bringing false charges. That is the best evidence that the system works (setting aside the obstruction, which was clearly criminal).

I already knew you applauded Trump's illegal obstruction, and I expect you wouldn't care if Trump had conspired with Russia, either. I asked you how would justify it to an open-minded person. You obviously couldn't.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed.

as usual you’re spouting DNC and big donor propaganda. — NOS4A2

I had neither heard nor read Biden's statement. I stated something I believe to be factual based on m own analysis: the process was followed, no rules were broken. You didn't dispute that.

Biden had a perfect right to drop out, and others had a right to talk him into it. I would have accepted an open convention, had that occurred, but what I consider what occurred a better outcome because the prime objective was to defeat Trump - not to nominate the most popular loser.

I do generally wish incumbents weren't always the default candidate. Real choices would have been great, but there really weren't any - which actually makes the primary process meaningless when there's an incumbent. Since the primaries didn't offer a real choice, it doesn't make sense to suggest my will as a voter was ignored.

I am curious: since you so value democratic principles, are you in favor of eliminating the electoral college?

Here is something that might interest folks here.

There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvDrFwyW4k&t=2804s — I like sushi

I didn't watch the video, but I've read his book - so I assume it's the same message. It appears to me Sapolsky deals only with the dichotomy: Libertarian Free Will (LFW) OR No Free Will. He also considers there to be no agency unless there is LFW.

He doesn't write about compatibilism...but his description of behavior seems perfectly consistent with compatibilism.

I haven't read through all 22 pages of this thread, so I'll just ask this question: has the subject of Dialetheism come up? From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article:

"A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true. If falsity is assumed to be the truth of negation, a dialetheia is a sentence which is both true and false. ....Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias. If we define a contradiction as a couple of sentences of which one is the negation of the other, or as a conjunction of such sentences, then dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions."

Further, [Durham] writes of the two-tiered system. He writes: “Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry — NOS4A2

Durham makes no allegation of a "two-tiered" system. What he said was this:

Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates, it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia.

This was the most damning thing Durham had to say about the matter: there was POTENTIALLY some confirmation bias involved. At the time at which these Russian memos were obtained, it had already been established that Russia was working to help Trump and hurt Clinton. This background knowledge would surely have influenced the investigation. Does the DOJ always follow up 100% of leads, irrespective of their deemed credibility? I doubt it.

Much of the information Steele provided was confirmed, most importantly - the basic fact of who Russia was trying to help and who to hurt. Contrast this with the Russian memos: there has been no evidence of any kind to corroborate any of their information. Durham tried to find corroboration, but found not one whisper of it. Durham's entire tirade is based on his opinion that the Russian memos (which we now know with certainty were disinformation) should have been treated as equally credible to the Steele memos. IOW, he laments the fact that investigators failed to waste their time pursuing it! The course the investigation actually took was fruitful, in spite of the fact that errors were made along the way.

Also consider the implications of the supposed "Clinton Plan": it would have meant that the Campaign was pushing some disinformation about Trump. I admit that I would find this appalling, but a Trump supporter - who embraces and repeats Trump's frequent lies, would be hypocritical to do so.

Read about it in this New York Times article! Let me guess, unnamed sources, current and former officials, — NOS4A2

Genetic fallacy. The Times article merely fills in a bit of context about the Russian disinformation memos:

"The [Russian] memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.

Durham says nothing that contradicts the above. He wrote, "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication." That's not a lot of daylight between his comment and the NYTimes quote: he's tacitly admitting that it could be fabrication. It IS clear that Durham sought corroborating evidence for the allegation, but came up with nothing. Even if one chooses to believe the FBI committed an error in failing to follow up, it's clear that this possible error wouldn't have made a bit of difference - it would merely proven to be a waste of resources.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about why Trump obstructed the investigation. I fully realize you don't care that he did, but how would you defend it to someone who's open-minded? Imagine some other politician being investigated by the FBI, who took steps to silence witnesses - don't you think that would be a major scandal if it came out?

I need to also respond to this:

It’s unfair to replace a candidate from a race because you’re losing, especially against the will of the voters, and it’s dishonest and fraudulent to say you’ve done so for any other reason as Joe Biden and his surrogates did. — NOS4A2

As usual, you're repeating Trump-campaign propoganda.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed. If Democrats are unhappy with the way it played out (or Republicans fear this could happen to them) they can push to change the rules (as was done with the prior role of superdelegates). There aren't many Democrats who are upset with the result, though - despite so many Republicans trying to convince them that they should be.

The whole charade was the fruit of a poisoned tree, none of which should have went past a preliminary investigation, but all of which had been used against just one political campaign. — NOS4A2

Yes, Crossfire Hurricane led to Mueller. And despite the fact that you consider the investigation inappropriate because of mistakes made on 2 FISA warrants, the investigation was warranted by the evidence. Russia had stolen DNC emails, and Papadopoulos knew about it before it was released: a crime was committed, and a Trump advisor had knowledge of it. More evidence developed after that. Trump behaved suspiciously throughout the Mueller investigation - and that added more reason to investigate, irrespective of what reasons or excuses one makes for that behavior.

Durham doesn't even deny the investigation was warranted, he just opined it should have started as a "preliminary investigation", which would have changed nothing.

Like Trump, you are irrationally claiming the investigation tainted by the mistakes that were made, as an excuse to ignore what it exposed: Russian involvement (Trump STILL hasn't acknowledged this fact), cooperation with Russia by Trump staff, Trump's willingness to accept dirt on his opponent that was obtained illegally by a foreign government, and he was eager to hear what additional dirt they could provide (the infamous Trump Tower meeting) and to hear what they wanted in return. This happened. A crime wasn't committed only because Russia didn't actually have any new dirt to offer.

Perhaps you don’t know, or at least won’t mention, that “On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server. — NOS4A2

I alluded to this in my prior post: the "intelligence" was from Russian intelligence! It was part of their misinformation to convince people they weren't involved. There was no evidence this occurred other than this Russian fabrication! No one took it seriously for that reason.Durham and Barr flew around the world to try and get more evidence of it, but failed - because there was nothing. Read about it in this NY Times Article

So independent was it that the incompetent and biased investigators on the failed Crossfire Hurricane investigation were simply moved to the office of the Special Counsel. — NOS4A2

You're referring specifically to Peter Strzok, and repeating Trump's slur. Strzok didn't like Trump. So what? The IG assessed Strzok's work and found no evidence of inappropriate actions. He was removed from the Mueller investigation because of the appearance of impropriety that resulted from the release of his private text messages (Strzok recently settled a lawsuit about his unjust treatment). Durham judged that there was "confirmation bias" in the investigation, but that is debatable (investigators often follow their instincts). Durham's own confirmation bias is obvious. His judgement that a "preliminary investigation" should have been opened was made at the time the IGs report was issued, not after his investigation was concluded.
.
Serious question: if he had nothing to hide, why did Trump obstruct the investigation (which was a crime, btw) and why didn't he answer all the questions he was asked?

You’re just repeating media falsehoods. — NOS4A2

On the contrary, I read the Mueller report, the IG's report, the Senate Acitve Measures Report, and the Durham Report. You seem base your view entirely on the Durham report, and don't even seem to understand what he was examining and saying.

Durham's opined that Crossfire Hurricane should only have been opened as a preliminary investigation, and he based this on his assessment of the evidence listed in the case proposal. What Durham doesn't mention is that had it been opened as a preliminary investigation, it wouldn't have changed it's course and it would have been upgraded to a full investigation as additional evidence came in. Durham has a right to his opinion, but it is the FBI directors opinion that matters - because it is his call to make. The IG investigated and agreed. A difference of opinion with the FBI director does not imply any wrongdoing was done. And this isn't even the Mueller investigation - that investigation was initiated because Trump fired Comey. Durham had nothing but praise for Mueller.

It’s based on special counsel findings. — NOS4A2

Complete nonsense. The IG found some mistakes made during the Crossfire investigation (not the Mueller investigation), specifically with the FISA warrants on Carter Page. Durham found no other mistakes. He disagreed with some specific judgements (e.g. Durham felt that some misinformation from Russian Intelligence about Clinton's involvement should have been more fully investigated, which is ludicrous given that it's abundantly clear Russia was truly helping Trump).

As for evidence, most of those convicted in the Mueller investigation, for example, were for process crimes. Now that we know that there was no underlying crime to begin with, that the entire investigation was a failure and had no reason to start in the first place, it makes their indictments all the more unjust. — NOS4A2

Setting aside the fact that Manafort committed serious financial crimes, DOJ often threatens to prosecute "process crimes" to induce the witnesses to cooperate. It often does work, but in this case - Trump managed to keep them loyal by promising them pardons. Loyalist Barr killed the potential obstruction indictment of Trump which would have been well-deserved.

The evidence made it clear that Trump was willing to conspire with the Russians, and that he indirectly did so through Stone's coordination with Wikileaks. But because it couldn't be proven he had made a direct deal to act on Russia's behalf (it' supposed to be a mere coincidence that Russia asked him to speak supprortively of the Crimea invasion, and he did so), no case could be brought.

So...it seems that your judgement of the DOJ is based on Trumpian falsehoods.

When has the DOJ ever gone after Trump for a "process crime"?


Never. But my point was that they are going to, not that they have. — NOS4A2

So it's just paranoia toward the FBI (hmm. I wonder where that came from ;-)) that induces you to assume the worst about them....

Applying the law equitably entails "moral panic"?!

No, believing Trump is an existential threat entails a moral panic, and many of his disgruntled former employees have stated as much — NOS4A2

...but the paranoia of people who've worked for Trump and fear for what he might do (based on what they've heard him say and things he tried to do) is the only thing that's unreasonable.

Trump agrees to be interviewed by the one agency that will use it to indict him with some sort of specious process crime. — NOS4A2

When has the DOJ ever gone after Trump for a "process crime"?

Many of Trump's employees descend into the moral panic, as do many seemingly qualified and rational people — NOS4A2

Applying the law equitably entails "moral panic"?!

Trump is someone I really admire — Shawn

How do you square your admiration with his immoral character? In particular, the numerous instances of fraud. I can (kind of) get overlooking his sex crimes since they are against individuals, but fraud is a way of life with this guy - and he's applied it during his Presidency - manipulating his supporters with lies. His "drain the swamp" proclamation was a fraud - he had the most corrupt set of appointees in history. He tried to weaponize the DOJ, and then complains (without evidence) the Democrats have done that, while promising to prosecute people in retaliation for the fiction they've gone after him.

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262) — Sam26

I read your argument, but it does not support your conclusion that consciousness survives death. You call your argument "inductive"; I think it would be better labeled "abductive" - because you are proposing a explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts associated with NDEs. Analyzed this way, we could consider whether or not your hypothesis is the best explanation for the available facts. You sidestep this, by simply claiming your conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference. I don't think it is reasonable, but this is shown most easily by comparing it to alternative hypotheses that better explain the available facts.

For example, most other NDEs are explainable as a form of dreaming. Relatively few out of body experiences lack reasonable natural explanations, but even if they are veridical - they are explainable as telepathy or clairvoyance


You don't consider the abundant evidence that mental activity depends on brain activity; NDEs do not demonstrate a counterexample. I previously pointed out that "no measureable brain activity" does not mean NO brain activity. So your explanatory hypothesis depends on the ad hoc assumption that mental activity can occur without brain activity.

Finally, I can't help but think you may be influenced by a desire to live on, beyond death. This may be influencing your choice of explanatory hypothesis, and the subset of evidence you choose to consider.

For what it's worth ... liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley — fishfry

Turley is definitely not a "liberal". The article you linked doesn't actually analyze the decision, it just asserts that it is correct, and then procedes to chastize liberals who disagree with the decision.

When I speak of death, I mean clinical death, i.e., no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, and no breathing. — Sam26

You make too much of the definition. People who have had NDEs have not experienced brain decomposition (clearly a point of no return), and the absence of measurable brain activity does not imply there is NO brain activity.

If an electron is 'composed' of position, momentum, spin, charge and mass; aren't these properties more fundamental than the electron? — Treatid

Can properties (e.g. position, momentum, spin, charge, mass...) exist independently of objects that have them (i.e. is a property a particular, or is a property necessarily an attribute of a particular?)

Regarding a simple universe: a single particular. Depending on one's preferred ontology, could be:
- a property (existing independently)
- an object with zero properties
- an object with exactly one property (if particulars necessarily have at least one property).

So what did the US do before the 16th amendment? — NOS4A2

See: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/historical-highlights-of-the-irs#:~:text=From%201868%20until%201913%2C%2090,of%20Internal%20Revenue%20was%20created.

Thanks for the link to Bishop's review. Bishop's most salient point is that physicalism is inconstent with libertarian free will (LFW) because of Jaegwon Kim's causal closure argument.

FWIW, I earlier acknowledged that Tse was not successful at accounting for LFW, but that I think he IS successful at accounting for mental causation. Bishop picks a few nits with the language Tse uses, but he doesn't really undercut Tse's model of criterial causation (=mental causation). Mental causation is sufficient grounding for compatibilism.

R: "We are the product of physical interactions, which are determined entirety by the laws of physics, and none of our choices could ever have been, or ever will be, other than exactly what they were, or will be. But we have agency."

P: "Something that is entirely governed by physical determinism cannot have agency. They are mutually exclusive. How could that be possible?"

R: "It is possible. We are governed by physical determinism, but we are autonomous."

P: "You have given different wording for 'agency,' but you have not explained how it is possible for something ruled by physical determinism to have it."

R: "But if it is true, then we can be ruled by determinism, yet make independent choices."

P: "But what reason do we have to think it is possible?" — Patterner

Fair summary. You believe agency and physicalism are mutually exclusive. I don't agree.

Here's a high level explanation of why I think it's possible:
1. compatibilism is consistent with agency.
2. Physicalism is consistent with compatibilism
3. Therefore physicalism is consistent with agency.

In this scenario, there is nothing other than the laws of physics at work. — Patterner

But the mind's operation is functionally identical- it is no less autonomous. It's grounded in physics - but the decision process is the same.

Earlier in the thread, we discussed Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation. If something like this is correct, it means that the product of our thoughts truly has causal efficacy. We're not just going along for the ride (as you seem to be suggesting) we're driving.

The boulder can take only a single path, given the physical characteristics of itself and the mountain.

Suppose your mind is immaterial, (at least partially) operating independently of the laws of nature. You have chosen a path down the mountain, but you might have taken a different path if you knew it to be more scenic, offering more shade, or if you knew a rattlesnake awaited you on your chosen path. You were, at all times, free to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. Do you agree this is different from the boulder?

Now suppose your mind is entirely the product of physical brain function. You have the exact same freedom to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. In both cases, these factors are the result of events in your life (e.g. the DNA that produced you, your studies, your physical conditioning and mountaineering skills). Why should the fundamental basis of these factors (physical vs immaterial) matter? I don't think it does. You have no more, and no less, freedom.